Lost in all the signal-noise from the Left and their fellow travellers is a crucial question; did the former Acting AG to to Pres. Trump with her concerns before she issued her dictat? Or did she just do it, and undercut the POTUS openly and publically?
From what I have read so-far, she just went ahead and issued her directive fiat to the DOJ without going to the President and voicing her concerns privately. “Saying “No’ to the President” should be done privately and professionally….particularly for a Cabinet-grade political appointee. By failing to do so she fundamentally failed in her sworn duty to advise the President…which I have the suspicion she did deliberately to politically-embarrass Pres. Trump.
Easy to do anyway. His insane birther fixation, global warming is a Chinese hoax and the list goes on
Whats amazing to me is why are you not embarrassed to have trump as prez
RSGsays
Easy to do anyway. His insane birther fixation, global warming is a Chinese hoax and the list goes on
Right. Because the news for the past two weeks has been just filled with stories on the proclamations regarding those issues.
Jakesays
MSM and the left start with a premise i hate Trump” anything that adds to this becomes gospel.
KCRobsays
The acting AG deserved to be fired. Aside from the clumsy aspect of the immigration EO, DJT is will within his authority to impose immigration controls.
Previous presidents, including Saint Obama, have used the same authority.
As I wrote earlier, people like “mike” don’t give a bean about “poor refugees”. It’s all about destroying the country and replacing it with some utopia (like what France had during the Revolution).
“Destroying” is a strong term but I can’t see any other reason. Opposition to common-sense measures to separate legitimate refugees from economic migrants and trouble-makers is irrational (unless you’re a lefty).
mikey: national policy should serve the interests of the US and its citizens. Period. Full stop. Allowing a reasonable flow if true refugees and immigration not harmful to US citizens is gravy (because we’re a decent people).
The EU is what happens when national policy leaves citizens out of the equation. Why should we follow?
Lost in all the signal-noise from the Left and their fellow travellers is a crucial question; did the former Acting AG to to Pres. Trump with her concerns before she issued her dictat? Or did she just do it, and undercut the POTUS openly and publically?
From what I have read so-far, she just went ahead and issued her directive fiat to the DOJ without going to the President and voicing her concerns privately. “Saying “No’ to the President” should be done privately and professionally….particularly for a Cabinet-grade political appointee. By failing to do so she fundamentally failed in her sworn duty to advise the President…which I have the suspicion she did deliberately to politically-embarrass Pres. Trump.
“embarrass Pres. Trump.”
Easy to do anyway. His insane birther fixation, global warming is a Chinese hoax and the list goes on
Whats amazing to me is why are you not embarrassed to have trump as prez
Right. Because the news for the past two weeks has been just filled with stories on the proclamations regarding those issues.
MSM and the left start with a premise i hate Trump” anything that adds to this becomes gospel.
The acting AG deserved to be fired. Aside from the clumsy aspect of the immigration EO, DJT is will within his authority to impose immigration controls.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/15/donald-trumps-almost-true-claim-that-the-president-has-power-to-ban-any-class-of-persons/?utm_term=.f5fe1825bfc4
Previous presidents, including Saint Obama, have used the same authority.
As I wrote earlier, people like “mike” don’t give a bean about “poor refugees”. It’s all about destroying the country and replacing it with some utopia (like what France had during the Revolution).
“Destroying” is a strong term but I can’t see any other reason. Opposition to common-sense measures to separate legitimate refugees from economic migrants and trouble-makers is irrational (unless you’re a lefty).
mikey: national policy should serve the interests of the US and its citizens. Period. Full stop. Allowing a reasonable flow if true refugees and immigration not harmful to US citizens is gravy (because we’re a decent people).
The EU is what happens when national policy leaves citizens out of the equation. Why should we follow?