Monday night, Donald Trump fired the interim attorney general, Sally Yates, because she expressed her (legal) opinion that Trump’s Muslim ban should not be enforced because it was not legal. And she had some pretty good reasons to believe Trump’s executive order was not legal, as since the order was signed on Friday, five federal judges have issued injunctions against it.
In firing Yates, the White House issued a fairly nasty statement, saying that Yates had betrayed the Department of Justice. The statement also claimed that Trump’s executive order was approved as legal by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. But given that Trump consulted virtually nobody before issuing the order, I find this hard to believe.
Yates is an Obama appointee, who was serving until Trump’s nominee, Jeff Sessions, could be confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate.
Now here’s the ironic part. Back in 2015 when Yates was being confirmed as Deputy Attorney General for Obama, Sessions pointedly asked her if she would be willing to do (presumably to Obama) exactly what she just did to Trump. And she agreed with him and said yes.
Sessions seems to be singing a different tune now.
10 Comments
Flipping through all the news coverage last night on this issue, one of the journalists commented that, given all the sturm und drang (my term not his, just practicing my German, may come in handy soon) barely a week into this train wreck of a WH, it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine Trump finding himself in an “impeachable moment” even within the year. He’s obviously winging it, in way over his head, and the people around him have zero (0!) experience in foreign affairs, beyond perhaps watching a movie with subtitles.
Should impeachment actually come to pass (visions of agents carrying this fat hairdo out the back door feet first in a straight jacket, kicking and screaming), I can imagine The Albino watching calmly from the balcony with a tight, knowing grin. From right-wing shock-jock to The Big Chair, thinking “now if this isn’t God’s will I don’t know what is.”
Now here’s the scary part (as if we’re not scared enough already) – there’s a whole flock out there who would love nothing more for Pence to assume the mantle and fulfill their Holy Prophesy in preparation for The Second Coming or The Rapture or whateverthefuck. Here’s a telling article I came across on another blog of a guy who was raised home-schooled and deeply ensconced in the “Christofacist” sub-culture that has been waiting and planning for this day for decades. He was lucky enough to escape and tell his story. Trump’s war on religion may aim to serve his own short-sighted strategy but it plays right into their hands. Here’s a short snippet:
“I grew up in the far-right evangelical conservative (Christofascist) movement; specifically, I was homeschooled and my parents were part of a subculture called Quiverfull, whose aim is to outbreed everyone for Jesus. I spent my teen years being a political activist. I was taught by every pastor I encountered that it was our job as Christians to outbreed the secularists (anyone not a far-right evangelical Protestant) and take over the government through sheer numbers. I was part of TeenPact, Generation Joshua and my local Teenage Republicans (TARS).
When the Tea Party rose in 2009, that was my culture. The Tea Party was step one. I was laying the groundwork for those elections in 2006. These people didn’t come out of the blue like it seemed. This plan, this Christofascist takeover of the US government, has been in the works for decades. When evangelical conservatism started becoming popular and more mainstream around the 1970s, the foundation was being laid for the tragedy playing out right now.”
https://www.autostraddle.com/i-was-trained-for-the-culture-wars-in-home-school-awaiting-someone-like-mike-pence-as-a-messiah-367057/
Islamofascists have nothing on these wackjobs!
Ralph, I completely agree. But you should go back further. This conspiracy to take over the government by Christian wackos can be traced back to a letter Washington wrote to king George 111, in 1774. That was the beginning of the tea party.
The Duggars gave them a voice and a face, (actually many faces), until, well until their little problem with their pedophile son.
Anon – interesting perspective and I’d be curious to hear more info you may have on that.
I’m no historian and a cursory search on Wikipedia alludes to the letter you mention, but notes it having been written by the First Constitutional Congress, of which Washington was a member, as a “Petition to the King”. This was presented as a list of grievances from the colonies that appears to be mainly centered around unfair taxation (leading to the famous Boston Tea Party) and various areas of oppressive authority exerted by British officials and officers, such authority being enforced by the British Army.
The only mention of religion I can find, however, according to an annotated text of the petition, referred to a recent Act of Parliament that, among other things, included “establishing an absolute Government and the Roman Catholick Religion throughout those vast regions that border on the Westerly and Northerly boundaries of the free Protestant English settlements”. IOW, keep your religion, we’ve got our own here, thank you. Hardly seems like a Christian coup attempt in that regard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_the_King
The Tea Party as we know it is more a reaction to Obama in 2009 from conservative/libertarian factions as a reaction to his financial aid to bankrupt homeowners following the mortgage bubble burst, though its philosophical roots may well go further back as far as the Reagan era. Although it does attract hard core religious types, it has no uniform agenda or centralized platform, but primarily focused on economic and limited gov’t issues. Again, according to a Wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
If you have other historical evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested to hear it, thanks.
Last I heard, Washington was a Deist, not a Christian.
Ralph, very nice work. The keep your religion part you referenced is quite possibly a reaction to long held views of the British monarchy. I did find a list. It is from the 1787 continental congress membership. Since the continental congress met from 1774-1789, I think it has relevance.
Of the 55 delegates 28 were from the Church of England or episcopalian. 21 were Protestants. Of the Protestants 8 were Presbyterian, 7 were congressionalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch reformists, and 2 were Methodists. Jefferson was part of a small group of anti clericals.
My post was wikipedia
The official church of the British empire was the Church of England. and since Jefferson was anti clerical( no one cleric speaks for God ), he coined the phrase ” separation of church and state” in a letter he wrote to the Danbury baptist church of Connecticut in 1802. And also that’s the reason behind the first amendment reading ” congress shal make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free practice there of”.
Which is expressly why sharia can’t work with our constitution. Sharia requires the government to adapt the sharia law.
Good point Anon – The Founders weren’t clairvoyant but had the wisdom and foresight from their own experience with religious intolerance to see the divisive and repressive effect religion could have on an otherwise effectively run gov’t. Fanatics of all stripes often forget (or reject) that freedom implies “from” as much as “of”.