politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump fires Sally Yates after acting US attorney general contradicted travel ban
Source:
The Guradian
URL Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news ... g-attorney-general-sally-yates
Published: Jan 31, 2017
Author: David Smith and Ben Jacobs in Washington
Post Date: 2017-01-31 04:31:49 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 7395
Comments: 17
White House says Obama appointee ‘betrayed’ state department with letter instructing officials not to enforce president’s executive order. Donald Trump has fired the acting US attorney general after she told justice department lawyers not to defend his executive order banning entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries. The White House said on Monday that Sally Yates had “betrayed” the department by refusing to enforce a legal order that was “designed to protect the citizens of the United States”. Trump drafted in Dana Boente, US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, to replace Yates as acting attorney general. The president’s official appointee, anti-immigration hardliner Senator Jeff Sessions, is yet to be confirmed by the Senate. As the country’s top law enforcement official, Yates, who was appointed by Barack Obama, had control over the justice department’s immigration litigation office, which has handled the federal complaints filed against Trump’s order since his bombshell policy was announced on Friday. “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 to justice department lawyers. “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.” The action earned praise from immigration activists and Democrats but within three hours Yates was gone. A statement from the White House press secretary’s office said: “Ms Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration. “It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.” Trump had “relieved Ms Yates of her duties” and Boente would take over until Sessions’s confirmation by the Senate “where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons”. Click HERE to read the remainder of the article. 
Sally Yates, the acting attorney general. Photograph: J David Ake/Associated Press
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
This is pathetic (non) legal reasoning. If she believed gay marriage was not right, would that empower her to ignore Obergefell? If she were "not convinced" that some court opinion or statute was lawful, could she just make believe it did not exist? This is as meritless as the military wingnuts who were not only not convinced, but asserted a firm belief that Obama was not the legal president as justification not to comply with orders they determined to be unlawful as a result. At the court-martial, that inadmissible nonsense could not even be argued as it had no basis in law, leaving no defense at all. A pure heart, and an empty head, is not a defense. If she felt she could not do her job, she should have resigned. She did not last long as a D.C. Celebrity Apprentice before she was told, "You're fired!"
In their case, if they really believed that the White House had been seized by a usurper, they had an obligation under their oath to take up arms to drive him out. They lacked the temerity to do so. Instead, they hung out in a sort of wimpy no-man's land: "You're a usurper, so we don't have to obey you, but we don't dare oust you by force either." So of course the bureaucracy simply asserted itself and ground them all to power.
Yes, Lt Col Terry Lakin. It was not a "they." It was a "he." Kinda hard to take up arms and drive anyone or anything out when you're an "Army of One."
It was not a "they." It was a "he. It was definitely a "they" and not a "him." Lakin was not even the first to assert this crap. There were a bunch of these nutbags, e.g., Maj. Stefan Cook. Cook v. Simtech, No. 8:2009cv01382 (M.D. Fla., July 27, 2009), recons. denied, (Aug. 6, 2009) (finding motion to reconsider “frivolous and wholly without merit); http://www.stripes.com/news/army-caught-up-in-reservist-s-obama-conspiracy-theory-1.93679 By Megan McCloskey Army Maj. Stefan Cook sought out a notorious lawyer in February, formally volunteered for an Afghan deployment in May and was granted orders to deploy in June. But the Army reservist’s intention appeared not so much to fight for America as to fight against President Barack Obama, in furtherance of a bizarre conspiracy theory. In July, Cook filed a lawsuit against the Army, the defense secretary and the president, claiming that Obama could not lawfully order him to go to war because he is not the legitimate president of the United States. Cook is one of the so-called “Birthers,” a small group of activists who subscribe to a fringe conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was not born in the United States and therefore cannot legally serve as president. [...] Maj. Cook ended up out of the Army Reserves, with his clearance pulled, and with his civilian job with Simtech vaporized due to his lack of clearance. There's more. For a while, it was a cottage industry for a few birther lawyers.
There are no replies to Comment # 14. End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest “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 to justice department lawyers. “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.”
#3. To: nolu chan (#1)
This is as meritless as the military wingnuts who were not only not convinced, but asserted a firm belief that Obama was not the legal president as justification not to comply with orders they determined to be unlawful as a result. At the court-martial, that inadmissible nonsense could not even be argued as it had no basis in law, leaving no defense at all. A pure heart, and an empty head, is not a defense.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
In their case, if they really believed that the White House had been seized by a usurper, they had an obligation under their oath to take up arms to drive him out.
#14. To: randge, Vicomte13 (#9)
Yes, Lt Col Terry Lakin.
Cook v. Good, No. 4:09-cv-00082, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009) (denying TRO seeking stay of military orders pending confirmation of Obama’s eligibility; dismissing case), appeal dismissed, No. 09-14698-CC (11th Cir. Nov. 24, 2009);
Army caught up in reservist’s Obama conspiracy theory
Stars and Stripes
Published: July 30, 2009
Replies to Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]