BREAKING: Trump Fires Acting Attorney General For Refusing to Enforce ‘Extreme Vetting’ Order

41
28

(RT) President Donald Trump has fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates, making Dana Boente, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia the new acting attorney general.

Yates was relieved of her post Monday, just hours after news broke that she was instructing Department of Justice lawyers not to defend the executive order.

 

Yates “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States,” a press release from the Office of the Press Secretary read.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” Boente said as Acting Attorney General in the press release.

 

“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Yates wrote in a letter, according to the New York Times. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Trump responded to Yates’ move on Twitter, calling it an example of Democrats’ obstruction “for purely political reasons.”

 

41 COMMENTS

      • Of course you would say that…you belong to the poosay team.
        You my dear Scotty must be a Beta boy, eh? (no balls)
        Do you need to use the Ladies room? I am sure Target can lend you a hand.

          • Not if your standard includes logic and intellect. If one is judging by baseless insults then perhaps but I’ve not stooped to that level.

          • She did not insult you at all. In any case it is everyone’s right to insult and be insulted. 🙂

          • Really? So which of her (baseless) assertions do you think made a winning point about Trump’s actions? Do you even know what an ad hominem logical fallacy is?

          • I am British mate with a far superior education system to the US one, plus i went to Cambridge. I was intending going to Oxford but my thoughts were soured because a sicko Yank by the name of Bill Clinton was booted out of there for rape, surprise surprise. You cannot throw a word at me and declare that i do not know what it means. It is after all ‘our’ language!

          • Oh, well you’re British and attended Cambridge, so you must be brilliant then…..No, that’s not the way it works. Just like every other country, Britain has its share of dolts. So can you demonstrate your understanding of ad hominem logical fallacies? Which of her baseless assertions made a winning point regarding Trump’s policies?

          • You proclaimed the “lady” as having “won” based upon her ad hominem attack and have repeatedly been unwilling or unable to point to how she addressed the issue and “won”. You aren’t demonstrating the superior intellect you claim to posses.

          • I have no bonus if i am subject to answering an incompetent as yourself. That just brings me down to you’re level.

          • You stated your judgement of a “win” but of course couldn’t state why you determined it a “win” so you’ve gone down the same path as the “lady” with your insults and self-proclaimed superiority. At least you have confidence.

          • I know perfectly well what it means, and you are doing a fair old job of demonstrating it. I regard it as grammar gone to waste when you have to attack someone and think you have the upper hand. You must be a demented liberal.

          • Au contraire, you assume incorrectly on both the demented and the liberal speculation. I would object equally to any POTUS who acts unconstitutionally regardless of the party they claim. I think if you read the chain of conversation carefully you’ll find that I’ve not initiated personal attacks.

      • I have asked multiple people, I have yet to get a functional answer. What part of the EO is not constitutional?
        The only citation I have gotten is the 1965 immigration act. However, I have yet to find a good explanation of the nuances of that law. I CAN say that in the mid-late 80s, immigration was suspended fro russian jews fleeing the USSR via israel. There was both a nation of origin component and a religious component.

        You also had Obama put in place a ban on those coming from Iraq.

          • Yeah that’s basically the same stuff, plus a couple of exmaples of band being struck down and one hand wavey pass at the carter example for iran. No mention of the other times a national origin band was put in place without issues.

            I’m thinking that rather than real discussion we are simply getting the “repeat the same lie until it becomes the truth” bullshit.

          • Well if you read the article you’d see that there was legislation that does not allow the POTUS to take these action and the POTUS is obligated by the Constitution to uphold and enforce the nation’s laws. So what information are you seeking exactly?

          • It says he can’t. Then mentions Carter did it. My own research shows Reagan did it. Obama also did it. Clearly the law isn’t as clear cut as they claim, and nothing actually discusses the nuances of why some have failed in court and some orders have stood.

            The AG’s letter even implies that it is legal on its face, but that she felt it wasn’t because of things trump said outside of the eo.

          • What has been done in the past were fairly narrow in scope – one country and only specific visa types. It is the breadth of Trump’s ban that makes it illegal.

            What is really curious is that the listed nations, while being Obama’s favorites to bomb, are not where terrorists that have attacked the US have come from.

            The whole story is becoming tragically comical as Trump tweets that it’s a ban and then Spicer tries to say it isn’t a ban.

          • If you can say one country legally, you can say two. The fact it is time limited so probably makes it viable.

            I don’t think either of our opinions are really fully defensible as there’s zero informed discussion of why one situation that is similar gets shot down while others do not. It may be as simple as politically popular but unsound orders were not challenged.

            As for threats, id love Saudi Arabia to be on the list, but they have been blessed as not a threat. That’d be pre quota and not national security based, thus not allowed.

            While the us has not been attacked due to threats amongst refugee populations, they have been involved in such in the EU.

            I think the order will be temporary and replaced with screaming guidelines that are completely valid legally speaking and just as much a morass for anyone actually in need of asylum as we had going for those originating from Mexico and south America in past years.

            I think trump pushed it as far as he legally could in round one so that what he wants to do in round two looks like compromise. This is very much in line with things Obama did.

            I’m fine with trump doing it. Unlike with Obama where all we got was gridlock, with trump will get gridlock or Congress finally reigning in executive powers. Its been a good 40 years since the last time that happened and we are overdue.

  1. Her refusal was executed to maximize the protest among those who are blinded to Islamic’s passionate hatred for USA’s legal system and Biblical believers and principles that are diametric to, and the antithesis of, the Satan authored counterfeit of God’s Bible.
    There are many good, kind, appreciative and patriotic Islamics (Muslims) but they only have that label and are not devout practitioners of their faith.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here