Liberal Forum

Misty » 08 May 2017 8:01 pm » wrote: I guess legal expert Clem doesn't know that the Attorney General of the United States swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an oath of loyalty to the president.

An AG (acting or not) is not obligated to enforce an order if they believe it is unconstitutional or illegal.
They are supposed to be independent.

Yates pointed out today to Senator John Cornyn (R- Texas) that during her confirmation hearing in 2015, when Obama appointed her deputy AG, he specifically asked her if the president asked her to do something that was unlawful or unconstitutional, would she say no, and she promised that she would that.

Jeff Sessions asked her the same thing, and she replied the same way.

BTW Jeff Sessions was asked the same question in his confirmation hearing for AG, and he gave the same answer, because that is the right answer.

The White House responded to hours of Senate testimony Monday by saying there was still no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion, but also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until FBI Director James Comey announced it to the public at a House hearing in March.

President Donald Trump called Clapper's comments a full dismissal of potential collusion and dismissed the entire issue outright in the series of tweets after the hearing, referring to information from the day's events as "old news," "a total hoax" and "#FakeNews!"

Trump also changed the header photo on his personal Twitter account to one including a block with the text of his first tweet about Clapper and "the fake media."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/ ... s-clapper/

roadkill » 08 May 2017 9:34 pm » wrote:I'm know I'm not worthy...but may I come back and dump on you?

Misty » 08 May 2017 8:01 pm » wrote: I guess legal expert Clem doesn't know that the Attorney General of the United States swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an oath of loyalty to the president.

An AG (acting or not) is not obligated to enforce an order if they believe it is unconstitutional or illegal.
They are supposed to be independent.

Misty » 09 May 2017 8:29 am » wrote:It may not fit the technical definition of the word 'collusion' and it may not rise to the level of criminality, but make no mistake, when 45 stood up at his rallies, waved around the latest release of stolen DNC emails, and declared ' I love WikiLeaks,' when he encouraged Russia to hack into HRC's server and find 'the missing 30,000 emails' and when he promoted FAKE News stories put out by the Russians like about HRC's health, he was working in concert with the Russians.

Misty » 08 May 2017 8:01 pm » wrote:I guess legal expert Clem doesn't know that the Attorney General of the United States swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an oath of loyalty to the president.

Misty » 08 May 2017 10:53 pm » wrote: GRAHAM: General Clapper, on March 5, 2017, you said the following to a question.
Here's the question.

Does intelligence exist that can definitely answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?

You said we did not include any evidence in our report.

And I say our, that's the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.

There was no evidence of that included in our report.

Chuck Todd then asked, I understand that, but does it exist?
You say no, not to my knowledge. Is that still accurate?

CLAPPER: It is.

Termin8tor » 09 May 2017 8:32 am » wrote:The White House Counsel's office issued an opinion that this was legal and Constitutional, and Obama had issued a very similar EO, which was never challenged.
If she sincerely believed it was unConstitutional, she should have resigned.
It's not her job to to refuse a president.
She's a political hack.

Misty » 09 May 2017 9:01 am » wrote: If it's not her job to refuse a president, then why did both Cornyn and Sessions ask her during her confirmation hearing in 2015, if she would refuse to carry out a presidential order that she felt was unlawful or unconstitutional?

This 'political hack' was hired as an assistant U.S. Attorney in Georgia by Bob Barr and she prosecuted and jailed several Democrats including the Mayor of Atlanta.

P.S. What Obama did in 2011 was not 'similar' to 45's EO.
Obama stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, and it was in response to a direct threat which was a failed plot by Iraqi nationals living in Bowling Green, Ky., to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good talking point.

Sally Yates Doesn’t Care Who You Are

February 22, 2017

When President Donald Trump abruptly fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday night, it was not the first time Yates faced the wrath of a government chief executive enraged by the refusal of a female subordinate to play along with a directive she considered improper.

It was almost 20 years ago, in 1998.

Yates was an assistant U.S. attorney in Atlanta, whose gentle Southern accent (of the old families of Atlanta) belied her already fierce reputation.

Earlier that decade she’d led a federal prosecution into a massive corruption scheme tied to the city’s airport.

I was then a ponytailed investigative reporter at the Atlanta Constitution, burrowing into City Hall criminality and covering the trials in which Yates sent seven men—including two powerful former city council members—to prison.

Notably, it was an equal-opportunity prosecution.

By the time the cases ended, the new convicts included black and white elected officials and businessmen.

Rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, liberal or conservative—if Sally Yates had you on tape taking bribes, you went to jail.

In 1998, the general manager of the airport complained to the Federal Aviation Administration about pressure she thought she was getting from then-Mayor Bill Campbell related to a $100 million contract for 20 million cubic yards of rock and soil needed to build a new runway.

The mayor, a Democratic former city councilman who had been accused but never indicted in the earlier corruption scandal, was pushing for a bidding process that looked favorable to one of his big campaign donors.

I wrote a story for the Wall Street Journal about what looked like the most expensive pile of dirt in history.

The mayor denied any wrongdoing but was outraged that his airport manager had defied his plans.

Within a few months, she was out of her job.

But it turned out that Yates’ public corruption prosecution had never really wrapped up.

She and local FBI agents were doing their own spade work into the mayor’s high-flying life, girlfriends, extravagant travel, $250,000 in alleged bribes, and suggestions of illegal campaign contributions from the dirt contractor.

It dragged on for years—during which time Mayor Campbell and his allies waged an increasingly harsh public relations campaign against Yates.

Despite the diversity of the first truckload of racketeers she sent to prison, rumors were spread that Yates was out to get black officials.

Allies of the mayor said she was investigating him after he didn’t endorse Yates’ husband in an unsuccessful congressional bid.

She became a near-pariah at City Hall.

There was even a moment of public tension between Yates and another Atlanta figure who also would eventually be the subject of President Trump’s wrath: Georgia Rep. John Lewis.

Through it all, Yates quietly kept digging, indicting, and usually convicting.

In 2004, it was finally Mayor Campbell’s turn in the dock.

He was indicted, and after a long and sordid trial, found guilty of tax evasion (though he was acquitted on the most egregious corruption charges).

He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The corruption cases Yates pursued in Atlanta changed the political character and direction of the city.

She was appointed U.S attorney in Atlanta by President Barack Obama in 2010 and elevated by the president five years later to deputy U.S. attorney general.

By then, she had prosecuted Democrats, Republicans, child-slavers, drug dealers, corrupt officials, corrupt business people, terrorists, killers, white folks, and black folks.

As the second-highest ranking law enforcement official in the U.S., she was at the front line on terror cases, corporate prosecutions, and oversight of the FBI.

Yates was also the point person for the White House for the past two years on President Obama's accelerated commutations process for federal prisoners, leading to the release of hundreds of Americans being held for absurdly over-long drug sentences.

Through it all, Yates was driven by a belief in the law and the equal application of it to all people, no matter who they are, what they look like, or how much money they have or don’t have.

Then on Monday, Yates ordered all Department of Justice attorneys not to defend President Trump’s order barring entry to the U.S. for Syrian refugees and thousands of other visitors from certain Muslim countries.

She said the legality of the order was questionable.

President Trump fired her within a few hours.

The White House issued a statement saying Yates’ legal objections were spurious and then the incredible charge that she had “betrayed” the Department of Justice.

It sounded a lot like the claims of outrage and innocence those corrupt politicians in Atlanta had always made.

Interestingly enough, almost every one of them I ever spoke to also seemed to genuinely believe that they couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong, and that the public adored them so much that they would always be forgiven for any slip-up.

It didn’t work out that way.

Most remarkably to me, a text message arrived on my phone two days after Yates was axed this week: A city councilman in Atlanta—one who hadn’t been there during the corruption eruption—had seen remarks I posted on Facebook about Yates.

He said members of the council, the very institution that had been hollowed out by Yates’ anti-corruption crusade of the 1990s, wanted to issue a resolution in support of her defiance of the Trump immigration order.

Other Democrats in Georgia were organizing to draft her to run for governor.

What a difference two decades make.

It’s not unreasonable to debate whether Sally Yates should simply have resigned rather than defy the president of the United States.

Her public explanation was that as acting attorney general, she was bound by law not to defend potentially illegal actions by our government.

Several federal judges have agreed so far.

Various other legal scholars have lined up on each side.

Termin8tor » 09 May 2017 9:07 am » wrote:Are you blind or just plain stupid. Sure, she should refuse to enforce an Unconstitutional law by resigning.

Termin8tor » 09 May 2017 9:07 am » wrote:Clearly she has "grown" during her Beltway career, like so many other hacks have. She might well have been someone to admire years ago, but not over her most recent action.

Termin8tor » 09 May 2017 9:07 am » wrote: It included other countries, but don't let the truth get in the way of your endless lies.

Termin8tor » 09 May 2017 9:07 am » wrote:This directive will be easily upheld by SCOTUS, perhaps by a 9-0 margin.

Huey » 08 May 2017 4:37 pm » wrote: Your thread is the **** cesspool of the forum for crissakes.

Misty » 09 May 2017 9:38 am » wrote:


Guess Huey decided to take a dip in the '**** cesspool.'

Misty » 09 May 2017 9:38 am » wrote:

Guess Huey decided to take a dip in the '**** cesspool.'

More than once.

Misty » 09 May 2017 9:38 am » wrote:

Guess Huey decided to take a dip in the '**** cesspool.'

More than once.

Huey » 09 May 2017 9:41 am » wrote: Now she is trolling those who are not posting but viewing. Jeez, she is such a troll. Remember,you want to be left alone you need to STFU. LMAO! I guess she will ****** out and put this in Peanut Gallery to hide her instigating.

Huey » 09 May 2017 9:41 am » wrote: Now she is trolling those who are not posting but viewing.

Huey » 09 May 2017 9:41 am » wrote: Jeez, she is such a troll. Remember,you want to be left alone you need to STFU. LMAO! I guess she will ****** out and put this in Peanut Gallery to hide her instigating.