DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[knapplc]

This is the crazy part about the Flynn thing. She warned them, and they had 18 days to do something, but did nothing until the Washington Post exposed it all in a story.

 

[ZRod]

So, he lied. We already knew this. The admin is incompetent. We knew this. What does this change?

[knapplc]

It's part of due process. Patience.

[ZRod]

I don't want to wait for the future.

[Making Chimichangas]

So, he lied. We already knew this. The admin is incompetent. We knew this. What does this change?

 

It would change everything if the average Trump voter would wake up and admit they collectively made a horrifying mistake in voting for Putin's ____ holster.

 

It would change everything if Trump voters started demanding the same level of accountability from this administration that they demanded from the Obama administration.

 

Trump supporters were all about "Hillary For Prison." Where's that same level of demanding people who lie and break the law to go to jail regarding Trump and his corrupt administration?

[knapplc]

Yeah, the "lock her up" crowd, and the crowd that was openly opining right here on HuskerBoard when we should prosecute Hillary, really need to be chanting a different gender pronoun right now.

[QMany]

 

In other words: "Grassley, Corbyn, Cruz, and the rest of the GOP, STFU."

 

[schriznoeder]

Sounds like Cornyn and Cruz have literally left the building. I guess when your diversion tactics aren't working, you just up and leave?

[StPaulHusker]

Sounds like Cornyn and Cruz have literally left the building. I guess when your diversion tactics aren't working, you just up and leave?

I listened to their questions. They can't understand what Yates is telling them. She was literally too smart for them.

 

She said that the Office of Legal Counsel said that the EO on the travel ban only looks at the wording of an EO to determine it legal.

 

She said that the DOJ has to look at the intent of the EO to determine the constitutionality of defending it. In this case they felt it was religion driven so it was determined they couldn't defend it.

 

She was backed by 3 courts and the fact the EO was rescinded.

 

They still argued the OLC stating it was legal wording.

 

This isn't difficult to understand

[commando]

 

Sounds like Cornyn and Cruz have literally left the building. I guess when your diversion tactics aren't working, you just up and leave?

I listened to their questions. They can't understand what Yates is telling them. She was literally too smart for them.

 

She said that the Office of Legal Counsel said that the EO on the travel ban only looks at the wording of an EO to determine it legal.

 

She said that the DOJ has to look at the intent of the EO to determine the constitutionality of defending it. In this case they felt it was religion driven so it was determined they couldn't defend it.

 

She was backed by 3 courts and the fact the EO was rescinded.

 

They still argued the OLC stating it was legal wording.

 

This isn't difficult to understand

 

i didnt get to watch or listen to any of this...but if that was the subject of discussion i would say they succeeded at diverting from the russian connections

[NM11046]

 

Sounds like Cornyn and Cruz have literally left the building. I guess when your diversion tactics aren't working, you just up and leave?

I listened to their questions. They can't understand what Yates is telling them. She was literally too smart for them.

 

She said that the Office of Legal Counsel said that the EO on the travel ban only looks at the wording of an EO to determine it legal.

 

She said that the DOJ has to look at the intent of the EO to determine the constitutionality of defending it. In this case they felt it was religion driven so it was determined they couldn't defend it.

 

She was backed by 3 courts and the fact the EO was rescinded.

 

They still argued the OLC stating it was legal wording.

 

This isn't difficult to understand

 

It is - especially if it's not what you want to hear.

[zoogs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/08/sally-yates-demolishes-white-house-defenses/?tid=sm_Fb&utm_term=.695e7cb56d63

 

Yates is giving a tutorial in committee testifying. She just walloped not one but two GOP senators. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) tried to accuse her of misconduct in refusing to defend the Trump administration’s travel ban, which was ultimately blocked by multiple courts. Yates reminded him that at her confirmation hearing, Cornyn had asked if she would refuse to carry out an illegal or unconstitutional order. She recalled she had promised him she would indeed refuse. Ouch. Then up came Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) sleazily trying to get her to opine on Huma Abedin’s email habits(!). When that led nowhere, he took to quoting the statutory basis for the travel ban. She corrected him by pointing out that there was subsequent congressional action that specifically prohibited religious discrimination. Moreover, she took the opportunity to drop the news bomb that the administration ordered the Office of Legal Counsel to not even tell the acting attorney general the ban was in the works. Game, set, match.

[QMany]

 

I watched on PBS at the office. Mrs. Yates was impressive. Incredibly intelligent, prepared, succinct, and polite.

[Danny Bateman]

Ted Cruz gets out-Constiutioned:

 

[Danny Bateman]

John Cornyn gets whack-a-moled: