former presidential candidate senator ted cruz,basking in his own smugness,was looking for a gotcha to pin sally yates during her testimony at the recent senate hearings.he was going to crush this uppity former attorney general.
and then that smugness is wiped off that greasy mans face in a matter of seconds.
the line of questioning was in regards to sally yates,then attorney general,had openly defied presidential orders to prosecute the ninth circuit court judge william orrick who had slapped an injunction on trumps ill-thought,and ill-written refugee executive order.
her employment was terminated due to her doing her fucking JOB!
oh my god..i am still laughing at cruz,and that FACE...lmao...
from boing boing:
Ted Cruz wanted to grill Former acting attorney general Sally Yates about Trump’s Muslim ban at Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing about Michael Flynn's tie to Russia. He read a passage from the Immigration and Naturalization Act that gives the president the power to limit US immigration and asked Yates if she would “agree that that is broad statutory authorization.”
She answered:
“I would. 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. I believe [that passage] was promulgated after the statute you just quoted. My concern here is not an INA concern here, it rather was a constitutional concern.”
The best part is hearing Cruz sputter in feeble protest.
12 Comments
newtboyIs anyone surprised that Ted only knew the parts of the law or facts that his staff told him would catch her out?
notarobotDoes Cruz always look so smug?
eric3579I could be wrong but i get the feeling anytime a senator trys to grill someone in a senate hearing, they get a pretty smug attitude/look.
He just got so worked over by her. What a tool
Does Cruz always look so smug?
SFOGuyHe was a champion college level debater. And it appears that he still thinks that being good at that odd exercise in silly rhetoric allows you wear that expression.
PlayhousePalsShe is .... *quality amazing!
siftbotBoosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by PlayhousePals.
harlequinnI'm still waiting for the smug look to disappear.
She has an interesting line of reasoning, but is it her place to question the constiutionality of something and implement decisions based on that questioning such that it hinders the functioning of government? Her employers certainly didn't think so.
newtboyOnly her last employer (Trump) thought that her doing her job was inappropriate.
Obama thought being warned his plans were unconstitutional before he implemented them was a good thing, as was having subordinates that we're more interested in serving the law rather than serving the president.
I'm still waiting for the smug look to disappear.
She has an interesting line of reasoning, but is it her place to question the constiutionality of something and implement decisions based on that questioning such that it hinders the functioning of government? Her employers certainly didn't think so.
enoch@harlequinn
i have witnessed many of my more right leaning friends on social media ask a very similar question,but ignore that the attorney general is first,and foremost,an agent of the court.
sally yates did nothing illegal.she simply was upholding a lawful injunction passed down from ninth circuit court federal judge william orrick.(who is a republican,for what it is worth).
what yates DID do was ignore an executive order commanding her to challenge the injunction,which she refused and told her subordinates to do the same.which is considered gross insubordination,and the reason she was fired,but she had every right and legal cover to ignore that EO.
the DOJ,and subsequently the attorney general,are not their for the presidents leisure.they are part of the judiciary branch,which is separate from the executive.though every president has replaced the current attorney general with one that most aligns with their politics.
the fact that so many diehard rightwingers see what yates did as anti-patriotic is a stance that i find very disturbing.that somehow by disobeying the president,she crossed some imaginary line,and therefore should be punished for her disobedience.
which she was! she was fired.
but to imply that disobeying an executive order is tantamount to treason,goes against the very ideology of our constitutional republic.the president is not KING.he does not wield absolute power.
and to pretend what yates did as illegal,and treasonous, for disobeying the president.... is fascism 101.
Fairbssays...I think if it wasn't amateur hour in the White House, a normal president would defer to the AG about constitutionality because ultimately it can be challenged in court. trump's whole approach is to push things through and if he gets roadblocked fire the person. Well that doesn't work in a well thought out system of checks and balances. And it makes you look foolish time and again if you use that approach.
I'm still waiting for the smug look to disappear.
She has an interesting line of reasoning, but is it her place to question the constiutionality of something and implement decisions based on that questioning such that it hinders the functioning of government? Her employers certainly didn't think so.
bobknight33Ted was correct. Trump is correct.
President has the authority.
newtboyFunny, the courts all disagree.
Ted was correct. Trump is correct.
President has the authority.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.