Click The Pic To Donate
Posted on 05/08/2017 9:16:55 PM PDT by Helicondelta
“Who appointed you to the United States Supreme Court?” pointedly asked Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.
He was grilling former acting attorney general Sally Yates about her refusal to enforce President Trump’s first executive order temporarily banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States until vetting procedures could be improved.
The senator pressed on, noting that it is the courts that determine what is constitutional, adding, “In fact, aren’t most acts of Congress presumed to be constitutional?”
Yates hesitantly responded, “They are presumed but they’re not always constitutional, and of course, I was not on the Supreme Court. And I can tell you, Senator, look, we really wrestled over this decision. I personally wrestled over this decision and it was not one that I took lightly at all. But it was because I took my responsibilities seriously.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Yates why she had refused to enforce that executive order when her own Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel had deemed it lawful, and a federal statute clearly gave the president the authority to implement the measure.
Yates replied she did not think the order was lawful because, citing a 1965 law prohibiting discrimination against immigrants based on race, religion or country of national origin, even though that law has never been used to overrule the statute giving the president broad authority to determine immigration policy.
Because she was not convinced that the order was lawful, Yates claimed, “It was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president’s actions.”
On the subject of political surveillance, Yates refused to say under oath if she knew of any person in the Obama administration who had requested the unmasking of anyone on President Trump’s campaign or transition team.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Finally a Republican senator with an edge......
>> Yates claimed, “It was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president’s actions.”
That is one cunning stunt.
She sure is. And she is getting paid well to lie about her own ‘intent’ and try to go after Trump on a ‘technical’ issue which has never been used by the Justice Department in our nation before, and for good reason. It was good enough for the Supreme Court, but she thinks she knows better.
As far as Trump’s intent... he made his intent clear. We agree with his intent. It’s the law. We want it enforced.
The BIG THING to take away from this incident(testimony) is....
She is the best they have. She was to deliver the torpedo that would take down Trump today.
She has admitted they were all spying on Trump, and that they really have only a legal question that has been part of accepted practice for generations. In other words, they got nothing.
Maybe she is a Trekky who fantasizes that she is Counsellor Troi
Sally go round the roses, they won’t tell your secret.
the MSM merely defended Yates by obfuscation
A Republican Congresscritter with balls? Nothing ever ever comes of these hearings - all wind and blather.
On the subject of political surveillance, Yates refused to say under oath if she knew of any person in the Obama administration who had requested the unmasking of anyone on President Trump’s campaign or transition team.
She knows,
She’s running for Senate.
Isn’t it about time that everybody wake up and realize that this Russia-Trump conspiracy is simply Democrats projecting? It is either what THEY have already done or are planning to do.
LOOK AT THE INTENT BEHIND THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS?
HOW ABOUT PROTECTING AMERICANS YOU DUMB UNEMPLOYABLE HOOOOR.
Yup , the second coming of ‘Rat Jesus ...
Yeah. Everything she is saying is with her senate run in mind.
She is a “folk hero” to the crazy anti-Trump crowd.
Bummer that they got their headline soundbite in an exchange with Cruz. I’ll bet that’s gnawing at Cruz.
I’d like to see an analysis of the 1965 statute that she claims supersedes the earlier one that gives the president nearly unlimited latitude in setting immigration policy.
Okay, I hate to say it but it looks like she has a leg to stand on WRT the 1965 law superseding the 1952 law that gives the pres broad authority on immigration. The 1965 law does seem to create a limit or exception to the powers expressed in the 1952 law.
This is according to a guy named Biers at the Cato Institute who seems to have been the main right wing critic of Andrew McCarthy’s reasoning on the subject.
https://www.cato.org/blog/trumps-exclusion-immigrants-specific-countries-not-legal
It appears to me that the 1965 law is terribly irresponsible and needs to be changed legislatively, but unfortunately it is on the books and gives leftists like Yates an excuse to stymie Trump’s reasonable, responsible orders.
Much of this mess started out as a misdirection by Hillary to distract us from her activities selling uranium to Russia for very substantial personal profit. Like any Democrat caught in a crime, she had to accuse others of what she is guilty of. Unfortunately, Hillary's self-serving accusations have grown and morphed and are costing taxpayers millions of dollars for the politicians to run around chasing squirrels.
I would like to see the taxpayers get their money back. Trump and Congress should recoup the costs from the Clinton foundation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.