I read a story a short while ago about Acting Attorney General Sally Yates defying President Trump and refusing to defend his recently signed executive order. I read it on famous fake news outlet CNN, actually. Apparently, they were the first to report it. Although, this is CNN we’re talking about, so they’re probably full of shit.

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees, according to sources familiar with the order.

The move sets up a dramatic clash between the White House and Yates, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and is set to serve until Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, is confirmed.

This led me to make a simple observation over on Twitter. This woman should be fired immediately for defying the president in such a way when she’s not even supposed to be in this position in the first place. It’s political grandstanding, plain and simple.

Well, guess what? President Trump agreed and he just fired her ass. I hope he did it in full Apprentice fashion, too. Please let that be the case.

Jeff Sessions will be in there soon, so this isn’t a big deal at all. But the media will surely treat it like Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre. That’s because they’re dishonest and sometimes outright fraudulent.


UPDATE: Trump just told Daniel Ragsdale, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to take a hike as well.

    1. im thinking trump is stating ‘i’m the boss now not obama, you answer to me, and i don’t let those high up in the structure off with just a stern word if they decide to act out’

  1. The injunction against the travel ban is itself just a doomed rear guard action being carried out by Obamists. Cutting the cancer out of the DOJ is obviously going to take more than a few weeks but we should be thankful that the cancer seems so inclined to identify itself via empty ideological gestures because that will speed up the process tremendously.

    1. They’re so used to either getting their way or having no consequences for their actions that the thought of Trump firing their asses probably never crossed their minds.
      Had it been something with a hillary or obama administration that someone tried pulling this stunt with they would have gotten a slap on the wrist at worst after the president goes “abloobloobloo I don’t agree with the decision but hope we can work things out”.

      She just got fired like anyone else from any other job would have been after directly defying their boss and then making a public spectacle out of it, and dems are absolutely horrified for some reason.

  2. Hey maybe my cousin will have a shot at the AG job the way things are going. I know he’ll follow and enforce the laws of the land.

  3. Wow, Trump sure is acting fast. His efficiency is rather impressive, but I must endure – I’m still not tired of winning.

    1. I don’t think I’ll be tired of winning until social justice is completely eradicated from the word or if I OD from winning and die.

  4. It’s important that Trump gets his promises done as soon as possible, because the policies he installs establishes the fact that he is the one in control. It’s best to do this early to get it into the thick libtard SJW heads that their days of white-hating and man-hating are over.

    After that, he can then concentrate on reversing the cancer that is leftism and Social Justice.

    Despite what some people think, 4 years is not a lot of time to kill the PC cancer that has infiltrated Western society for the last 30+ years.

  5. I love the pearl-clutching in leftist corners. “Ohmahgawd he’s a tyrant!”

    No, no he’s not. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President. AGs have been dismissed en masse before anyways.

    Also, you don’t get to say ‘We’re not going to defend this because it’s not right’ without consequences. If you feel that strongly about it from a moral standpoint, then you won’t have any problems facing the music for your principled stance.

    For the record, I DO agree with Trump’s new restrictions. Out of the seven nations he’s named, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan are all in a state of flux ranging from unrest to disintegration. Who the hell is going to simply take people in from those countries without vetting them? Besides Angela Merkel, anyways.

    1. The elephant in the room is the definition of vetting. I’ve heard the range from “2 years and extensive interviews” to “Junior state department talks to the guy and then they ask local authorities”…

      So which is it really? I don’t mean the pie in the sky this is what should happen but what really has happened for these people?

      And lets not forget the fake embassy in Somalia I believe that was issuing forged documents…

  6. But the media will surely treat it like Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre. That’s because they’re dishonest and sometimes outright fraudulent.

    “The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …”
    Article I, Section 8.

    Wow! That backs up Senator Elizabeth Warren saying it’s “illegal and unconstitutional”. But this morning (Jan 31’17) on ABC’s Good Morning, America Dan Abrams, their legal correspondent, held forth on it.

    Before I relay what he said, consider this. Abrams has promoted his book, Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else and he is the owner of The Mary Sue. I interpret him as a pandering male feminist, in that he has monetized the movement to enrich himself. He wants the housewife audience of GMA to buy his book. (It’s the only one he has on Amazon.)

    So this morning he quoted Congress’s law repealing any discrimination regarding immigrants including country of origin, and then, and then, read the next line of the law that gives the President the right to override that for national security reasons.

    He admitted that Trump’s action is completely legal and constitutional.

    That, and some things said by Stephanapoulos and others, made me feel that ABC News is backing off rather than doubling down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.