It's a pretty straightforward question, and you refuse to answer it.
Meanwhile, if an attorney perceives that the only way forward is to make false or otherwise disqualifying arguments, it is exactly that attorney's job to refuse to do so.
The Muslim Ban Has Begun!
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
It's a pretty straightforward question, and you refuse to answer it.
Meanwhile, if an attorney perceives that the only way forward is to make false or otherwise disqualifying arguments, it is exactly that attorney's job to refuse to do so.
A bold choice, and the moral one. It would make more of an impact than resigning.
If the president says, "enforce this policy" (the president does not set out legislation, which by definition comes from the legislature) and the attorney perceives that attempting to enforce this policy in the courts requires expressing false or otherwise disqualifying statements thus creating legal exposure for both federal attorney and boss (except the boss can hide behind "executive privilege" despite having deliberately disregarded the safeguards) do you believe that attorney, for being part of the Department of Justice, should be obliged to make false or otherwise disqualifying statements in court?
That is to say: Sarkus, do you support obliging government lawyers to lie?
Did the acting AG speak out, when Obama banned Iraqis from immigrating? Or did she suddenly discover her conscience and speak based on politics?My guess is she knew her days were numbered since a new AG would soon take over. She was looking to the future and decide to speak up and sabotage Trump, in exchange for a new job. All we need to do is wait and see what her new position in the DNC will be and how much she gets paid. Does anyone know how much she was offered?
Well here is the thing Wellwisher, you are yet again either mindlessly or intentionally repeating lies which have been told to you by Trump or by your beloved right wing entertainers, e.g. Fox News, Sean Hannity, et al. Obama never implemented anything similar to what Trump did.
"Another former official, Eric P. Schwartz, the assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration at the time, also told The Fact Checker that Trump’s statement is false:
“President Obama never imposed a six-month ban on Iraqi processing. For several months in 2011, there was a lower level of Iraqi resettlement, as the government implemented certain security enhancements. Indeed, as we identified new and valuable opportunities to enhance screening, we did so. Nobody should object to a continual effort to identify legitimate enhancements, but it is disreputable to use that as a pretext to effectively shut down a program that is overwhelmingly safe and has enabled the United States to exercise world leadership. In any event, there was never a point during that period in which Iraqi resettlement was stopped, or banned.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ilar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.2b6c082830f9
That's not even remotely similar to what Trump has done. Trump has imposed a blanket ban on immigration from 9 nations. Those nations have never produced terrorists which have attacked the US on our soil. The odd thing is, if what Trump said were true about his motives, then why ban immigrants from lands which have never attacked us? Wouldn't you want to ban immigrants from nations whose immigrants have actually attacked us on our soil? Trump exempted those nations from his executive order. I wonder why? Could it be because he has financial interest in those countries where he as none in the countries affected by his executive order?
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions about Attorney General Yates? Because if you do, now is the time to show it. But we both know you don't. You are doing what you always do attempt to smear a good person's name to further your ideology: seig heil. Unfortunately for you and those like you, the truth still matters.
Last edited:
Actually it is more a case of not following the dictates of her job
Ummm so her job would have been to state ' the highly probable illegal nature of the order ' to POTUS
I'll go with that
Oh wait she didn't do that
She went public and called the Order immoral
Big big no no
She didn't and it never happens
The myriad of Terms and Conditions along with laws surrounding the position
Third choice third choice let me think what that would be
Ummm
Could it be stuff up the job and get fired?
The one she chose
Was not aware I had shown preference for any of the options
I take it this would be when the matter has been placed before the court?
Who would be offering a deal to POTUS?
The lawyers bringing the matter to the court on behalf of the public?
What would that kind of deal look like?
Normally the justice department. In this case, it would likely be the judge acting as intermediary between government and plaintiff. "If he rescinds the EO, then the plaintiff will no longer pursue the court case. Is that acceptable to you? Yes? In that case, let the record show . . . "
an American Hero!!!
She's my Superwoman! She's real!!!!!
"Truth , Justice and the American way"
Sorry I thought suggesting on a reflection of her choices would remove the must part of the equation
So to answer your question directly NO
So Michael 345 just to be confident you and wellwisher and other Trumpettes are on the same page...
Re-view this video and ask Who is trumps Boss?
and then note by extension the same for Sally Yates.
Re-view this video and ask Who is trumps Boss?
and then note by extension the same for Sally Yates.
Last edited:
It is utterly amazing that in so few a days Trump has managed to falsify his own inauguration!!!
And
"If he rescinds the EO, then the plaintiff will no longer pursue the court case. Is that acceptable to you? No? Court date is set for 2nd November"
Quantum Quack,
It is not "trump nutter", that is derogatory, use "Trumpette" instead.
It is not "trump nutter", that is derogatory, use "Trumpette" instead.
Every person who expected to carry out an illegal order has the same obligation to say "No I will not" and seek advice as to legality...
How many persons in the USA Government are going to breach and have breached their oath of office will be very interesting...
How many sackings and how many resignation do you think are likely?
"get with the illegal program or get out"
How many persons in the USA Government are going to breach and have breached their oath of office will be very interesting...
How many sackings and how many resignation do you think are likely?
"get with the illegal program or get out"
Bells
Staff member
The dictates of her job is to not break the law or support or abet others in breaking the law and acting in a way that is not Constitutional.
She would have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. So she was "following the dictates of her job".
The dictates of her job is to not follow every whim of the President. She would have been in breach of her oath to her office had she said that she would defend a law that is clearly questionable and more than likely, not constitutional.
POTUS should have consulted with her and her department about the Order he signed. He failed to do so.
She was asked an opinion about the Order and she gave her response as best she could and correctly advised that she would not be instructing her department to defend it because the Order itself was questionable and possibly illegal and not Constitutional. Would you prefer she lied?
Because this is what you seem to be demanding she should have done.
She did not call it immoral. Her comments to her staff and her department were to advise them about the very possible illegality of his Order to ban Muslims. Her role is to act in accordance with the Constitution and to defend it, that is the oath she took and they all took.
She was effectively fired and publicly demonised for instructing her staff to follow the law and abide by the US Constitution.
How naive are you?
The AG that replaced her advised that she would be defending Trump's order, despite the courts around the country flagging it and attempting to halt it for the very reason that Yates flagged to her staff.
It never happens? Leaders of nations that descend into despotic regimes always appoint AG's that do what they are told, despite the illegal nature of what they are instructed by their leaders to follow.
We are seeing this happen right now in the US. Trump and his Administration had those who helped craft the Order sign confidentiality agreements, they failed to see to the legality of the Order itself and they attempted to instruct the AG and her department to do as he wanted, despite the legal questions hanging over the Order itself. It was done in secret.. He expected everyone to fall in line and do his bidding. He fired Yates because she refused to and instead upheld the oath she took and correctly instructed her staff to not defend it because of its dubious legality. And you think it never happens?
Is directly in breach of the 1965 Statute. Trump, instead, relied on an earlier version of the Statute.. In other words, Trump and his Administration completely ignored the current law they should be following (not to mention the US Constitution) and relied on a law that is no longer followed or used in the US because that law was amended in 1965.
The tone and instructions of the Order are deliberately vague, which resulted in legal residents in the US denied entry in the US after going on an overseas holiday, because of their country of birth.
You are literally suggesting that the AG breaches her oath and instructs her staff to breach their oath's to support an Executive Order that is a direct breach of the law and the Constitution.
exactly!
She has a case for unfair dismissal IMO
All persons, who are by virtue of their employment, that enforce this illegal order are also in breach of the constitution.
All person sacked for failure to comply and all persons forced to resign can also claim unfair dismissal or similar...
Sally has cleverly published by default of her sacking, a serious legal opinion that Trumps order is seriously flawed and potentially illegal. The whole world now know about it.
Including all those who continue to uphold Trumps order.
She is an American hero!
And the whole world knows it
Ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say...
Last edited:
edited my post... thanks....Political correctness is called for.. I agree