Yates smacks down the campaigning Cruz....

[nat4900]

[Oh he should have said that instead of sounding like a complete moron then.

Agreed - he tried to be 'cute'.

Unlikely. He's an embarrassing yokel from Louisiana. He was probably genuinely confused.

Again, he appropriately rebuked Yates for refusing to do her job. That is not what I call 'embarrassing' or 'confused.

He attempted to rebuke Yates and failed. Cruz is a failure on all levels. As a man, a politician, a leader, and any other category you can think of. It;s hard to believe folks can actually have any respect for that failure.
Cruz is the guy that trump insulted. He insulted the man's wife and the man's father. He did it repeatedly. The result was that when the time came Cruz came crawling back to trump and kissed his ass in public. You can say anything you want about his wife and family and Cruz will not have the courage to hold you to your words.

Yes,, yes, Cruz is a spineless idiot......HOWEVER, in his "defense", there is none better to read Dr. Seuss on the Senate floor.

 

[bendog]

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump
By Sarah Jones on Mon, May 8th, 2017 at 5:07 pm

During the Sally Yates hearing on Monday, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried to best Sally Yates with the law, only to be humiliated by her legal knowledge.

Sally Yates Makes Ted Cruz Look Like A Fool And Crushes The Republican Defense Of Trump

Do you wonder why Cruz continues to carry Trump's water over anything, let alone this

 

[bodecea]

Hmmm. I listened to the whole thing and he is correct, she overstepped her purview. She's a prosecutor, not a judge. This seems to be a common problem with obummer appointee's, they seem to think they get to do anything they choose regardless of their job. She is a truly a poor example of "Public Servant". She is a very good example of a political hack however.

Leave it to brain dead progressives, such as yourself, to twist reality to your personal view.

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."


that's her oath.

SMACK! That left just as much of a mark on that poster as Yates left on Cruz.

 

[bendog]

Here's where Yates failed:

"They do not look outside the face of the document," she said.

In contrast, she said, "it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid out in his statements."

She's only supposed to look at the document.



Acting attorney general fired by Trump stands by decision not to defend travel ban

no, she didn't say that mr twister!

she said it was the Judicial branch's counsel's/lawyer's job to not look at intent in their review, strictly content...but it was her job as attorney general and her team's job to include the review of intent, as did the several Judges in different states who shot his e/o down.

She absolutely did say that!

Acting attorney general fired by Trump stands by decision not to defend travel ban

Basically she said "Oh you can't just look at the document" You have look to at outside factors and some other gobblety-gook.

Like: "What did he say at his daughter's birthday party 8 years ago?"

Notice the link I provided is from ABC news.

You can't make this stuff up.

PS: I noticed you turned "a few" into "several".

Allow me to remind you that she was fired.

Trump did not vet their e/o through the Justice dept, as protocol required before issuing it....they went to the set of lawyers the Justice dept had which have a specific narrow job duty.....and skipped the Justice dept itself reviewing it.....he was suppose to do BOTH, but he thought the Justice dept would be partisan and did not want the Justice dept to even know about the E/O.....

Yates WAS RIGHT and Trump got caught with his pants down through all the State lawsuits against it and Judges knocking it down....he fired her, for telling him the truth, the E/O did not meet constitutional muster and was hard or rather impossible for the Justice dept to defend.

Trump finally ditched that e/o and came up with a new one.... that confirms Yates WAS correct, and gave Trump truthful advice on it.....

The president can fire whomever he wants, without cause or reason.

And just maybe it really was meant to be a muslim ban.
Trump campaign deletes statement on Muslim ban after reporter asks about it

 

[BULLDOG]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

On hold pending modifications. As it was, it was unlawful.

 

[rightwinger]

So far, the reality is that Trump was in violation of the Constitution to issue the EO,

and Yates was in accord with the Constitution to choose not to enforce his unconstitutional action.

Yates told Trump he was violating the Constitution
Trump fired Yates for pointing it out
The courts agreed with Yates and threw out Trump's ban

Republicans are still butthurt

 

[nat4900]

Do you wonder why Cruz continues to carry Trump's water over anything, let alone this

The answer is actually quite simple for the spineless Cruz.......He is hoping that when a seat opens up in the SCOTUS, the Trumpster will pick him, since a senate seat from Texas will always remain "red" (and somewhat fascist.)

 

[nat4900]

Yates told Trump he was violating the Constitution
Trump fired Yates for pointing it out
The courts agreed with Yates and threw out Trump's ban

The above simple logic is an anathema for Trump ass kissers.

 

[rightwinger]

Yates told Trump he was violating the Constitution
Trump fired Yates for pointing it out
The courts agreed with Yates and threw out Trump's ban

The above simple logic is an anathema for Trump ass kissers.

Trump, in his rush to get his "Muslm ban" out, bypassed the Attorney Generals Office

Anyone with any sense, could have told Trump the ban would not pass muster
It didn't

 

[Dot Com]

Here's where Yates failed:

"They do not look outside the face of the document," she said.

In contrast, she said, "it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid out in his statements."

She's only supposed to look at the document.



Acting attorney general fired by Trump stands by decision not to defend travel ban

She was talking about the OLC you cumb dunt and no, I dont expect you to know what that is

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here's where Yates failed:

"They do not look outside the face of the document," she said.

In contrast, she said, "it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid out in his statements."

She's only supposed to look at the document.



Acting attorney general fired by Trump stands by decision not to defend travel ban

She was talking about the OLC you cumb dunt and no, I dont expect you to know what that is

I will be laughing at you when the house of cards comes crashing down. MOAR

 

[bendog]

Hmmm. I listened to the whole thing and he is correct, she overstepped her purview. She's a prosecutor, not a judge. This seems to be a common problem with obummer appointee's, they seem to think they get to do anything they choose regardless of their job. She is a truly a poor example of "Public Servant". She is a very good example of a political hack however.

Leave it to brain dead progressives, such as yourself, to twist reality to your personal view.

"I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."


that's her oath.

SMACK! That left just as much of a mark on that poster as Yates left on Cruz.

She could defend the ban even though she thought it was unconst. And it was unconst, not even close. But she was the "acting" AG. Some of Obama's actions on immigration were stretching his powers beyond their limits. The AG's job is to defend the potus's actions. Watergate tested the limits. No lawyer should aid a potus in covering up an actual crime. (That's what Bork did) I think that would also be true if a potus tried to ignore a specific ruling by a court.

I think she just thought that if the Orange Cretin wanted to go down a muslim ban road it would not be with her.

 

[bodecea]

Lol dumb freshman thought Yates was an SC justice

No, the 'dumb' freshman was pointing out to Yates that as an employee of the US government and of the Trump administration and has no right to refuse to comply with orders she has been given. You either do the job or you quit.

So, the oath to defend the Constitution is mis-written?

 

[bodecea]

Hey Sally...yer fired!!!!

'Who Appointed You to the Supreme Court?': Senator Grills Yates For Defying Trump Travel Ban

Sally Yates understands that she owes a greater duty to protecting the Constitution than she does the president*.

It's unfortunate that the GOP Senators don't share the same understanding.

and......some here.

 

[bodecea]

Here's where Yates failed:

"They do not look outside the face of the document," she said.

In contrast, she said, "it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid out in his statements."

She's only supposed to look at the document.



Acting attorney general fired by Trump stands by decision not to defend travel ban

She was talking about the OLC you cumb dunt and no, I dont expect you to know what that is

I will be laughing at you when the house of cards comes crashing down. MOAR

Now...there's a prophetic comment if I ever heard one.

 

[easyt65]

Lol dumb freshman thought Yates was an SC justice

No, the 'dumb' freshman was pointing out to Yates that as an employee of the US government and of the Trump administration and has no right to refuse to comply with orders she has been given. You either do the job or you quit.

So, the oath to defend the Constitution is mis-written?

No, not at all.

The freshman Senator was write in pointing out that Yates, as an employee, does not have the right to refuse to obey policy on her own. The proper procedure / process is to go to one's supervisor, pint out the specific legal / appropriate reason for choosing not to do so (and anything that starts with 'I FEEL' or 'MY OPINION' is not legitimate).

Yates is not the only one of the Obama holdovers who have been reported publicly to oppose Trump's agenda and refuse to carry out their LEAGAL duties based on the fact that they simply do not agree. Such members have been identified in the EPA, ATF, and in several of those Intel agencies. In Yates' case, specifically regarding these travel bans - based on the Court decisions so far, she was right to refuse to comply...but, as pointed out, there is a process / 'chain-of-command' one must follow.

 

[Care4all]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

 

[vlad_hombre]

Lol dumb freshman thought Yates was an SC justice

No, the 'dumb' freshman was pointing out to Yates that as an employee of the US government and of the Trump administration and has no right to refuse to comply with orders she has been given. You either do the job or you quit.

So, the oath to defend the Constitution is mis-written?

No, not at all.

The freshman Senator was write in pointing out that Yates, as an employee, does not have the right to refuse to obey policy on her own. The proper procedure / process is to go to one's supervisor, pint out the specific legal / appropriate reason for choosing not to do so (and anything that starts with 'I FEEL' or 'MY OPINION' is not legitimate).

Yates is not the only one of the Obama holdovers who have been reported publicly to oppose Trump's agenda and refuse to carry out their LEAGAL duties based on the fact that they simply do not agree. Such members have been identified in the EPA, ATF, and in several of those Intel agencies. In Yates' case, specifically regarding these travel bans - based on the Court decisions so far, she was right to refuse to comply...but, as pointed out, there is a process / 'chain-of-command' one must follow.

 

[Marion Morrison]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

She said she could not because...feels!

Not what was in the document.

 

[Care4all]

However, it was shown she did step out of the boundaries of her job description and was rightfully fired for doing so.

It is much better to be fired for upholding the Constitution, than to be complicit in an unlawful act as the Trumpster's EO has turned out to be in the courts....

Courts have found it unlawful?

Last I heard, they were merely on hold.

they found the FIRST E /O unlawful, the one Yates was asked to defend for Trump and she said she could not.

Trump did not pursue further appeals on it, he created a new, second E/O instead....which is now on hold or working its way through the courts.

Yates was RIGHT about the first E/O, but was fired anyway...which is fine...the AG can be let go at any time by the president, without cause.

yates was a career prosecutor, worked for the Justice dept for 26 years under both republican and democratic presidents...

she was not brought in to govt by Obama, obama was still in college when she was first hired by the justice dept.

STOP your republican TRASH TALK about her...it's ridiculous....its all R's know how to do....attack any and all, smart women....