Trump Fires AG Yates for Not For Saying Travel Ban Was Indefensible, Act Harkens Back to Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre”

4
13

sally-yatesMonday, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates advised those lawyers in the Justice Department not to defend the multiple lawsuits that have been initiated calling for stoppage of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travelers from 7 different countries that has been called countries with connections to terrorism. Monday evening, President Trump, believing that Yates was undermining his authority, fired her from her duties.

In standing with those who believe the travel ban to be unconstitutional, Yates, took a side against this administration. Trump issued a statement calling Yates basically an enemy to the administration, the statement said that Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.” There are many others, though, that say Yates did her constitutional duty in protecting Americans as she did when she took the oath at her confirmation hearing. Yates was not told of the executive order until it was actually issued without regard to the position of Attorney General.

Continue reading at http://thedailyvoicenews.com/2017/01/30/trump-fires-ag-yates-for-not-for-saying-travel-ban-was-indefensible-act-harkens-back-to-nixons-saturday-night-massacre/

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HORiDWC5gIo]

4 COMMENTS

  1. Saying it’s unconstitutional does not make it unconstitutional but instead betrays ignorance of the Constitution. Also there is no correlation at all to the “Saturday Night Massacre”. Again ignorance is on display. Reading the actual words of the executive order, the Constitution, the rights of the office of the president, and history of SNM may help.

    • There are many who disagree with your opinion that the EO is unconstitutional. Calling me ignorant doesn’t make it so. Two constitutional attorneys told me they find it unconstitutional due to the religion aspect and the use of banning one due to their country of origin. If you’re a constitutional expect you must admit there are many ways to interpret the document. That is ehy there is a Supreme Court

      • Were you against this when Obama did it? When Carter did it?
        And words have meaning as Obama said. These things must be read. There is nothing wrong with vetting who comes in, we’ve always done that.
        Also the Supreme Court does not make law, at least it’s not supposed to, Liberals don’t agree.

        • President Obama’s actions were not the same or even close to it. My personal opinion is not important as my viewpoint is not a part of the article. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitutional rights of Americans such as due process and civil.rights. They don’t legislate. They can say laws made are unconstitutional. If you want to review what President Obama did in 2011 due to a FBI information that a terrorist would be coming into the US through Iran. There was no ban. The government increased the vetting process significantly. That administration was looking for a particular party that the FBI knew was a terrorist. I only report the truth. Not my.feelings, the opinions shared are those of people interviewed

Comments are closed.