Why Yates Had to Go...

[g5000]

For the special retards: Office of Legal Counsel | Department of Justice

By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

Seriously, saying to follow the law over partisan politics doesn't warrant a response? If we were talking about Republicans, that standard would suddenly change, wouldn't it?

Anyone who argues that judges appointed by democrats should be ignored, does not warrant a serious response.

I believe he was more specifically referring to judges appointed by Democrats who are acting in public partisan political hacking

I guess that the only want they can be identified, and separated from other judges appointed by democrats would be for them to wear name tags reading: "judge appointed by Democrats who is acting in public partisan political hacking."

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

She served as Acting United States Attorney General from January 20, 2017 until her dismissal by President Donald Trump on January 30, 2017.

Not a resume enhancer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[QUOTE="g5000, post: 16460579, member: 34052"
Actually, that is precisely her job, dumbass.[/quote]


No retard, that is the job of the Supreme Court, That DailyKOS programmed you to spew moronic partisan bullshit, notwithstanding.

When a President wants to write a law, he consults the AG for its legalities.

Jesus, get a fucking grip, retard.

An EO is not a law, shit fer brains, as you shrieked for 8 years, when your beloved Obama was in charge.

You're a shit spewing monkey, with the IQ of a garbage pale. The idiocy you post is not worthy of consideration.

 

[g5000]

Yates felt the EO was not lawful. For that, she was fired.

Pretty simple.

Since she was one of our nation's top lawyers, her opinion on the lawfulness of Trump's EO has more weight than all of the tards on this forum put together.

Only the courts will be able to determine whether her legal opinion was correct. Not the editors of a magazine.

 

[kaz]

Yates is following the tradition of the resistance that rightly developed to Nixon, when he went so far over the line of ethics that something had to be done. I have hopes that this will grow until Trump ends up in the same dustpan of history,

Trump did noting unethical here, she just politically disagreed with him. She had the right to speak, he had the right to fire her. And he did as any boss would do to someone objecting to his policies. She shouldn't have been there in the first place, she's a left wingnut

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

She was following the law. My god, what you idiots won't do to defend your Fuehrer.

There was no law she was following. My god, what you Democrat dick suckers won't do to defend your party

 

[g5000]

An EO is not a law, shit fer brains, as you shrieked for 8 years, when your beloved Obama was in charge.

I never said that, liar.

ex·ec·u·tive or·der
noun

1. a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yates made a brave effort. God bless her.

She served as Acting United States Attorney General from January 20, 2017 until her dismissal by President Donald Trump on January 30, 2017.

Not a resume enhancer.

She defied tyranny. She can put that on here resume now.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yates felt the EO was not lawful. For that, she was fired.

Pretty simple.

Since she was one of our nation's top lawyers, her opinion on the lawfulness of Trump's EO has more weight than all of the tards on this forum put together.

Only the courts will be able to determine whether her legal opinion was correct. Not the editors of a magazine.

True, but it has been explained to me here that all the federal judges who decided that the EO was unconstitutional as written, are democratic political hacks, so their rulings don't count. i confess that, when I went to law school for 7 months in the 1970's, that was not covered in class, but maybe I missed it since I did not attend the full 2 years.

 

[kaz]

Democrat appointed judges???? Hahahahahahaha! Let's follow the law, kiddo.

Does not even qualify for the dignity of a serious response. Maybe you should find out if the Judge has Mexican ancestry?

Seriously, saying to follow the law over partisan politics doesn't warrant a response? If we were talking about Republicans, that standard would suddenly change, wouldn't it?

Anyone who argues that judges appointed by democrats should be ignored, does not warrant a serious response.

I believe he was more specifically referring to judges appointed by Democrats who are acting in public partisan political hacking

I guess that the only want they can be identified, and separated from other judges appointed by democrats would be for them to wear name tags reading: "judge appointed by Democrats who is acting in public partisan political hacking."

We know who they are

 

[g5000]

Trump disagrees with Yates on the lawfulness of his EO. Of course he does. It is HIS order.

It is also his perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch he wishes.

I do not dispute his right to do so at all. Get that clear.

What is also clear is that the AG felt the EO was unlawful. No one here has any authority to say she was wrong. You have nothing but opinions, not legal expertise.

The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the EO. Which is precisely why Trump fired Yates, because it would have been her job to defend it in court when that time comes, and she said she would not.

Since Trump will need someone to defend his EO in court, he has to fire the person who won't and replace her with someone who will.

One can't help but wonder how half-hearted Sessions will defend the EO since he said during his confirmation hearing he is against a Muslim ban.

As it stands right now, there is already a federal injunction by a judge against part of Trump's EO.

 

[Jackson]

For the special retards: Office of Legal Counsel | Department of Justice

By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement.

he Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies

And her legal advice was that she wasn't sure. Uneducated Ass't. Attorney General.

Yates felt the EO was not lawful. For that, she was fired.

Pretty simple.

Since she was one of our nation's top lawyers, her opinion on the lawfulness of Trump's EO has more weight than all of the tards on this forum put together.

Only the courts will be able to determine whether her legal opinion was correct. Not the editors of a magazine.

She was an Obama flunkie, similar to Holder and did not apply any law! She just said she wasn't convinced that it was legal. Perhaps some investigation into Title 8 would have helped her indecision.

 

[Jackson]

Trump disagrees with Yates on the lawfulness of his EO. Of course he does. It is HIS order.

It is also his perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch he wishes.

I do not dispute his right to do so at all. Get that clear.

What is also clear is that the AG felt the EO was unlawful. No one here has any authority to say she was wrong. You have nothing but opinions, not legal expertise.

The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the EO. Which is precisely why Trump fired Yates, because it would have been her job to defend it in court when that time comes, and she said she would not.

Since Trump will need someone to defend his EO in court, he has to fire the person who won't and replace her with someone who will.

One can't help but wonder how half-hearted Sessions will defend the EO since he said during his confirmation hearing he is against a Muslim ban.

As it stands right now, there is already a federal injunction by a judge against part of Trump's EO.

And that injunction doesn't mean anything. Trump applied the law.

 

[g5000]

For the special retards: Office of Legal Counsel | Department of Justice

By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement.

he Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies

And her legal advice was that she wasn't sure. Uneducated Ass't. Attorney General.

Yates felt the EO was not lawful. For that, she was fired.

Pretty simple.

Since she was one of our nation's top lawyers, her opinion on the lawfulness of Trump's EO has more weight than all of the tards on this forum put together.

Only the courts will be able to determine whether her legal opinion was correct. Not the editors of a magazine.

She was an Obama flunkie, similar to Holder and did not apply any law! She just said she wasn't convinced that it was legal. Perhaps some investigation into Title 8 would have helped her indecision.

Yeah, the top law enforcement in the United States was unaware of Title 8.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[g5000]

Trump disagrees with Yates on the lawfulness of his EO. Of course he does. It is HIS order.

It is also his perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch he wishes.

I do not dispute his right to do so at all. Get that clear.

What is also clear is that the AG felt the EO was unlawful. No one here has any authority to say she was wrong. You have nothing but opinions, not legal expertise.

The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the EO. Which is precisely why Trump fired Yates, because it would have been her job to defend it in court when that time comes, and she said she would not.

Since Trump will need someone to defend his EO in court, he has to fire the person who won't and replace her with someone who will.

One can't help but wonder how half-hearted Sessions will defend the EO since he said during his confirmation hearing he is against a Muslim ban.

As it stands right now, there is already a federal injunction by a judge against part of Trump's EO.

And that injunction doesn't mean anything. Trump applied the law.

Actually, the injunction does mean something. Do you have no fucking clue at all what an injunction is? You aren't doing a very good job of demonstrating your legal expertise!

 

[Jackson]

For the special retards: Office of Legal Counsel | Department of Justice

By delegation from the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement.

he Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies

And her legal advice was that she wasn't sure. Uneducated Ass't. Attorney General.

Yates felt the EO was not lawful. For that, she was fired.

Pretty simple.

Since she was one of our nation's top lawyers, her opinion on the lawfulness of Trump's EO has more weight than all of the tards on this forum put together.

Only the courts will be able to determine whether her legal opinion was correct. Not the editors of a magazine.

She was an Obama flunkie, similar to Holder and did not apply any law! She just said she wasn't convinced that it was legal. Perhaps some investigation into Title 8 would have helped her indecision.

Yeah, the top law enforcement in the United States was unaware of Title 8.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Then why didn't she allude to it?

 

[Jackson]

Trump disagrees with Yates on the lawfulness of his EO. Of course he does. It is HIS order.

It is also his perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch he wishes.

I do not dispute his right to do so at all. Get that clear.

What is also clear is that the AG felt the EO was unlawful. No one here has any authority to say she was wrong. You have nothing but opinions, not legal expertise.

The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the EO. Which is precisely why Trump fired Yates, because it would have been her job to defend it in court when that time comes, and she said she would not.

Since Trump will need someone to defend his EO in court, he has to fire the person who won't and replace her with someone who will.

One can't help but wonder how half-hearted Sessions will defend the EO since he said during his confirmation hearing he is against a Muslim ban.

As it stands right now, there is already a federal injunction by a judge against part of Trump's EO.

And that injunction doesn't mean anything. Trump applied the law.

Actually, the injunction does mean something. Do you have no fucking clue at all what an injunction is? You aren't doing a very good job of demonstrating your legal expertise!

Perhaps you missed this...

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I, too, once refused an order of my boss, and lost my job as a result. However, I ended up testifying against him in front a of a grand jury, and he ended up pleading guilty for fraud. Yes, that is what liberals do. deal with it.

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Non-Americans have no Constitutional right to enter this country

As a cop told me many yeas ago when I tried to talk my way out of a traffic ticket, "Tell that to the judge".

The burden isn't on Trump

The burden is on the DOJ and the current AG did her job. And of course the thin-skinned orange goon couldn't handle it. He thinks the Constitution is some bombed-out sunken ship in Pearl Harbor.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Trump disagrees with Yates on the lawfulness of his EO. Of course he does. It is HIS order.

It is also his perogative to fire anyone in the Executive branch he wishes.

I do not dispute his right to do so at all. Get that clear.

What is also clear is that the AG felt the EO was unlawful. No one here has any authority to say she was wrong. You have nothing but opinions, not legal expertise.

The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the EO. Which is precisely why Trump fired Yates, because it would have been her job to defend it in court when that time comes, and she said she would not.

Since Trump will need someone to defend his EO in court, he has to fire the person who won't and replace her with someone who will.

One can't help but wonder how half-hearted Sessions will defend the EO since he said during his confirmation hearing he is against a Muslim ban.

As it stands right now, there is already a federal injunction by a judge against part of Trump's EO.

And that injunction doesn't mean anything. Trump applied the law.

Actually, the injunction does mean something. Do you have no fucking clue at all what an injunction is? You aren't doing a very good job of demonstrating your legal expertise!

Perhaps you missed this...

It is a very simple proposition. Our Constitution vests all executive power — not some of it, all of it — in the president of the United States. Executive-branch officials do not have their own power. They are delegated by the president to execute his power. If they object to the president’s policies, their choice is clear: salute and enforce the president’s directives, or honorably resign. There is no third way.

No, it does not. Absolutely wrong. That is an autocracy/monarchy you are describing.

"""The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances."""

"""Judicial Branch

• Checks on the Legislature
  • Judicial review
  • Seats are held on good behavior
  • Compensation cannot be diminished
• Checks on the Executive
  • Judicial review
  • Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment"""

 

[kaz]

False analogy, Trump did nothing wrong, she just disagreed with him

As it stands right now, several federal judges have agreed that what Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional. Therefor, what Trump did was, in fact, wrong.

Non-Americans have no Constitutional right to enter this country

As a cop told me many yeas ago when I tried to talk my way out of a traffic ticket, "Tell that to the judge".

The burden isn't on Trump

The burden is on the DOJ and the current AG did her job. And of course the thin-skinned orange goon couldn't handle it. He thinks the Constitution is some bombed-out sunken ship in Pearl Harbor.

Yes, you had a thick skin over Republicans criticizing Obama ... liar ...