Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Yates For "Betrayal"

Tyler Durden's picture

Update #3: Unsurprisingly Democrats are up in arms over the firing of 'their' Acting Attorney General, seemingly making her out to be some freedom-fighting martyr for their cause of selective and political law enforcement... (as The Hill reports)

The Democratic National Committee released a statement late Monday responding to ”tyrannical” President Trump’s decision to fire Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Yates was fired shortly after she announced that Justice Department not to defend Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration under her watch.


"Donald Trump can try to silence heroic patriots like Sally Yates who dare to speak truth to power about his illegal anti-Muslim ban that emboldens terrorists around the globe. But he cannot silence the growing voices of an American people now wide awake to his tyrannical presidency,” the DNC statement read.

*  *  *

Update #2: That "mutiny" did not last long. At 9:16pm on Monday, President Trump announced the firing of the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, who defied him just three hours earlier on his migrant-travel ban urging the DOJ not to follow his executive order, saying she "has betrayed the Department of Justice."

Acting AG Yates has been relieved of duty...

Statement on the Appointment of Dana Boente as Acting Attorney General


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. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.


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.


Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.


"I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected," said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

*  *  *

Update #1: President Trump responds...

*  * *

As we detailed earlier, in what those with a flair for the dramatic might be allowed to call "mutiny", Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who is the current acting Attorney General, has given orders to Justice Department lawyers not to defend Trump's executive order.

Her just released statement is below:

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.

While it is clear that Yates is making a purely political statement, her glaring insubordination to the Trump administration will take on a largely symbolic hue, and may be imitated by various other government agencies which still have interim or permanent democratic leadership, as is the case with every instance of political "mutiny."

As The New York Times notes, Mr. Trump has the authority to fire Ms. Yates, but as the top Senate-confirmed official at the Justice Department, she is the only one authorized to sign foreign surveillance warrants, an essential function at the department.

That said, Donald Trump's response, once he realizes he may have a mini mutiny on his hands, should be interesting.

Trump aide (and reported architect of Trump's immigration executive order) Stephen Miller explains "this is further demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become..."

And here is the authority that the president has to make his decision.

Even Alan Dershowtiz believes AG Yates "has made a serious mistake"...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
juicy_bananas's picture

Isn't this treason?

Stan522's picture

It's insubordination.....!

Deathrips's picture

Make an example out of here or this shits going to get worse.
Traitorous Commies Everywhere
Cultural Marxism Kills



J S Bach's picture

The swamp is filled with crazy-lib crododiles, thus there will be many crocodile tears shed.  Pay them no heed.  They have inflicted so much damage on our country that they only deserve our scorn and derision (not to mention decades in the big house).

PRO.223's picture

Trump should simply remove her for derelection of duty... next.

PRO.223's picture

So, according to the snowflakes, you only have to do your job if you agree with it?

J S Bach's picture

She must be related to that horrid granny who got kicked off the plane the other day for harassing a Trump supporter.  Rail-thin, beady-eyed, flat-chested... they're all vile both inside and out.

CrazyCooter's picture

Maybe Trump should pay to re-locate her office to some low rent hood in ... Detroit.

In fact, why not shut down entire departments, lease out their space - and relocate the lot of them to some low rent strip mall in Detroit.



johngaltfla's picture

Oh, besides this fucked up news, here's some more fucked up news from the Boy Scouts of America:

BREAKING NEWS: The Boy Scouts of America goes 100% Communist Fruitcake
FreezeThese's picture
FreezeThese (not verified) johngaltfla Jan 30, 2017 7:44 PM

Just when Vix looks like a solid investment ... you're reminded our forefathers foresaw checks and balances ... proud to be American tonight

Billy the Poet's picture

Seeing a partisan official refuse to follow the law is thrilling from the whiny little traitor point of view.

The Democrat party is so finished.

philipat's picture

Obama's AG picks have NEVER respected the law so why expect that to be any different now?

She needs to grow a different pair?

MalteseFalcon's picture

"Even Alan Dershowtiz believes AG Yates "has made a serious mistake"..."

I agree she's wrong, but what is the punishment for this serious mistake?

Fire her?

She's gone in a week or so anyway.

No Christmas card from Trump.  That's about all.

froze25's picture

The Attorney General is made up of a shit ton of Bill Clinton Ag's Bush Jr didn't touch the Attorney General make up for any substantial amount. He left them in place, then Obama grew it. Now they are stalling getting cleaned out . This is the last death throws of the Bush / Clinton machine.

jeff montanye's picture

they are in their death throes as trump throws them out.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Sore-ass is living on borrowed time.

He made himself the biggest target since Bin Laden.  Bigger, in fact.

california chrome's picture

and dershowitz should disapear and return to epstein's island.

DivisionBell's picture

I just want to say that I actually DID receive a Christmas card from Trump.


effendi's picture

Is there any other penalty that can be levied against her besides firing? Perhaps disbarring her as a lawyer, perhaps there are laws that have been broken by her (even if not for this particular hissy fit but for any actions/omissions during her time at the job).

WarPony's picture

Grab her by her "pussy" / mentality that permeates that corrupt department.

nightwish's picture

Get all of these ass-kissing female liberals out of government and put some REAL MEN in those positions.

Unamerican is what these fucks amount to, simply put.

MsCreant's picture

Was your mother strong?

The right woman would enforce the law. No brag, no showmanship, no need of glory, she'd just get er' done. 

jeff montanye's picture


and with nightwish, female fronted, as an avatar yet?

true sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-jew, anti-muslim, etc. are counterproductive.  there is nothing about liberty and justice, peace and prosperity that demands it.

we need all the allies we can get.

MsCreant's picture

They have been refusing to enforce laws for a long damned time now. Folks aren't even used to folks enforcing the laws, they cry, "Dictator" when someone does. 

Here are at least two more for your list of partisan officials who refuse to follow the law:

  • Lynch, Loretta E. 2015 to 2017.
  • Holder, Eric H. Jr. 2009 to 2015.
benb's picture

How about some justice? Holder should be good to go for about 20 consecutive life sentences.

The Dem masses are so brainwashed they would cry racism and riot. We can write them off.

I was ready to puke when Barry S. was hugging Holder goodbye stating he was pushed out because people were "racist." 

jcaz's picture

Enjoy your obscurity, Sally......

(update after the firing:)

"Welcome to Walmart!"

Creative_Destruct's picture

Unfortunately, Soros will quickly become her sugar daddy and save her from the clutches of Wal-Mart.

Dabooda's picture

The lady has some guts and a conscience.  Whether or not you share her convictions, you ought to respect that.  Of course she'll get fired, but she knows that & accepts it.  So even you haters are going to have a happy ending.

Billy the Poet's picture

Trump has some guts and a conscience. Do you respect him?

Dabooda's picture

Respect him?  Yes, I do.  Approve?  Not entirely.  I like that he proposes to get rid of regulations & taxes.  I dislike his immigration policy, his proposed tariffs and his pro-Israel foreign policy. I voted for him, because he was the only one who could beat the murderous whore Clinton, not because I totally agree with him.

Billy the Poet's picture

I'm more or less on the same page. But folks are making this so called Muslim ban into something it isn't. It's a 90 day moratorium on immigration from seven countries which were cited by the previous administration as sources of terror. Obama blocked Iraqi immigration for six months in 2011 because a number of Al Qaeda members had slipped through as refugees. There's no reason why the current administration can't use the same legal power to temporarily hold back immigrants while they determine the actual threat levels and best practices going forward.

jeff montanye's picture

best practices going forward would include following israel's practice and barring dual nationality citizens from government, maybe with a grandfather clause to make it even vaguely possible.

something must be done to wake the sheeple up to who has been ruining u.s. foreign policy this century (hint: starts with likud/mossad).

can we subtly get some 9-11 families to sue saudi arabia and get that nudged toward the real perps?


RevIdahoSpud3's picture

If he only does half of what he said he would do we will be so much farther ahead than if we had installed the Clitonista. Clitonista would have been the nail in the coffin. The Jew thing bothered me as well as oblivion to 9-11, false flag attacks, CIA etc. but we had those and they were not going to change anyway. So far who could complain? If he runs the table than holly shit Amos, who woulda thought?

MalteseFalcon's picture

She's not risking anything.

As soon as Sessions is sworn in, she was history in any case.

This is pure grandstanding, which is all the Democrats have.

Dabooda's picture

Sure, she'll be history soon.  But not today.  And today she had to make the choice whether to follow orders or to do what SHE thought was right.  What she's risking is all the abuse that people like the ones on this board are throwing at her, for choosing to follow her own moral code. 

And I'm not so sure she had no chance of keeping her job; if she'd shown a willingness to go along with Trump's program, the new regime might have kept her on.  So she gave up that chance, for sure. 

azusgm's picture

Looks like an audition for AG if the Dems were to ever get back in again. (Dear God, I hope not.) Maybe even for Congress critter.

Should really impress Faux-cahontas. Those two could campaign for each other.

scoutshonor's picture

She cannot undo the election.  I can respect someone not being able to ethically serve in a post if the completion of their duties goes against deeply held convictions.

In that situation the honorable thing to do is step down.  She did not resign--she refused to comply with a clear and unambiguous directive from her boss.

There is a bright line distinction between what she did and what she should have done.

Creative_Destruct's picture

I don't know if her motives were noble or opportunistic. Only she can tell you. And her motives might be mixed, not mutually exclusive. But I suspect FAR more opportunistic to benefit from the Dem power structure, plus unwilling to take the heat from the MSM if she had to take center stage in defending the Exec order. 

All in all, it's easy to see how she could very well have calculated she had more to loose than gain form the heat the MSM and the demonizing left would throw at her, and may have taken the action based on a mixture of "principle" and self-interest.

SurfingUSA's picture

I have read elsewhere that she loses her benefits if she is fired for cause.

aqualech's picture

Mostly she is grandstanding on her way out the door.  Probably called CNN herself to break the story.  Probably shopping book deals before the announcement.

godiva chocolate's picture

Everybody has guts and a conscience -- its what they respond to that makes the difference.  Selective conscience for alleged "poor refugees" but none for the victims of muslim terror.  Guts to stand up to a religion that embraces terror and contains the teaching of jihad.... or lay down your arms and let them terrorize infidels.  

August's picture

This is virtue-signalling self-promotion on the part of someone who was headed out the door anyway, and soon. 

She hopes, no doubt, to get her CV into the finalists' pile at a few more "public-policy" outfits and liberal law firms.

Nothing to see here.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Dabooda, you're one hilarious guy. Actually, if you think she has "guts and conscienc", then (I'm sorry to say) you are an analysis powder-puff.

What she did, was a clever and devious career move. Because...

- She would be gone in a week or so anyway.

- Even if she stayed, her career and salary would go nowhere the next 4-8 years.

- What a better way to get a juicy Private Sector job, than the "15 minutes of Prime Time National Fame" with her "Guts & Conscience" of convenience.  Brilliant career move for a fembot Dem.  Brilliant ! 

Too bad you weren't brilliant enough to see through it. [chuckle]

ReZn8r's picture

fuck you to daboodapoo

effendi's picture

I downvoted you for disrespecting Dabooda. (even though I disagree with him about why the acting AG took her stand).

MsCreant's picture

I'll back you up this much, in the right circles (the swampy ones), at her next job interview, she just upped her asking price for "standing up to Trump." It actually cost her zip to do this and increased her visibility and marketability. 

Escapeclaws's picture

At the very least she will just get a partnership at some white shoe law firm. These folks never risk losing the one thing they love the most, lucre.