Fired Sally Yates: ‘Firing Rosenstein Would Be an Unconscionable Assault on the Rule of Law’

[skye]

I thought that Yates woman was in jail!

 

[radical right]

https://www.quora.com/If-a-Presiden...rges-and-end-the-trial-as-in-a-criminal-trial

The Senate has the “power,” not the “duty,” to try impeachments. Thus, by majority vote, the Senate could simply stop all proceedings in the middle of an impeachment trial and refuse to continue it, indefinitely. In effect, this would be a lot like dismissing a criminal case.

 

[OKTexas]

The USSC is never going to see the appeal of the first two travel bans because they gave up trying to defend them. They kept modifying them until they were no longer clearly unconstitutional.

Then explain what is being appealed. The president has the law and Constitution on his side and SCOTUS will tell the lower courts they have no jurisdiction on the matter and it will be settled once and for all. I'll be very surprised if that decision isn't 9-0, the law is too clear.


.

The only thing the USSC can possibly rule on is the 3rd and final version of the travel ban. And that has already been allowed by the lower courts, so the USSC isn't going to grant cert on a decision they agree with.

Actually appeals are still pending form the 9th. The court reversed their stay but it's still in the system.


.

 

[Care4all]

she is right...if trump gets rosenstein fired that would be the last straw in trump's slow mo Saturday night massacre, and it would be impeachment hearings beginning....

there are 43 republican retiring in the house with no worries of Trump's Wrath...added to the dems and impeachment would happen if Rosenstein goes by the wayside and it would seal the deal on Trump's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charge.

It won't be Trump's fault he's impeached by congress. It will be Rosensteins'

congress can impeach him? If so, for what? he's the president's appointment....if the president has legal reasons to fire him, that ha nothing to do with Mueller, the special counsel, or Cohen's search warrant signed off on then he could....

the problem is, Trump has been mouthing off about Rosenstein for a year now on the Mueller investigation and Rosenstein's firing or impeachment (which won't happen), would be known BY EVERYONE, that it was to obstruct the mueller investigation.....

many liberals are hoping he has it done or does it....they are ready to impeach!

if you do not want him to be impeached, then you all need to tell him NOT to do it!!!!

They'll start with contempt of congress for not providing subpoenaed material and work their way up form there. Rosenstein isn't immune form oversight.


.

they are part of an ongoing criminal investigation,

Nunes can have them when the investigation is done, by getting them from the Judicial Committee

...who will be reviewing them in their impeachment hearings for Trump!!!

 

[radical right]

The only thing the USSC can possibly rule on is the 3rd and final version of the travel ban. And that has already been allowed by the lower courts, so the USSC isn't going to grant cert on a decision they agree with.

Actually appeals are still pending form the 9th. The court reversed their stay but it's still in the system.


.

As I said the USSC isn't going to grant cert if they agree with the lower court. An by what you've said, they agree with the lower court.
Unless the 9th reverses, and issues an injunction.

 

[OKTexas]

https://www.quora.com/If-a-Presiden...rges-and-end-the-trial-as-in-a-criminal-trial

The Senate has the “power,” not the “duty,” to try impeachments. Thus, by majority vote, the Senate could simply stop all proceedings in the middle of an impeachment trial and refuse to continue it, indefinitely. In effect, this would be a lot like dismissing a criminal case.

Seems you and the ignorant author think the Senate presides over an impeachment trial, the Senate is the jury, a judge presides.


.

 

[Care4all]

Rosenstein is a by the book kind of guy, (that's why Trump hates him....)

if he's not turning them over, then Mueller is using them in his criminal investigation in some way, guaranteed!

 

[OKTexas]

she is right...if trump gets rosenstein fired that would be the last straw in trump's slow mo Saturday night massacre, and it would be impeachment hearings beginning....

there are 43 republican retiring in the house with no worries of Trump's Wrath...added to the dems and impeachment would happen if Rosenstein goes by the wayside and it would seal the deal on Trump's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charge.

It won't be Trump's fault he's impeached by congress. It will be Rosensteins'

congress can impeach him? If so, for what? he's the president's appointment....if the president has legal reasons to fire him, that ha nothing to do with Mueller, the special counsel, or Cohen's search warrant signed off on then he could....

the problem is, Trump has been mouthing off about Rosenstein for a year now on the Mueller investigation and Rosenstein's firing or impeachment (which won't happen), would be known BY EVERYONE, that it was to obstruct the mueller investigation.....

many liberals are hoping he has it done or does it....they are ready to impeach!

if you do not want him to be impeached, then you all need to tell him NOT to do it!!!!

They'll start with contempt of congress for not providing subpoenaed material and work their way up form there. Rosenstein isn't immune form oversight.


.

they are part of an ongoing criminal investigation,

Nunes can have them when the investigation is done, by getting them from the Judicial Committee

...who will be reviewing them in their impeachment hearings for Trump!!!

Actually they have nothing to do with a criminal investigation, they're the documents the IG gathered in his investigation into how the bitches investigation was handled. Others are just old FISA warrant applications.


.

 

[Care4all]

she is right...if trump gets rosenstein fired that would be the last straw in trump's slow mo Saturday night massacre, and it would be impeachment hearings beginning....

there are 43 republican retiring in the house with no worries of Trump's Wrath...added to the dems and impeachment would happen if Rosenstein goes by the wayside and it would seal the deal on Trump's OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE charge.

It won't be Trump's fault he's impeached by congress. It will be Rosensteins'

congress can impeach him? If so, for what? he's the president's appointment....if the president has legal reasons to fire him, that ha nothing to do with Mueller, the special counsel, or Cohen's search warrant signed off on then he could....

the problem is, Trump has been mouthing off about Rosenstein for a year now on the Mueller investigation and Rosenstein's firing or impeachment (which won't happen), would be known BY EVERYONE, that it was to obstruct the mueller investigation.....

many liberals are hoping he has it done or does it....they are ready to impeach!

if you do not want him to be impeached, then you all need to tell him NOT to do it!!!!

They'll start with contempt of congress for not providing subpoenaed material and work their way up form there. Rosenstein isn't immune form oversight.


.

they are part of an ongoing criminal investigation,

Nunes can have them when the investigation is done, by getting them from the Judicial Committee

...who will be reviewing them in their impeachment hearings for Trump!!!

Actually they have nothing to do with a criminal investigation, they're the documents the IG gathered in his investigation into how the bitches investigation was handled. Others are just old FISA warrant applications.


.

sure....but if they have nothing to do with the special counsel, then why do they need to go to rosenstein for them, why not sessions??

 

[OKTexas]

Rosenstein is a by the book kind of guy, (that's why Trump hates him....)

if he's not turning them over, then Mueller is using them in his criminal investigation in some way, guaranteed!

Not what he's claiming, he's slow walking everything saying it takes time to review them. That's why Sessions appointed another attorney to do the reviews. BTW if Rosenstein is is held in contempt of congress, that is the prefect reason to fire his ass.


.

 

[OKTexas]

It won't be Trump's fault he's impeached by congress. It will be Rosensteins'

congress can impeach him? If so, for what? he's the president's appointment....if the president has legal reasons to fire him, that ha nothing to do with Mueller, the special counsel, or Cohen's search warrant signed off on then he could....

the problem is, Trump has been mouthing off about Rosenstein for a year now on the Mueller investigation and Rosenstein's firing or impeachment (which won't happen), would be known BY EVERYONE, that it was to obstruct the mueller investigation.....

many liberals are hoping he has it done or does it....they are ready to impeach!

if you do not want him to be impeached, then you all need to tell him NOT to do it!!!!

They'll start with contempt of congress for not providing subpoenaed material and work their way up form there. Rosenstein isn't immune form oversight.


.

they are part of an ongoing criminal investigation,

Nunes can have them when the investigation is done, by getting them from the Judicial Committee

...who will be reviewing them in their impeachment hearings for Trump!!!

Actually they have nothing to do with a criminal investigation, they're the documents the IG gathered in his investigation into how the bitches investigation was handled. Others are just old FISA warrant applications.


.

sure....but if they have nothing to do with the special counsel, then why do they need to go to rosenstein for them, why not sessions??

Because Sessions was dumb enough to recuse himself form all things Russia and the bitch.


.

 

[radical right]

Seems you and the ignorant author think the Senate presides over an impeachment trial, the Senate is the jury, a judge presides.


.

read the constitution, in all impeachments except for the president where the chief justice presides, it's held by the senate. No judge.

Normal rules of order preside. Including motions from the floor.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

 

[radical right]

Seems you and the ignorant author think the Senate presides over an impeachment trial, the Senate is the jury, a judge presides.
.

The constitution says your'e wrong, and more importantly the US senate says you're wrong

U.S. Senate: Impeachment

In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate Chamber serves as the courtroom. The Senate becomes jury and judge, except in the case of presidential impeachment trials when the chief justice of the United States presides.

 

[OKTexas]

Seems you and the ignorant author think the Senate presides over an impeachment trial, the Senate is the jury, a judge presides.


.

read the constitution, in all impeachments except for the president where the chief justice presides, it's held by the senate. No judge.

Normal rules of order preside. Including motions from the floor.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be
convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

For once you're right about no judge, the VP would appoint an impeachment committee of 3 Senators and would make decisions on all points of order.

Beginning in the 1980s with Harry E. Claiborne, the Senate began using "Impeachment Trial Committees" pursuant to Senate Rule XI.[8] These committees presided over the evidentiary phase of the trials, hearing the evidence and supervising the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The committees would then compile the evidentiary record and present it to the Senate; all senators would then have the opportunity to review the evidence before the chamber voted to convict or acquit. The purpose of the committees was to streamline impeachment trials, which otherwise would have taken up a great deal of the chamber's time. Defendants challenged the use of these committees, claiming them to be a violation of their fair trial rights as well as the Senate's constitutional mandate, as a body, to have "sole power to try all impeachments." Several impeached judges sought court intervention in their impeachment proceedings on these grounds, but the courts refused to become involved due to the Constitution's granting of impeachment and removal power solely to the legislative branch, making it a political question.


.

 

[bripat9643]

What does a person who refused to uphold a Presidential travel-ban EO know about the "rule of law"?

She richly deserved to be shitcanned.

dummy, Sally KNEW it was unconstitutional and refused to argue for it.... and she swore under oath in her confirmation hearing that if a president asked her to do something unconstitutional, what would she do? and her answer was, I WOULD NOT DO IT....

AND guess what silly one?

IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And ruled as such....and Trump's E/O was shut down....

Is that why it was finally ruled to be constitutional?

You really one great big dumbass.

 

[radical right]

[
For once you're right about no judge,
.

So the senate could consider it a waste of time, and on motion by a majority dismiss the charges.

 

[radical right]

What does a person who refused to uphold a Presidential travel-ban EO know about the "rule of law"?

She richly deserved to be shitcanned.

dummy, Sally KNEW it was unconstitutional and refused to argue for it.... and she swore under oath in her confirmation hearing that if a president asked her to do something unconstitutional, what would she do? and her answer was, I WOULD NOT DO IT....

AND guess what silly one?

IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And ruled as such....and Trump's E/O was shut down....

Is that why it was finally ruled to be constitutional?

You really one great big dumbass.

That was version number three. Versions 1 and 2 remain unconstitutional. And version 1 was the one Sally Yates refused to enforce, because it was illegal.

 

[OKTexas]

[
For once you're right about no judge,
.

So the senate could consider it a waste of time, and on motion by a majority dismiss the charges.

I guess you don't read so well, the full senate isn't even involved until it's time to render a verdict.


.

 

[Care4all]

[
For once you're right about no judge,
.

So the senate could consider it a waste of time, and on motion by a majority dismiss the charges.

I guess you don't read so well, the full senate isn't even involved until it's time to render a verdict.


.

I thought the Senators act as prosecutors of sorts as well, during the trial, before the votes are cast????

 

[OKTexas]

[
For once you're right about no judge,
.

So the senate could consider it a waste of time, and on motion by a majority dismiss the charges.

I guess you don't read so well, the full senate isn't even involved until it's time to render a verdict.


.

I thought the Senators act as prosecutors of sorts as well, during the trial, before the votes are cast????

The house provides the prosecutors, according to wiki and other articles, the presiding officer of the Senate, which is the VP, appoints a 3 member senate committee to hear evidence from both sides, compile it and present it to the senate for a verdict.


.