Image 01 Image 03

Trump Fires Insubordinate Obama-Appointed Acting AG

Trump Fires Insubordinate Obama-Appointed Acting AG

Sally Yates ordered DOJ not to defend Trump’s immigration Executive Order

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired by President Donald Trump after she instructed the Department of Justice not to defend the recently signed executive order issuing a moratorium on immigration from seven countries presenting significant terror threats.

Taking action in an escalating crisis for his 10-day-old administration, Mr. Trump declared that Sally Q. Yates had “betrayed” the administration, the White House said in a statement.

The president appointed Dana J. Boente, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as acting attorney general until Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is confirmed.

Ms. Yates’s decision confronted the president with a stinging challenge to his authority and laid bare a deep divide at the Justice Department, within the diplomatic corps and elsewhere in the government over the wisdom of his order.
Continue reading the main story

“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,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers.

And the reference to The Apprentice tagline is a theme of many supporters of the President’s executive order and his firing of Yates.





Boente served as one of the attorneys who prosecuted former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell in his public corruption trial. He was nominated by has been the 60th U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) since his appointment by Obama in 2015.

The Washington Post indicates that Boente will agree to enforce the immigration order.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


He is my President.

Your Fired! Boy was that quick. What next! I can’t wait! Was listening to the British Parliament tonight. More exploding heads! Yea.

Flyover Conservative | January 30, 2017 at 10:03 pm



Not viable. Fortunately, Americans are not Pro-Choice nor are they Islamic extremists. She will only lose her job.

Hell yeah! That’s how it’s done- promptly and without apology. There’s a new sheriff in town and the law will be enforced.

Is this the promised article the WJ made in the previous article or are things going so fast that multiple people are covering?

Bye Felicia

Lord ya just can’t keep up with all the good chit happening … I want some time to savor these things … * GRIN* … One thing that’s a positive I think the liberal’s are going to be so overwhelmed that won’t know where to protest

    pwaldoch in reply to Aggie95. | January 31, 2017 at 10:27 am

    Aggie95, Just savor them in mass. Like you said, the hits keep coming to the libs, and its keeping them off balance. 🙂

I wonder if the reason Trump is moving up the nomination of SCOTUS is so the Senate can go into recess for one day and Trump can make all pending confirmations recess appointments including SCOTUS.

Watch the libs go splodey heads.

She’ll probably replace Meygan Kelly on NBC.

Use every effort to forget her name. (What was her name?)

Real leaders don’t suffer fools.

Great she’s fired. But when will the senate Republicans force a vote on President Trump’s nominees? This is freaking ridiculous that they are letting Chuckie boy run the senate!

And I am all out of popcorn. Curse the luck. A lot of fun watching liberal heads explode about every hour.

Good news, but the tweet you show from @MikePenceVP not his account, fan account instead. Vice President Twitter is @VP.

How many weeks or even months would any previous Bush have waited before firing this person? Somebody get a stopwatch and measure the time from Statement to Fired, please.

What’s the “escalating crisis”? That Trump wants to defend the people of the United States, and the establishment of both parties doesn’t?

Seems like a crisis for them, not him.

    HarrietHT in reply to Crawford. | January 31, 2017 at 5:25 am

    Exactly! The crisis is within the left’s apparatus; they’re fumbling all over themselves trying to pick themselves up off the floor after they’ve been knocked out. And the punches keep coming.
    I think they’re disoriented, myself. Punching wildly at anything that moves.

Truman Fires Douglas MacArthur!

Cry ‘You’re Fired!’, and let slip the dogs of war

as Mark Anthony didn’t quite say in Julius Cæsar, Act 3, Scene 1.

Can’t go wrong with the classics.

I’m actually starting to feel optimistic about the future of this country. A rather refreshing change from the last eight years.

“Fired Sally Yates letter devoid of legal argument. Reeks of moral preening, grandstanding.” Nothing like a lecture from the Left about moral preening!

So it’s now being reported that the AG’s office reviewed AND APPROVED the executive order before it was issued.

Swamp draining continues…

It seems the people outraged by this action have no freaking clue how the government works.

Just a reminder that the Republican Congress needs to get off its asses and confirm many offices already. Too many positions are still not voted upon.

If they can confirm Nikki Haley, then they can vote on Sessions already.

We don’t need more Obama Holdovers screwing up the crucial first 100 days.

With a Republican Senate, there’s no excuse.

I had to steal this when I saw it.

Na na na na na na na na Hey hey hey goodbye

Liberals need to pace themselves or they are going to burn out! 8 loooooooooong years snowflakes!!!


This sort of situation is hardly unknown. It is Ms. Yates (unethical?) remedy which is novel. Heretofore someone in Ms. Yates’ position resigned under protest. Apparently resigning under protest in a traditional manner does not suit Ms. Yates’ career plans.

It was always my impression an attorney in the Yates’ position could take her position only after establishing a bona fide, good faith legal basis, premised upon actual legal research. All I see is a statement of a political position. Is this now the acceptable bar for a lawyer who declines to follow her client’s instructions? Will this also fly for, e.g., a pro-life attorney in this position who instructs underlings not to take certain actions because she truly believes Roe vs Wade incorrectly decided?

    moonmoth in reply to Warspite. | January 31, 2017 at 9:25 am

    “Is this now the acceptable bar for a lawyer who declines to follow her client’s instructions?”
    Perhaps, but not today.

A talking point for all:
A lawyer must effectively represent their clients desires, even if they don’t like them. If they cannot, they must remove themselves.

This has been an argument for why lawyers have to defend thieves, rapists, murderers and Lindsey Lohan.

Any grounds for disbarrment in Sally Yates’s actions?

If it was a matter of honor for her, Yates should have just let her feet carry her convictions out the door.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm