Sally Yates Owned and Humiliated Ted Cruz

I strongly encourage you to watch the the full exchange. As an attorney, Ted Cruz is perfectly capable of crafting a question that sounds damaging before you hear the answer. But when you run into a Law Dawg who is able to handle herself, then you get the aforementioned demolition of Ted Cruz.

 

yeah I saw the clip, not sure why you are saying Cruz got owned

 

Yeah, she is certainly a lawyer and like Hillary can say boat loads without saying anything.

 

Watching her put Ted six feet under gave me great pleasure. He'a such a pompous ass.

 

Yates is no shrinking violet, and she defended her decision well. The constitutional aspect will ultimately be decided by the SCOTUS, but as a strong case can be made on both sides, Yates is not likely to be judged harshly, regardless of the outcome. She stood by her principles, and that counts for something.

 

Mostly because Cruz crafted his questions in order to be as narrow as possible and to be as damaging to Sally Yates as possible. In response, Sally Yates not only came across as candid, reasonable, but more knowledgeable about the very topic that Ted Cruz chose to focus upon during his cross examination.

My opinion on this front is not unique. Wolf Blitzer said, "she basically crushed him."

 

Yes, and I can certainly understand the point that Ted Cruz was making - namely that while her argument on the Constitutional issue was reasonable, it was an argument that should have been made by litigants and not by the acting Attorney General when deciding whether to enforce the travel ban.

However, the circumstances with which that ban was enacted can not be understated. The Trump administration tossed out the travel ban, effectively immediately, and gave almost zero warning to any of the relevant departments - including the acting attorney general.

I also find it interesting that we learned the timing of her final meeting regarding her warnings of Michael Flynn was also the day Trump issued the travel ban, the day Sally Yates refused to enforce the Travel ban, and the day that Trump fired Sally Yates.

 

Yates laying her cards on the table actually saved Pence, Trump, from further embarrassment. Trump resented her stance on the ban.

 

She slapped him around with class, Crooked Donnie slapped him around in the gutter.....

 

I guess it's because she managed to come up with a half baked defense. The history of the Law is on Trumps side here, but now it's when ever a person doesn't like the law they ignore it and pull something that has hardly anything to do with the issue at hand to justify there BS reasoning.

Really though she is out so it shouldn't matter, the main issue is the unchecked power of the court's to write laws from their behinds when a case comes into the court room.

 

No one has tried to implement a travel ban where the same person also made it explicitly clear that the travel ban was aimed at a religion. So I'm not sure what "history of the law" you're referencing.

 

It's been done before and the laws over of the Office allows him to do so. If people don't like it get the law's changed. Oh wait that's too hard so just get some established judge part of the cult to pull a ruling out of his or her behind because that is what the media cult expects them to do.

Just because a law is "newer" doesn't make it worth more than the older written law. Unless you want to set things up where congress could make a new law banning the 1st and can't be challenged because it's newer. Her defense was flawed based on emotion than the letter of the law. Without the letter of the law there isn't order, there isn't justice and there isn't a civilized society.

 

I can't tell if you are just trolling or really this ignorant...

A) There has never been a travel ban this extensive and this clearly based on religion.
B) No, you can not just write a new law to change the US Constitution because the US Constitution trumps legislative acts. However, you can write new legislation that alters or amends old legislation. Seriously guy...you said in the first paragraph that people should just change the law and then, in the second paragraph, you laugh at the notion that a newer law could override older law.

 

The travel ban didn't list religion in the actual order so that's just emotional BS based on feeling's instead of fact.

You clearly missed the point and it's my fault for not making it clear. What she quoted did NOT amend or alter the law that covers the presidents right to order a travel ban. She pulled a BS defense based not on logic but on her feeling's. That's fine but she should have just said so, this underhanded move just makes her look even more unprofessional.

Yes laws can be amended but you can't just use a law that has nothing to do with the older law and then claim that newer law matters more than the old one and that is what she did.

It's not trolling but fact, as the Constitution Trumps all and what she did was against the constitution so she was rightfully removed end of story.

 

Why are the same people defending Trump's position on the president being the authority on immigrants the same ones that fought Obama's authority on immigrants? Ironic isn't it?

 

Because Obama didn't want to enforce the immigration law that says illegal aliens shall be deported and his oath was to uphold our laws.

 

Well that is patently false. It is specifically within the President's authority to set immigration policy in the US.

 

You must realize that Obama deported more than any previous President, right?

 

The President can not set immigration policy in the US that runs counter to the US Constitution.

 

Good Lord.

 

Nope. It is only ironic to those who are so ignorant that they can't grasp the difference. The president has has the power to determine intake policy within the law as spelled out by Congress, he does NOT have the power to ignore the law. The law gives the President the ability to determine from where and how many immigrants can enter the country, but all of those entrants must follow the law. See how that works?

 

Indeed. But restricting travel from certain areas and setting quotas of who can and can't enter the country under various programs is entirely constitutional. All presidents set these policies, they are not written into the constitution or the law. That goes double for refugee intake. The law sets a cap on the numbers of refugees that can come in in a given year, the standing president will set quotas on where the refugees can come from.

 

Still doesn't give him the right to give orders to ignore the law he took an oath to uphold. That and no one buy's that he really deported them, maybe turned them around before they went deep into the states or better yet told them to show up at court but actually catching them and shipping them all the way back to where they came from isn't something he is known for.

 

That nonsense has been debunked so many times not even the hard left believe that anymore LOL

 

The problem for this President is that he actively and repeatedly campaigned on a travel ban that is based on religion and is thus, unconstitutional.