Since leaving the department, Politico has called you the face of institutional resistance. You can buy Sally Yates t-shirts. Vogue called you the hero that America needs right now. How do you feel about this? And are you leading a resistance effort? I mean, how do you see yourself? I mean, no. I mean, I’m serious. I mean, you see resist bumper stickers. I mean, where do you see yourself fitting into that? Well, look. I mean, folks out there have been very generous. But I don’t view myself as a hero at all, and this is not an aw shucks kind of way. I did my job. That’s not being a hero. There’s an old southern expression, you don’t congratulate a man for not robbing a bank. I also don’t think that you necessarily canonize someone for doing his or her job either. And that’s what I felt like I did there. In terms of whether a leader of the resistance, no, I didn’t view that as an act of resistance. Now am I troubled by some of the actions of the administration? Yes. Do I speak out in selective ways about those? Sure, I do. I think that this is not a time for us to admire the issue, but rather to stand up and to speak out about those things that we think are wrong or unjust. And I don’t do it. I’m not doing a running commentary of the administration. I’m not tweeting my every thought. But I am trying to speak out when there are times where I feel like I have something to add to the discussion. You wrote an op-ed on this topic in The Times. While we are busy staring at the wreckage of Attorney General Sessions’s relationship with the man he supported for President, something more insidious is happening. The President is attempting to dismantle the rule of law, destroy the time honored independence of the Justice Department, and undermine the career men and women who are devoted to seeking justice day in and out. Like I said, I’m speaking out sometimes. So you’re not leading a resisting? Is that what you said? If so, then what are, you when you write those, what are you speaking out about? I mean, what is it specifically that, you say you’re troubled, what is it specifically that you’re troubled by? And what are you speaking out about? Now when I said, look, I don’t consider myself a leader. I mean, I’m not even exactly sure what that means. You know, I certainly am speaking out about things that I think are troubling, that are going on in the administration, if that makes me part of the resistance, then so be it. But that’s not like a career goal of mine to be like a leader of the resistance. With respect to that, I mean, that’s something actually that is one of the things that worries me the most. I mean, there are lots of policy decisions that are made by this administration with which I disagree. But elections have consequences. And I think you have to expect in a change in administrations, a change in party, that they are going to be policy decisions that are made that you don’t think are a good idea. What worries me more than any of that is the relentless attack on democratic institutions and norms, and the impact that that can have on our country, not just during the term of a Trump presidency, but in the years to come as well. Because with this sort of barrage that we experience every day, and in a defense mechanism if nothing else, we tend to normalize this, because it’s kind of exhausting to stay in a state of constant outrage. But one of the things that I’ve been most concerned about is the president’s attempted interference at the Department of Justice. The rule of law is essential to our democracy, and that requires that decisions about criminal cases be made on the facts and the law, and nothing else. And that’s why through Democratic and Republican administrations alike, at least since Watergate, there has been a time honored norm that the White House stays completely away from criminal investigations or prosecutions, has absolutely no involvement. What’s happening here with the president tweeting and calling, and it seems like, if not weekly, almost daily sometimes, interference there, whether that actually has an impact on the decisions that are made at DOJ or not, the damage is done by the public’s loss of confidence that the Department of Justice is acting independently and is making those decisions based on facts and law, and nothing else. You’d mentioned becoming the leader of the resistance wasn’t your career goal, which seems like a nice segue to, are you interested in running for something? I mean, when I told people I was doing this, they said, well ask her what she’s running for. You know, I can’t see that to be honest with you. You know, I believe in public service. I’ve stayed at DOJ for almost 30 years, but running for office is just not anything I’ve ever felt drawn to. Like, full stop, close the door? You know, I did the full stop close the door a couple of times before when I was asked this, and my husband said, please, just don’t say never. Please, just in this, because he wants me to. So for my husband’s sake here, I’ll say, I can’t see it. I can’t imagine that that would ever happen. But for Comer’s sake, I’m not saying absolutely never, but it’s pretty darn close to that, yeah. Let’s talk about some of the substantive changes, and I’ll throw out a couple that have been pretty newsworthy. In the civil rights arena, the attorney general said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is not —