Liberal Forum

Misty » 08 May 2017 3:23 pm » wrote:Clem, the White House lap dog doing his job.

Huey » 08 May 2017 3:21 pm » wrote:How did Yates get the information on Flynn that she used to alert the Whitehouse?

Termin8tor » 08 May 2017 3:31 pm » wrote:The source doesn't matter, because it's an image of an actual email, psycho.

Termin8tor » 08 May 2017 1:30 pm » wrote:She is a partisan hack, who violated her oath of office in refusing to carry out Trump's legal immigration orders.

Misty » 08 May 2017 4:22 pm » wrote: What was legal about detaining permanent residents (green card holders) from re-entering this country?
Because that was included in the original EO that she refused to defend.

Huey » 08 May 2017 4:35 pm » wrote:Non citizens? Plus, has been changed.

Misty » 08 May 2017 4:49 pm » wrote: It was changed AFTER Sally Yates was fired.
It was contained in the original EO that she refused to defend.

So why was it changed if it was legal?

Huey » 08 May 2017 4:53 pm » wrote:Who said it wasn't legal? Which legal scholar?

The Trump administration is easing restrictions on legal permanent residents who were initially affected by the President's executive order largely banning entry to the US by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

After nearly a week of claiming it wouldn't change the executive order, the administration is retreating on how the order affects so-called green card holders.
[......]
The executive order's effects on green card holders was among the most controversial aspects among the order's bipartisan critics.

Permanent residents already undergo extensive background screening to qualify for green cards, and they enjoy legal rights that the executive order summarily restricted without legal process.

Those restrictions were the subject of multiple legal challenges to the executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/ ... ation-ban/

Misty » 08 May 2017 6:14 pm » wrote: Again, if it was legal to deny permanent residents (green card holders) who were traveling abroad to re-enter the country, then why was the original EO changed?

Misty » 08 May 2017 6:14 pm » wrote: Again, if it was legal to deny permanent residents (green card holders) who were traveling abroad to re-enter the country, then why was the original EO changed?

After Getting His Butt Kicked By Sally Yates, Ted Cruz Doesn’t Return For Second Round Of Questioning

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) got his head handed to him by Sally Yates during the first round of questioning, so he didn't bother to show up for round two.

Cruz came prepared to humiliate Sally Yates, so he started off with what he thought was going to be a class on the law.

Framing her actions as “defying” the President, Cruz even brought the numbers to a statute that he called Yates out on for not defending Trump’s immigration ban.

“Are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. Section 1182,” Cruz asked, citing right wing blogs with all the promise of a great set up.

“Not off the top of my head, no,” Yates answered calmly.

“Well, it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement and that led to your termination so it certainly is a relevant and not terribly obscure statute.” Cruz read the statute to Yates/his audience.

“Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?” Cruz finished happily.

“I would, and I am familiar with that and I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA that says, ‘No person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a VISA because of race, nationality or place of birth,'” Yates said, schooling Cruz on the very issue over which he tried to shame her.

Yikes.

“That, I believe, was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted.

And that’s been part of the discussion with the court with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described,” Yates finished, putting a pretty cherry on Cruz’s humiliation.

The lesson here is don’t ask Sally Yates a question if you don’t already know the answer.

Oh, wait. She wasn’t done yet.

“But my concern here was not an INA concern, it rather was a constitutional concern.

Whether or not the executive order here violated the constitution, specifically with the establishment clause and due process.”

When round two of the questioning came around, Cruz was gone.

Ted Cruz was humiliated by Sally Yates, so he took his ball BALLS and went home.

Misty » 08 May 2017 6:48 pm » wrote:

Misty » 08 May 2017 7:01 pm » wrote:Another thing I learned is that Sally Yates was at the White House on the very day that the travel ban was issued and they didn't even bother to tell their own acting AG about it.

She learned about it in the media.

Too bad.
Maybe if she had been informed about it and had a chance to review it, she could have stopped the cluster **** that occurred.

Huey » 08 May 2017 6:59 pm » wrote: Additionally, none of the EOs mention any specific nationality, race, religion, etc. it References the list of countries that OBAMA put together that he said were countries of particular concern.

Misty » 08 May 2017 7:10 pm » wrote: I believe that Sally Yates said that she took 45's own words into account, much like the judges who have blocked the order.

45 talked about a 'total and complete shutdown of MUSLIMS entering the U.S.'

The ruling by the federal judge in Hawaii cited several comments made by Trump himself, as well as senior advisers Stephen Miller and Rudy Giuliani, indicating that the motivation for the executive order was to ban Muslims.

Their own words came back to bite them in the ***.

Termin8tor » 08 May 2017 3:34 pm » wrote:Yates showed from her behavior that she's unethical by refusing to enforce Trump's immigration order.