Acting Attorney General not "acting" any more

[CoolieMan]

Trump fires her for not enforcing the law

http://abc13.com/politics/president-fires-acting-attorney-general/1729027/

Dana Boente has been named acting attorney general after the President relieved Sally Yates, who announced Monday afternoon she would not defend Trump's immigration order.

ORIGINAL STORY: Acting attorney general says DOJ won't defend Trump order

The move came hours after Yates announcement.

"The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States," a White House news release reads.


JUST IN: White House appoints Dana Boente as acting attorney general, says Sally Yates "has betrayed the Department of Justice"

 

[IndySteel]

You're fired, *****!

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Dana Boente has been named acting attorney general after the President relieved Sally Yates, who announced Monday afternoon she would not defend Trump's immigration order.

Who does she think she is, Kathleen Kane?

 

[Steel Ballin]

LOL!!

Well, that escalated quickly. LOL

 

[Steelerfan]

Who does she think she is, Kathleen Kane?

Hit.

 

[RollRed]

Trump fires her for not enforcing the law

http://abc13.com/politics/president-fires-acting-attorney-general/1729027/

Dana Boente has been named acting attorney general after the President relieved Sally Yates, who announced Monday afternoon she would not defend Trump's immigration order.

ORIGINAL STORY: Acting attorney general says DOJ won't defend Trump order

The move came hours after Yates announcement.

"The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States," a White House news release reads.


JUST IN: White House appoints Dana Boente as acting attorney general, says Sally Yates "has betrayed the Department of Justice"

She wasn't fired for not enforcing the law. She was fired for not enforcing an executive order, which she feels itself is unlawful. I wasn't joking when I said I don't think he has a basic understanding of how government functions, what the parameters of the office he holds are, and that being elected president isn't the same as ascending the throne of king. You can't ban people from coming into this country based on their religion. Period. He's gonna end up making Nixon look like Abe Lincoln before he's done.

 

[CoolieMan]

She wasn't fired for not enforcing the law. She was fired for not enforcing an executive order, which she feels itself is unlawful. I wasn't joking when I said I don't think he has a basic understanding of how government functions, what the parameters of the office he holds are, and that being elected president isn't the same as ascending the throne of king. You can't ban people from coming into this country based on their religion. Period. He's gonna end up making Nixon look like Abe Lincoln before he's done.

Obama banned all Iraqis for 6 months....did you ***** then? no

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

She wasn't fired for not enforcing the law. She was fired for not enforcing an executive order, which she feels itself is unlawful. I wasn't joking when I said I don't think he has a basic understanding of how government functions, what the parameters of the office he holds are, and that being elected president isn't the same as ascending the throne of king. You can't ban people from coming into this country based on their religion. Period. He's gonna end up making Nixon look like Abe Lincoln before he's done.

So your contention is that an executive order does not have to be obeyed as law and she was within her rights to ignore it? Or are you saying Trump does not have the authority to issue such an order, or to fire her?

I like how you are condescending while being wrong on all your points.

 

[RollRed]

So your contention is that an executive order does not have to be obeyed as law and she was within her rights to ignore it? Or are you saying Trump does not have the authority to issue such an order, or to fire her?

I like how you are condescending while being wrong on all your points.

I'm saying executive orders aren't laws. The legislative branch makes laws. If an executive order violates the law then the AG doesn't have to follow it. Their job is to uphold the law. You ( and Trump for that matter) would be well served to sit in on some 8th grade civics classes where they teach you all this stuff.
I think if Trump would have blocked travel from these countries based on a specific threat.... say the CIA had intelligence that an attack was imminent and that the perpetrators were known to be coming from a specific country... then it would be lawful to block travel from that country until we were able to get a handle on the situation. However, just blocking people from traveling from several different countries on a whim isn't the same thing.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

He is well within his power to ban anyone that he thinks is a threat to the US. If it was a ban based on religion why didn't he ban Indonesians, which is the largest Muslim country in the world or Egypt which is the largest Arab Muslim country ?

Keep making up your facts with your 8th grade civics education. The last 6 presidents have all banned immigrants at one time or another. People just are pissing there pants because it is Trump. Get used to it ******* 8 years of Trump !

 

[Tibs]

This is in 2015, at the Senate confirmation hearing of Sally Yates. As you likely know, she was just fired by Donald Trump last night as Acting Attorney General for refusing to defend his unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants and refugees.

In this hearing, TWO YEARS AGO, look who tells her that she should STAND AGAINST THE PRESIDENT if she's asked to do something unlawful...


Senator Jeff Sessions - who Trump has now nominated as Attorney General. Mind you Trump said he fired her because she didn't follow White House orders. The Attorney General is supposed to SERVE THE LAW - not the White House.

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fshaunking%2Fvideos%2F1288007191238196%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I'm saying executive orders aren't laws. The legislative branch makes laws. If an executive order violates the law then the AG doesn't have to follow it. Their job is to uphold the law. You ( and Trump for that matter) would be well served to sit in on some 8th grade civics classes where they teach you all this stuff.
I think if Trump would have blocked travel from these countries based on a specific threat.... say the CIA had intelligence that an attack was imminent and that the perpetrators were known to be coming from a specific country... then it would be lawful to block travel from that country until we were able to get a handle on the situation. However, just blocking people from traveling from several different countries on a whim isn't the same thing.

Executive orders carry the same weight as laws passed by Congress. Your middle school sucked.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Bye bye. Nice not knowing you.

 

[Tibs]

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions.

As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted.

Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts.

In addition, 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. 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.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

The words of a true American hero and patriot. They will be inscribed on a brass plaque someday. Thank you US Attorney General Sally Yates for your service to the country.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Wrong, Deciding whether something is legal or Constitutional is a judge's job, not your job. Hence my Kathleen Kane joke above.

 

[Superman]

I'm saying executive orders aren't laws. The legislative branch makes laws. If an executive order violates the law then the AG doesn't have to follow it. Their job is to uphold the law. You ( and Trump for that matter) would be well served to sit in on some 8th grade civics classes where they teach you all this stuff.
I think if Trump would have blocked travel from these countries based on a specific threat.... say the CIA had intelligence that an attack was imminent and that the perpetrators were known to be coming from a specific country... then it would be lawful to block travel from that country until we were able to get a handle on the situation. However, just blocking people from traveling from several different countries on a whim isn't the same thing.

you must have just slithered out from the primordial ooze, as we were told EOs absolutely are law and absolutely must be followed to the letter or those who do not follow are totalitarian xenophobic islamaphobic racists.

 

[TazManianDevil]

She's right, he's wrong. good for her.

 

[SteelChip]

The double standard is a prerequisite in the Libtard movement. Example after example is available and many more are sure to come.

 

[Roy92040]

Don't they have to take the oath of office?

 

[CoolieMan]

The words of a true American hero and patriot. They will be inscribed on a brass plaque someday. Thank you US Attorney General Sally Yates for your service to the country.

blah blah blah...hero my ***....she brought her personal politics into play looking for attention....knowing she would be fired....

 

[ark steel]

The words of a true American hero and patriot. They will be inscribed on a brass plaque someday. Thank you US Attorney General Sally Yates for your service to the country.

you mean Former US Attorney General...

 

[Spike]

The swamp is being drained and they don't like it

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

I'm saying executive orders aren't laws. The legislative branch makes laws. If an executive order violates the law then the AG doesn't have to follow it. Their job is to uphold the law. You ( and Trump for that matter) would be well served to sit in on some 8th grade civics classes where they teach you all this stuff.
I think if Trump would have blocked travel from these countries based on a specific threat.... say the CIA had intelligence that an attack was imminent and that the perpetrators were known to be coming from a specific country... then it would be lawful to block travel from that country until we were able to get a handle on the situation. However, just blocking people from traveling from several different countries on a whim isn't the same thing.

In your civics class, who decides which laws are constitutional? Is it up to individuals to decide for themselves which ones they obey? An executive order carries the same weight as a law.

Something specific you say? You mean like former Prez Obama designating these 7 countries as dangerous due to terrorist activities?

 

[Sarge]

Actually, the President has pretty broad powers to decide who is and who isn't allowed in the country. Even if they are muslims.

The only problem I have with the TEMPORARY travel ban is that the Saudi's aren't on the list. They are worse than all the others combined.

 

[Steelerfan]

The words of a true American hero and patriot. They will be inscribed on a brass plaque someday. Thank you US Attorney General Sally Yates for your service to the country.

Hit