May 9, 2017

Ted Cruz versus Sally Yates.

173 comments:

Jupiter said...

Apparently you don't need to be on the Supreme Court to discover umbrae and penumbrae. Ms Yates has discovered that the US Constitution provides protections for everyone on Earth. Probably aliens on other planets as well.

Unknown said...

I'm pretty sure Sally Yates was exposed.

EDH said...

The statute she quotes says "no person" shall be discriminated against but does not speak to categorical restriction on all similarly situated entrants from a particular country.

Did I get that right?

David Begley said...

Caption on video is wrong. Yates lost.

Danno said...

Methinks Trump should put Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court for the next vacancy to inflict supreme pain on the libtard population.

Hagar said...

Best comment from elsewhere: Sally Yates is now a star and only have to pick which state from which to run for Senator.

Mike Sylwester said...

Sally Yates Testifies She Has Never Been Questioned By FBI About Intelligence Leaks to Media

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/08/sally-yates-testifies-she-has-never-been-questioned-by-fbi-about-intelligence-leaks-to-media/comment-page-1/#comments

Even though the leaker was Sally Yates, the FBI still has not questioned her. The leak happened in January, and now we are in May. The FBI has not conducted any investigation of the leak and does not intend to do so.

In yesterday's hearing, Yates should have been asked for an explanation of exactly how Michael Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL because he violated THE LOGAN ACT.

Yates seems to imagine that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyakov had recorded his own telephone conversation with Flynn and that Kislyakov might threaten Flynn that the recording would be released to the public in order to expose Flynn as a violator of THE LOGAN ACT.

Is that how the RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL was supposed to happen?

Luke Lea said...

The second piece of law, the one she quotes, though enacted later, would seem to contradict the earlier one unless it were meant to apply only to the general case in which the President places no special or temporary restrictions on aliens coming into the U.S.. Aren't exceptions and qualifications to a general authority usually defined as such in the text of the law? I'm no lawyer.

Mike Sylwester said...

Sally Yates herself is vulnerable to blackmail, because she perjured herself on television yesterday. Anyone who can prove that Yates was the leaker can blackmail her.

David Begley said...

Leaker to WaPo will never be found. WaPo will never talk.

BDNYC said...

I like how she didn't recognize the section of the US Code that Trump relied on for the EO. I doubt she even read the OLC's analysis of the EO's lawfulness.

robother said...

The First Amendment of the US Constitution renders any enforcement of US borders unconstitutional.

Really? That's the position the Democrats want to stake their electoral future on? Well, at least its out in the open now.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

There was a bizarrely obfuscating discussion of the Yates testimony on NPR this morning. The interviewers and interviewees went on and on about how Flynn was "compromised," but Trump waited 18 days after Yates warned him to fire him. It was repeatedly said that Flynn could be blackmailed. But it was never clarified whether the only blackmailable offense was having spoken to the Russian ambassador twice when he said he hadn't, or whether there was other, unspecified dirt.

To me that distinction seems very large. Flynn must have known that at least the phone conversation was almost certainly tapped (the one at the reception, likely not), so if there had been anything incriminating in there, Yates would know. I'm thinking that if she did know, she would tell. But if it's just that Flynn briefly discussed sanctions with the ambassador and then told Pence he hadn't, why is everyone seriously discussing criminal charges now?

Hagar said...

I do not understand this blackmail theory. What Russian would think this was something one could be blackmailed for? Even in the U.S.?

CJinPA said...

Really? That's the position the Democrats want to stake their electoral future on? Well, at least its out in the open now.

There are some issues on which the left has a natural advantage, and some favor the right. Immigration favors the right. That is, the more honestly you talk about it, in basic terms, the less support there is for the left's position.

I think Democrats are pleased each day that passes without them having to lay it all out in the open. (For example: The left argues that America is not a melting pot. That the very notion is offensive. This is at odds with most of the electorate.) The last thing they want is to bring these thoughts to the surface.

Emmanuel Monday said...

Attention to all,Attention to all.Are you a business man singer soccer play
trying to be grand and famous in life or trying to secure your wealth and
position in the society and get money within 3 days .
whatsApp +2347052744530
.join Illuminati now to have Money, powers, fame,protection, cure to all
illness and wealth become your title in just three days. If interested to
join the illuminati brotherhood and sisters with our headquarters at Nigeria and USA
and Africa through African initiation for success in life do and become
billionaires any were you are through online initiation.For more info
whatsApp us through this initiation contact Number:
+2347052744530
For your on-line initiation.
No matter where you are. No distance can affect the work of our baphomet
WhatsApp +2347052744530
Email:worldmoneyilluminati669@gmail.com
and say yes to your dreams.Hail lucifer..
..............??

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

Danno suggests: Methinks Trump should put Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court for the next vacancy to inflict supreme pain on the libtard population.

Most definitely!

BDNYC said...

I think the blackmail material was that he lied to Pence and the Russians knew it. But it ceased to be blackmail material once the Americans found out, confronted him about it and Trump publicly fired him. Then, everyone knew.

He was fired because he lied, plain and simple. The record had to be corrected because Pence had said something untrue to the American people, and it was Flynn's fault so he had to go. If the Americans somehow hadn't found out, I guess the Russians could have used the lie against Flynn.

Rene Saunce said...

Yates Changes Her Tune

ddh said...

I suppose Sally Yates' interpretation of the INA means that it would have been illegal for President Roosevelt to suspend entry into the United States of citizens of Nazi Germany, on the ground that it would be illegal to discriminate on the basis of nationality.

Jake said...

She didn't do her job. She should have resigned first, then made her opinions known. Period.

Chuck said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Sally Yates herself is vulnerable to blackmail, because she perjured herself on television yesterday. Anyone who can prove that Yates was the leaker can blackmail her.

Who is going to prove that? How? You keep yapping about how Yates leaked something. How do you know that?

Yesterday, Althouse seemed to like that question posed by Trump on Twitter, about Yates and a possible leak. And I didn't. At the end of the day, was it a probative question? Did it/could it elicit any sort of answer that was dispositive? Did it, as Althouse pondered, "box in" Yates in any further or future proceedings? Did it even provoke any interest response from Yates?

I'll make the prediction now; Sally Yates will never, ever face any criminal prosecution/investigation/inquiry into any matter she presided over at DoJ.

David Begley said...

The United States Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens residing in foreign countries.

damikesc said...

Chuck, she's a leftie. Nobody doubts she will suffer no repercussions.

Note to future GOP Presidents: right after you finish swearing in, FIRE EVERYBODY.

Chuck said...

I liked this exchange. Ted Cruz is a good and capable lawyer; so is Sally Yates. This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter. At least, that there are good arguments, each with good legal authority.

So much better than suffering the non-lawyer extremists on both sides.

Chuck said...

David Begley said...
The United States Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizens residing in foreign countries.


I think that is true. But the Constitution DOES extend rights to non-citizens residing in foreign countries, who have come under the purview of U.S. law by entering the immigration system; who have applied for visas and/or citizenship; who are declared, or eligible for, or applying for, refugee status.

Etc., etc.

Big Mike said...

The Constitution is a suicide pact? Who knew? Is that what you used to teach your students, Althouse?

MayBee said...

Our last president sent billions of dollars of cash to the Iranians and lied about it. Tell me he wasn't vulnerable to blackmail.

damikesc said...

If Chucks opinion is true, then the Constitution needs to be tossed in the trash.

But it sounds like Progs decided it means this and he bought in.

Using this logic, any refusal to issue a visa would require lengthy court hearings.

Yet they do not.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...

So much better than suffering the non-lawyer extremists on both sides.

and:

I think that is true. But the Constitution DOES extend rights to non-citizens residing in foreign countries, who have come under the purview of U.S. law by entering the immigration system; who have applied for visas and/or citizenship; who are declared, or eligible for, or applying for, refugee status.

Etc., etc.


The lawyer extremist argues that everyone in the world has a right to enter our country. All they have to do is apply for one of a variety of status's and enter the immigration system.

Just to clarify, applying for a visa does not give you the right to come to the US under our laws. Trump is right and you and the 9th circuit/liberal judges are wrong. Cruz disagrees with you and is nothing like you. Cruz agrees with Trump.

CJ said...

That is some outrageous abuse of her office she is defending.

I mean it's no different than a guy arrested for weed.

"I determined that my Constitutional right to pursuit of happiness superseded the statute that determined the possession of the substance's criminality, even though the statute was determined to be legal."

That's 1L garbage.

Chuck said...

The lawyer extremist argues that everyone in the world has a right to enter our country. All they have to do is apply for one of a variety of status's and enter the immigration system.

Just to clarify, applying for a visa does not give you the right to come to the US under our laws. Trump is right and you and the 9th circuit/liberal judges are wrong. Cruz disagrees with you and is nothing like you. Cruz agrees with Trump.

I didn't say that application for the right to enter the United States equals a right to enter the United States.

Here; I will restate it in a clear and legal way for you: Application to enter the United States under U.S. law will generally trigger many of the protections afforded under the Constitution.

CStanley said...

I would like to better understand what the proper role is for an AG in her situation. I've seen a lot of people saying she should have resigned if she felt it wrong to defend the order, and that sounds right to me. And clearly most of the arguments she's made about why she did what she did sound like they should be made after the law is in effect and is challenged, if there are Constitutional grounds for a challenge.

She is now* stating that her problem with the EO was that she did not believe it could be defended with truthful arguments, which is a bit hair splitting but in the abstract I'm trying to figure out if that makes sense. Or more generally, if an AG has a serious disagreement with the legal determination, does he or she have authority and responsibility to refuse to defend it or is it more correct to resign in protest of what he or she perceives as lawlessness by the POTUS?

And further, how are such duties and responsibilities defined? It seems like a Constitutional matter since it involves separation of powers of the various branches.


*from the link provided by Rene Saunce...thank you

Matthew Sablan said...

"Cruz started by asking Yates if an attorney general has the authority to direct the Department of Justice to defy a president’s order. Yates then responded, “I don’t know. . . but I don’t think it would be a good idea, and that’s not what I did in this case.”"

-- Uh... well... if Yates doesn't know exactly what she did, I don't think she could own, defeat, outwit or beat someone in a discussion about the legality/ethicalness of her defying a presidential order.

Matthew Sablan said...

“In this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom — not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom — it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president’s actions, and his intents were laid out in his statements,” she said.

-- What does religious freedom have to do with immigrants from given areas for a set period of time? Did Yates ever analyze Obama's statements to determine if he had unconstitutional intent behind his orders?

This is what Trump gets for trying to be non-partisan and keeping Yates; stabbed in the back by #TheResistance.

Jupiter said...

Chuck said...

"Ted Cruz is a good and capable lawyer; so is Sally Yates. This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter."

Uh, Chuckles, Sally Yates is a self-serving anarchist, who accepted a job -- and payment for a job -- she was unwilling to do. If you find that laudable, I must conclude that you regard jawing about the law as a worthwhile activity in itself, unconnected to any goal or objective it might be thought to serve. Which doesn't come as a surprise, actually.

Matthew Sablan said...

"This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter."

-- Yates doesn't even know what she did, judging from the quotes I'm finding (can't watch the video.)

She seems... stupid if she doesn't realize that she didn't follow Trump's order.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, from transcript quoted elsewhere:

Cruz: Well, are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. section 1182?

Yates: Not off the top of my head, no.

... So... how is she having an intelligent conversation about the law she's not familiar with, when she's not clear on exactly whether or not she disobeyed an order from the President?

Arthur James said...

Ted Cruz is a man I trust hands down. The man is who he is and he is extremely intelligent.

Matthew Sablan said...

Yates based the entirety of her rejection of the law on her own opinion over riding that of the lawyers and the courts, because she thought it was not "wise or just," not whether it was legal or illegal, constitutional or not -- as all the facts were against her on those points.

She didn't know the law; she's hazy on whether her actions were or were not disobeying the President.

And we're supposed to think she's smart and courageous? She's a partisan who Trump foolishly trusted who promptly did what partisans left in the government do to Republican administrations and stabbed him in the back.

Inga said...

"Here; I will restate it in a clear and legal way for you: Application to enter the United States under U.S. law will generally trigger many of the protections afforded under the Constitution."

Anyone who listened to the arguments between Trump's DOJ attorney and the appeals panel judges way back with the first Travel Ban, heard this argument being made repeatedly by the judges.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
"Here; I will restate it in a clear and legal way for you: Application to enter the United States under U.S. law will generally trigger many of the protections afforded under the Constitution."

Anyone who listened to the arguments between Trump's DOJ attorney and the appeals panel judges way back with the first Travel Ban, heard this argument being made repeatedly by the judges.

Chuck, Inga, and all of the other people who want to erase our borders agree. All you have to do is APPLY for a visa and bamn! you have a constitutional right to come to this country.

These people want to end this country. They are extremists.

eric said...

I hope Trump gets to replace Kennedy or one of the liberal justices and then gets to bring this before the supreme Court.

The argument seems to be 2 fold here.

1) The EO was not lawful because of the I tent behind it, rather than the plain meaning.
2) The intent was to ban a particular religion, Islam.

And here I would argue the president has the authority to ban all Muslims from immigrating to the United States and/or visiting the united States.

Matthew Sablan said...

"They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, particularly where we were talking about a fundamental issue of religious freedom -- not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom -- it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions, and the intent is laid in and out his statements."

-- ... This is ridiculous on its face. Did we look at Obama's intent with the ACA when determining if it was a tax or not? (No, we specifically ignored his statements.) In fact, The Supreme Court *routinely* ignores statements by politicians when the plain letter of the law is clear.

Jupiter said...

Inga said...

"Anyone who listened to the arguments between Trump's DOJ attorney and the appeals panel judges way back with the first Travel Ban, heard this argument being made repeatedly by the judges."

Pussyshit, Inga. Trump's "DOJ attorney" was this self-same self-serving liar Yates. And she declined to make any arguments in favor of the order, despite that being the job she had been offered and had agreed to do, on the rather peculiar grounds that she could think of some arguments against it. And when Trump fired her useless ass, along with any pink appurtenances thereunto, the stated grounds for opposition to the order was that it worked a harm upon the State of Washington, or perhaps one or more of its citizens, and not that it violated the "Constitutional rights" of some unspecified foreigners. Try to keep your lies straight, the rest of us manage.

walter said...

Matthew Sablan said...-- What does religious freedom have to do with immigrants from given areas for a set period of time? Did Yates ever analyze Obama's statements to determine if he had unconstitutional intent behind his orders?
--
She's trying to play oblivious to the actual stated "intent" behind limiting immigration...to limit terrorism.

walter said...

Of course, being a Presbyterian of sorts, I guess his desire to build the wall is to keep those wily Catholics out.

Matthew Sablan said...

If it was based on Trump's statements, does that mean that Obama doing the same thing may or may not have been illegal?

That's... a terrible precedent (apparently, looking at Hot Air, someone smarter than me already thought of that question.)

Chuck said...

Achilles said...
...

Chuck, Inga, and all of the other people who want to erase our borders agree. All you have to do is APPLY for a visa and bamn! you have a constitutional right to come to this country.

These people want to end this country. They are extremists.

I am going to say it again; you are misquoting me. Mischaracterizing me. And now you are doing it in a deliberately dishonest way.

I do NOT think that all people who apply to enter the United States should get in. I didn't write that. I have never written that. You are lying, in representing me in that fashion.

I do not want to "end this country." I am not an extremist. I am not a Democrat. I actually favor many more restrictive immigration policies than what we have seen. I fervently oppose all of the Democratic Party's "comprehensive immigration reform" proposals that provide a so-called "pathway to citizenship" and I side (as I almost always do) with the congressional Republicans who have held the line on that.

Your factless badgering does nothing for the Comments section of the Althouse blog. I am always surprised that people get away with that here, for my stating elementary provisions of the law that Professor Althouse would no doubt accept as standard and unarguable legal theory.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, the good news is:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday named 10 judges and other law professionals it plans to nominate for key posts as President Donald Trump works to place more conservatives on the nation's federal courts.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that among the candidates are individuals previously named on Trump's list of 21 possible picks for Supreme Court justice. All nominees would require Senate confirmation.

The announcement came less than a month after Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed, restoring the court's conservative tilt."

Exactly why I voted for the man. And Schumer and the Dems will be able to do nothing about it but howl.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I do not want to "end this country." I am not an extremist. I am not a Democrat."

The reason many of us do not believe you, Chuck, is because you carry water for the Democrats on a daily basis.

Inga said...

"Pussyhat, Inga. Trump's "DOJ attorney" was this self-same self-serving liar Yates. And she declined to make any arguments in favor of the order..."

Dog shit for brains, Jupiter, Yates was long gone when this appeal I spoke of happened, dummy.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/travel-ban-oral-arguments/

"The appeals court judges sparred with attorneys over the President's use of sweeping executive power, questioned the connection between the seven affected countries and terrorism, and launched into tough questions over whether the ban discriminated against Muslims.
During the telephone hearing, the lawyer representing the Justice Department, August Flentje, argued that the President had wide powers relating to immigration and national security."

Jupiter said...

What the tech billionaires of Seattle and San Francisco are arguing, is that the inability to import indentured labor will leave them no choice but to hire free labor, at prices they consider exorbitant to the point of impracticality. This is an argument which would have met with a great deal of sympathy from John Calhoun. "Keep you cotton-pickin' hands off our H-1B's!"

TheThinMan said...

Having a comeback does not equal "shutting down." But if someone on the left comes up with any intelligent-sounding excuse at all for their blatantly lawless behavior, he/she is considered the next Clarance Darrow.

Inga said...

Jupiter, aren't you embarrassed at being so poorly informed? You should be.

walter said...

Matthew Sablan said...
If it was based on Trump's statements, does that mean that Obama doing the same thing may or may not have been illegal?
--
Foul! How dare you? ;)

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Your factless badgering does nothing for the Comments section of the Althouse blog."

Would someone please provide our self-appointed "Blog Monitor" an appropriate armband?

Thank you.

Chuck said...

Jupiter said...
...
Uh, Chuckles, Sally Yates is a self-serving anarchist, who accepted a job -- and payment for a job -- she was unwilling to do. If you find that laudable, I must conclude that you regard jawing about the law as a worthwhile activity in itself, unconnected to any goal or objective it might be thought to serve. Which doesn't come as a surprise, actually.


She was assigned the job, on an interim basis, while the Jeff Sessions nomination was pending.

No matter what we might think about the merits of the first Trump immigration EO (which they decided to re-write in the end anyway), it was stupid strategy to try to push it through in such a clumsy and rushed way before Sessions was installed at Justice.

Recall, please, that even Jeff Sessions (while as a Senator on the Judiciary Committee) once scolded then-Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates about the duty of Justice Department lawyers to say no to the President when and if a presidential order is contrary to the constitution or federal law:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/01/sen_jeff_sessions_told_fired_s.html


Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
"I do not want to "end this country." I am not an extremist. I am not a Democrat."

The reason many of us do not believe you, Chuck, is because you carry water for the Democrats on a daily basis.

No I don't.

I criticize Trump on a daily basis.

There's a difference.

You can't find a place in the history of this blog, where I "carried water for the Democrats."

Inga said...

Chuck, if your head isn't up Trump's ass, you are a Democrat!! LOL.

Inga said...

Or you "carry water" for the Democrats, LOL! Just like Charlie Sykes, the most conservative right wing radio talker in the Milwaukee area, all of a sudden he's no longer a conservative?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga, your head is so far up your own ass you can lick your tonsils.

Drago said...

Whom to believe? "lifelong republican" and "Valiant Defender of Lefty Hack Sally Yates", or John Hinderaker and Alan Dershowitz?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dershowitz-courts-essentially-saying-if-obama-issued-trump-travel-ban-it-would-be-constitutional/

snip: "Dershowitz said this morning that rulings based on campaign rhetoric is “not the way the law is supposed to operate. He predicted that the Supreme Court would end up upholding the “major provisions of this ban.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/aclu-makes-it-official-the-only-thing-wrong-with-trumps-travel-order-is-trump.php

snip: "It may be absurd, but it is what the Democrats believe. ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing today before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, told the court that President Trump’s travel order “could be constitutional” if it had been written by Hillary Clinton."

This probably should have been rewritten to read "It may be absurd, but it is what the Democrats AND "lifelong republicans" believe."

exiledonmainstreet said...

And hooray, more Trump judges are on the way!

Matthew Sablan said...

If a law is constitutional based on who wrote it, we are literally not a nation of laws any more, but a nation of people.

Inga said...

Exile, you are just a walking talking ass. You're welcome, my pleasure.

jr565 said...

The ACLU made a fool of itself arguing the 'unconstitutionality" of the travel ban, and they basically have the same argument as yates. Its unconstitutional because they dont like Trump. that's the argument. and its a bogus argunent when Sally makes it as well.
This was cleared by the legal dept. its totally legal. She has no basis to declare it illegal other than her own personal opinion.

https://youtu.be/BcG25EgOlu4


Really, how is it that liberals can be so smug and condescending and at the same time be so factually wrong?

Drago said...

Inga: "Just like Charlie Sykes, the most conservative right wing radio talker in the Milwaukee area,..."

LOL

How much competition is there to be the "most conservative right wing radio talker in the Milwaukee area..."?

Apparently everyone is supposed to drop everything and agree with some radio guy in Milwaukee.

I had no idea that was the new rule. But then, its hard to keep up with the daily lefty rule changes.

jr565 said...

Chuck wrote:
No I don't.

I criticize Trump on a daily basis.

There's a difference.

a distinction without a difference at this point.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Defending leftwing hack Sally Yates sure looks like carrying water for the Democrats too.

I think chuck is a Republican like David Brooks - Brooks, who was so enamored of Obama's pants creases.

The Dems like Republicans like chuck. They have him on a leash and he does cute tricks for them.

Chuck said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
Well, the good news is:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday named 10 judges and other law professionals it plans to nominate for key posts as President Donald Trump works to place more conservatives on the nation's federal courts.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that among the candidates are individuals previously named on Trump's list of 21 possible picks for Supreme Court justice. All nominees would require Senate confirmation.
The announcement came less than a month after Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed, restoring the court's conservative tilt."
Exactly why I voted for the man. And Schumer and the Dems will be able to do nothing about it but howl.


Me too. It's why I held my nose, and voted for Trump.

Let's look at the one nominee whom I know; Justice Joan Larson of the Michigan Supreme Court and formerly of the University of Michigan Law School. She was a clerk for Scalia when she was a recent law grad (she went to Northwestern law).

She hasn't been as historically conservative as others in Michigan like Court of Appeals judge Christopher Murray or Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Young (both of whom I see regularly at Federalist Society affairs).

Larson was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court by Governor Rick Snyder, who is one of those Republicans (like John Kasich) that many in the Trump base love to hate.

It really isn't clear to me what sort of Movement Conservative Joan Larson might be. But you all should be assured; Joan Larson is precisely the kind of judge who would have been looked at for elevation, if we had a President Kasich or a President Jeb Bush or a President Marco Rubio.

I am not knocking Justice Larson; far from it. I am just trying to take away any of the shine from Trump, personally.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

We're coming up on the next of the 120 day period in the original order. That was the supposed justification, a temporary measure until they could write the extreme betting rules. They weren't issued early, so where is the supposed urgency? Do we think they will come out in schedule or be further delayed? It's looking like Trump has undermined his own position.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Apparently everyone is supposed to drop everything and agree with some radio guy in Milwaukee."

Well, Inga slavishly agrees with everything the NY Times and NPR tell her, so she expects the same mindless compliance is true of people on the right.

Independent thinking is a concept Inga doesn't get; but then, there are many, many things Inga doesn't get.

David Baker said...

What struck me was Yates' visceral enjoyment of the moment. That finally, "she" was the center of attention. And win or lose, grandly relishing her 15 minutes like a gourmet meal after a long hunger strike.

Drago said...

MS: "If a law is constitutional based on who wrote it, we are literally not a nation of laws any more, but a nation of people"

The dems and the "lifelong republicans" know they are full of crap. It's just more "We hate Trump" virtue signalling.

The Fourth Circuit Judge was correct in questioning the equivalent of the Fourth Circuit Chuckie by asking how far back are we supposed to go to determine intent? After the idiot Jadwat argued that Trumps order was "unprecedented", "To which one of the Fourth Circuit judges replies, with astonishment that seems mostly genuine: “So the first order on anything is invalid?”"

That about sums up the incoherence of the Trump haters.

Drago said...

Left Bank: "It's looking like Trump has undermined his own position."

Yeah, it's Trumps fault the left is making up new law.

Unexpectedly!

Inga said...

Drago, what do you know about Milwaukee and its radio market area? Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, Sheboygan counties are in Milwaukee listening area. They are strongly conservative counties.

Drago said...

exiled: "Well, Inga slavishly agrees with everything the NY Times and NPR tell her, so she expects the same mindless compliance is true of people on the right."

If Charlie Sykes was out of Orlando, could we ignore him then?

Is it a geography thing?

You can almost hear Inga shouting 'But he's a conservative from Milwaukee! MILWAUKEE!!!"

D.D. Driver said...

I liked this exchange. Ted Cruz is a good and capable lawyer; so is Sally Yates. This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter. At least, that there are good arguments, each with good legal authority.

So much better than suffering the non-lawyer extremists on both sides.


Well put. Could not agree more.

Drago said...

Inga: "Drago, what do you know about Milwaukee and its radio market area?"

What would I have to know about the Milwaukee radio market to blindly accept the directions of some radio guy from there as if it were the Word of God?

Inga said...

Why does every damn thread here turn into a "Let's bash Chuck thread" once Exiled and Drago turn up? This is tedious and BORING. This was a good topic and a good thread.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Apparently Inga thinks every conservative in the Milwaukee area was breathlessly waiting to hear Charlie Sykes' opinion on everything before we could figure out what position to take. I listened to him maybe twice. I don't listen to talk radio.

Again, because liberals are so mindlessly deferential to authority, they project that onto people who think independently.

Drago said...

D.D.Driver: "This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter."

LOL

There is a very easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter. It requires following the law.

But why would the dems do that when they have "lifelong republicans" willing to run interference for their clearly incoherent politically driven tactics?

This will be slapped down without blinking twice at the SC.

Drago said...

Inga: "Why does every damn thread here turn into a "Let's bash Chuck thread" once Exiled and Drago turn up?"

Lots and lots and lots of material.

New Yorker Magazine: "Why do you rob banks?"

Willie Sutton: "I rob banks because that's where the money is.”

exiledonmainstreet said...

Wisconsin went for Trump in November.

I'm very happy to be living in a Red State and I want to thank you Inga, for doing your best (albeit unknowingly) to make that happen!

Drago said...

Inga, other conservatives on radio disagree with Sykes.

Who should we listen to and why? Which geographies represented by the radio audience confer the most "authority"?

LOL

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga: "Why does every damn thread here turn into a "Let's bash Chuck thread" once Exiled and Drago turn up?"

Nobody is supposed to comment on or criticize either of you?

Looks like there are plenty of people besides Drago and myself raising the bullshit flag on you.

Drago said...

I'm surprised Inga has time to post here, what with all that secret insider investigation info she has to sift thru each day.

Indictments on the way! For Realz!

Inga said...

"Again, because liberals are so mindlessly deferential to authority, they project that onto people who think independently."

Chuck thinks independently from the Trumpists here and look at how he is treated by you mindless Trumpists. Chuck does not respect your authority Drago and Exiled, and you abuse him for his independent thought and for having the balls to express himself. What hypocrites.

cubanbob said...

The concept that merely applying for a visa to enter the US grants the applicant constitutional protections is bizarre to say the least. This notion will in all probability be struck down by the Supreme Court. Can Trump ban Islam in the US? No, that is beyond any dispute. Can he ban Muslims who are US citizens or lawful residents from reentering the US? Again no and beyond dispute (as a general proposition). Can he ban Muslims who are not US nationals from entering the US? Yes he can and that matter has been heard before the Supreme Court (in another context but the principle is the same). Is Trump's ban a wise course of action? That is a political matter, not a legal matter.

One of the arguments made by Washington State and Hawaii regarding Trump's EO is interesting in that if upheld would also be a club used by reactionary states against the progressives. If a state can choose its residents which is what Hawaii and Washington are claiming in all but name then the prohibition against states deciding who is eligible for welfare benefits (state portion) and public school funding among other things get set back to what they were prior to the Supreme Court's various rulings that states can't choose their residents. I doubt the court will reverse itself . Either the progressives didn't think this through or they really believe they can have it both ways.

Limited blogger said...

Trump will fix this.

Drago said...

Inga: "Chuck does not respect your authority Drago and Exiled..."

LOL

What does that even mean?

Drago said...

Inga: "What hypocrites."

Don't you have a "Support Your Local FGM Provider" rally to attend?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Drago said...
Inga: "Chuck does not respect your authority Drago and Exiled..."

Yeah, what "authority" do we have? Jesus, we're just expressing our opinions. We're not blackballing anybody, or getting them fired from their jobs, or doxing them - that's what Leftists do to people who disagree with them.

Inga said...

This was awesome.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/sally-yates-hearing-russia-things-we-learned/

"3. Clapper and Yates undercut one of the Trump White House's strongest arguments

Throughout the Russia probes, the Trump White House has pointed to testimony earlier this year from Clapper that he had seen no evidence in the January intelligence report of collusion between the President's campaign and Russia. That was before FBI Director James Comey publicly revealed that the FBI was, in fact, investigating that question.

Clapper said Comey's March 20 testimony was the first he heard of the FBI investigation. He later said that his original assessment was that there was no evidence he had seen worth including in the intelligence assessment -- but Yates later said that she could not answer the question because she did not want to reveal any classified information.

The implication from both officials' testimonies was that there may, indeed, be evidence of collusion -- this after months of the White House arguing that Clapper was clear there is no evidence."

Drago said...

Inga: "Chuck does not respect your authority Drago and Exiled, and you abuse him for his independent thought and for having the balls to express himself."

Thats the kind of "balls"/courage that almost, ALMOST, led Chuck to join the military but didn't because there wasn't a draft.

An example to us all really.

jr565 said...

The problem with looking at statements people made on a campaign and judging a law based on those statements and not on the wording of the law, is that those making the argument are picking and choosing the statements to use to invalidate the law. But ignoring other statements that might Buttress the laws intent as written.

For example, they cite Giuliani when he talks about how Trump wanted a muslim ban. in the SAME statement he describes how they set it up NOT as a Muslim ban, but as a ban based on location. So, on one hand they take the first portion of the statement out of context (since Giuliani is simply relaying broadly what Trump said he wanted, he is not quoting him) and then completely ignoring Giuliani's statement where he says its not a muslim ban.

It's part of the same statement! How can dems be so disingenuous?

Here's Giuliani's statement: me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'

Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

So, the only assertion that its a muslim ban is what Giuliani said Trump wanted. But he is engaged in hearsay. We dont know PRECISELY what Trump asked for. He asked for it to be done LEGALLY. The resulting law was not based on a muslim ban, but on DANGER. if it was a true muslim ban it wouldn't stop at 7 countries.
How is it though, that the ACLU and democrats can take the one statement about intent which is not even Trumps statement. it's merely a recollection of a conversation distilled into a sound byte. And ignore the whole portion of the statement where Giuliani says "ITS NOT BASED ON RELIGION. Its based on places"

So democratic lawyers now pick and choose the statements made by the people who push the laws and ignore all statements that say that the intent of the law means what it says. and only concentrate on the out of context statements someone said at one point which seems to invalidate it?

Inga said...

Exiled, you don't have any authority here (thankfully) but apparently you think you do, as evidenced by your daily abusive behavior to liberal commenters and anyone who dares express an opinion not in favor of Trump, in almost every thread. Now I'm done responding to you. The subject matter of this blog post is a good one and worth discussing.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Drago said...
I'm surprised Inga has time to post here, what with all that secret insider investigation info she has to sift thru each day."

Not to mention all the anti-Semitic hate crimes committed in France by LePen followers that she's been tracking.

Drago said...

Inga: "The implication from both officials' testimonies was that there may, indeed, be evidence of collusion -- this after months of the White House arguing that Clapper was clear there is no evidence."

Yes yes yes. The very same talking point trotted out each week for the last six months.

But thats strange, isn't it? The left, and Inga herself, have already flatly stated numerous times that collusion occurred. The word "Traitor" is routinely thrown about by the left.

tsk tsk

To think all of that is being done with absolutely zero evidence being presented.

But then again, Inga "reads between the lines" of what Sen Feinstein says to discern the "real" truth!

LOL

jr565 said...

(cont) and yet people like Inga think this is a legitimate way to judge laws? The ACLU really thinks this flies as an argument?

jr565 said...

inga, you have no knowledge of any actual collusion between Russian and Trump. Right?

Inga said...

Another very important takeaway from the hearing.

"5. The media matters
Yates was fired by Trump one day after it came out that she had refused to defend his travel ban and four days after she first alerted McGahn about Flynn. Meanwhile, it took 18 days for the White House to fire Flynn after Yates first told McGahn about his FBI interview.
"Without that published report, and without the free press telling us a lot of what went on, Michael Flynn might still be sitting in the White House as national security adviser," said Blumenthal, referring to the original Washington Post report about Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak"

Inga said...

JR,
I'm not privy to classified information.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"But then again, Inga "reads between the lines" of what Sen Feinstein says to discern the "real" truth!"

Inga's Ouija board and Magic 8 ball have gotten real workouts since November 8.

Matthew Sablan said...

We've learned very little concrete from the hearings, save that Clapper is incompetent and doesn't communicate well, and Yates isn't exactly sure whether or not she disobeyed the president or what law she was arguing about.

Rusty said...

Inga said...
Why does every damn thread here turn into a "Let's bash Chuck thread"

It's called a target rich environment.
Chuck has the unfortunate trait of thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.

Matthew Sablan said...

Inga: Here's the thing. All the people who ARE privy to it? None of them have said charges will be brought (at least, not recently. There were promises six or seven months ago, but those stopped the moment the illegal unmasking questions started being asked.)

Feinstein? Thinks nothing of it. Clapper? Never brought charges against anyone. Yates? Apparently doesn't know what she did in her own previous job, so I don't know if we should really trust her memory on anything else.

There's nothing there.

Inga said...

Another thing to consider. Less partisanship would serve us all well. It's all of us who were under attack by Russian hackers who attempted to confound our democracy.

"4. The Senate investigations have strong strains of partisanship
Monday's hearing with Yates and Clapper was clearly focused on Russia's interference in the 2016 election, but Republican and Democratic senators still used it to land some partisan shots.

Republican senators grilled Yates on why she refused to enforce the first executive order that imposed a travel ban issued by Trump.
"I don't mean any disrespect: Who appointed you to the Supreme Court?" Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, told Yates in a comment that immediately lit up Twitter.

And Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz went to town on Yates, arguing that she may have broken the law by refusing to defend the order. She rebutted him by pointing to a later court ruling that supported her argument that she had a greater duty to protect against discrimination and uphold the Constitution.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed hard with lines of attack clearly aimed at damaging Trump himself, not necessarily digging into what happened in the 2016 elections.

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, one of the Senate's most staunchly liberal members, took Yates on a winding line of questioning that ended with Trump possibly appearing on the witness stand in a hypothetical court trial against Flynn. At the end of the hypothetical exercise, Blumenthal pressed Yates if that was even remotely possible.

Yates responded: "Potentially."

The Senate Russia investigators may have maintained the air of being the adults in Congress investigating Russia's interference. But the Senate Judiciary Committee has proved over the last two hearings (including last week's with Comey) that partisanship is still a powerful force in its own inquiry.

Matthew Sablan said...

If they don't want it to be partisan, Yates should have done her job competently and not partisanly in the first place.

Inga said...

Matthew,

Do you really think those who have knowledge of the classified information are going to talk about it openly in some sort of conclusionary statement? Seriously?

Inga said...

Matthew,
Yates wasn't being partisan, she was being patriotic and followed the Constitution.

Original Mike said...

Like a dog with a bone.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Yates was fired by Trump one day after it came out that she had refused to defend his travel ban and four days after she first alerted McGahn about Flynn. Meanwhile, it took 18 days for the White House to fire Flynn after Yates first told McGahn about his FBI interview.

and why was this conversation so scary for Yates? because he violated the Logan act, right? Other than than WHAT did he do that would make him open to blackmail?
Can you explain it to us?

Here's the NYT at the time when the story first broke:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/flynn-is-said-to-have-talked-to-russians-about-sanctions-before-trump-took-office.html

Flynn was said to have talked to Russians about sanctions before Trump took office" This is bad because of the Logan Act, right? Well, he was an incoming NSA for a presient that had won the election already. the fact that he isnt' in office yet is a technicality. Administrations discuss potential policy with foreign govts ALL the time in transition.

The NYT at the time debunks the idea that he DID in fact talk about lifting sanctions when they wrote: "The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible."
So, then according to the people who read the transcript HE DIDNT" PROMISE TO LIFT SANCTIONS.
So, thats two talking points debunked. What ELSE do you have?

"During the Christmas week conversation, he urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions — it was an open secret in Washington that they were in the works — by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material."
Again, why is this a problem? The sanctions imposed by Obama were done AFTER Trump already won, and seemed to be done as a last minute poke in Russia's and Trumps eye. He didnt' impose any sanctions against Russia when he found out about the hacks for example. Instead he waited for his last month in office. I assume Russians might have conversations with the incoming administration about the outgoing administrations reckless warlike act. If for example Obama wanted a reset with Russia and the last day in office Bush imposed sanctions on Russia for something that happened months earlier, I'd imagine Russia would be on the phone with the Obama administration saying "I THOUGHT YOU WANTED A RESET? Why then are you imposing sanctions? WTF" and Obama officials would make the same argument that Flynn did.

"Some officials regarded the conversation as a potential violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the American government, according to one current and one former American official familiar with the case."
And there it is. The democratic talking point that started this whole witch hunt. Who are these officials. How much do you want to bet that one of the officials is SALLY YATES?


The NYT even undermines the severity of the case against Flynn: "Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser."
Agreed. Becuase there is nothing here. Its a witch hunt. The NYT acknowledges it. End of story.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Matthew,
Yates wasn't being partisan, she was being patriotic and followed the Constitution.

BS. how was her argument COnstitutional. what was unconstitutional about Trumps Order? Explain the principle.

cubanbob said...

jr565 while very well said the issue of Trump's intent is a red herring. It doesn't matter what his intent was or is. What matters is whether he has the statutory and constitutional authority to issue his EO. And he does. Islam isn't just a religious belief it is also an ideology and like Communism can be used to determine whether an alien can be denied entry to the US. In any event, Trump didn't ban all non US resident Muslims from entering the US, only those from from several failed states where terrorism of an Islamic nature is active.

The only thing this Russian fantasy fest is a distraction from the Obama Administration criminality. Funny how Flynn is supposed to have been blackmailable but Obama who clearly allowed a rogue operation at the State Department for years by a criminal Secretary of State but Obama, Holder, Lynch and others were not blackmailable. Notice how Trump fired Flynn but Obama never fired Holder, Lynch and most of all, Clinton.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do you really think those who have knowledge of the classified information are going to talk about it openly in some sort of conclusionary statement? Seriously?"

-- Not openly. Because they've leaked all sorts of damaging innuendo, if they had ACTUAL PROOF, they would have leaked that too. The fact is, all the information you have from people who claim to have seen all the data, say there's nothing there.

Also, Yates was incredibly partisan, as judging by the fact she did not care about religious freedom in any prior case, such as Obama's travel bans, previously.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
JR,
I'm not privy to classified information.

So then you'd have to acknowledge that anyone sayign there is proof of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign are engaged in partisan with hunt. Since, THEY HAVE NO knowledge. And the people who might have knowledge also confirmed that they too have no knowledge.
So, will you admit that the democrats are engaged in wishful thinking, partisan witch hunting based on no actual proof? Its ok, you can tell us. You're among friends here.

Drago said...

Inga: "Another very important takeaway from the hearing."

Lol

When Democrat fake memes collide!

Blackmail, collusion..what's the difference? Throw it all out there man! Something's gotta work!

jr565 said...

I wish someone would have asked Yates about the Logan Act. Did she think that Flynn, by talking to Russian diplomat (same one who was at the WH six times in 2016 alone) may have violated logan act? And is that why she was so alarmed?

Or we could get on record her idea that saying he was violating Logan Act was in fact crazy talk and would never be punished.
Because when the Times reported "Some officials regarded the conversation as a potential violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the American government, according to one current and one former American official familiar with the case." It almost assuredly is referring to Sally Yates. How many officials at the time knew about Flynn's conversation? it was a very small group.
If Yates, ISNT the one who made this statement to the Times, and isn't their unnamed source, Id really like to know what she thinks of this officials opinion about the logan Act. Is that a legitimate concern. Did she think it was a legitimate concern when she warned Trump. Is that what the warning was about?

ANd then I'd ask, "has there been any indication that Flynn was going to be charged with vioalting Logan Act up till now" Has anyone ever beeen charged with vioating it, to the best of your recollection. She should have been pressed on this yesterday.

But maybe Inga can answer.

Kirk Parker said...

Great Ghu, Chuck,

Instead of whining that you've been disrespected, how about just detailing exactly what constitutional protections a mere visa applicant qualifies for?

Before replying, though, do note that I know some consular officers personally, and have additional personal experience trying to get visitor visas for foreign colleagues who were arbitrarily denied, so I know that longstanding practice holds that the consular officer (or other embassy personnel) evaluating a visa application has nearly unlimited discretion to approve or deny that application, and that an unfavorable decision is essentially not subject to appeal.

And also:

"I am not knocking Justice Larson; far from it. I am just trying to take away any of the shine from Trump, personally."

See why most of us, rightly, abominate you?



Inga,

"Why does every damn thread here turn into a 'Let's bash Chuck thread'...?"

Because bashing Inga gets old fairly soon... it's too easy. And your latest comment? Way beyond precious for you of all people to call for less partisanship.;

Birkel said...

Everybody understands the Logan Act has never supported a criminal conviction, is likely unconstitutional and is a canard of the first order. Right?

If anybody does not understand those three things, they are willfully obtuse, mentally unfit or some combination of the two.

virgil xenophon said...

jr565@11:30


"So democratic lawyers now get to pick and choose the statements..."

You noticed..

Unknown said...

So here's a question. Lot's of angst about "Trump wants to ban Muslims! That's illegal and unconstitutional!"

Really? Has anyone ever looked at what this country did to the Mormons back in the late 1800's? All of it held 100% constitutional. Why couldn't we treat Islam the same?

The Mormons were officially dissolved as a church, their property confiscated without payment, their members were forbidden to vote and to serve as public officials. They were stripped of a variety of common law privileges such as spousal immunity, and the jails were filled with Mormons arrested for the crime of following their beliefs.

Now, this was all held 100% legal. So why couldn't we treat Islam the same way? After all, there was no threat from the Mormons to the country. Yet it would be fairly easy to characterize Islam as a fundamental threat to the constitutional government of this country.

Chuck, care to opine on why Islamists shouldn't be treated like the Mormons were treated?

--Vance

Titus said...

I only watched this clip and I have to say she is kind of fabulous. Love the look!

He, on the other hand, is hideous.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 9:26 AM

You keep yapping about how Yates leaked something. How do you know that?

The information about the content of the phone conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was leaked to Washington Post journalists. Subsequently, on February 13, 2017, the Washington Post published an article titled "Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?utm_term=.14ea6e879653

The article indicated that the leaker was motivated by concern that Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL because Ambassador Kislyak knew from his telephone conversation with Flynn that Flynn had violated THE LOGAN ACT.

This concern is almost uniquely nutty. The concern was voiced by Yates in the Washington Post article on February 13 and was voiced in her testimony to the Senate committee yesterday.

The set of people who before February 13 knew the content of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone conversation is very small. As Acting Attorney General, she supervised the FBI, the counter-intelligence agency that wiretaps embassy telephone conversations in Washington DC. In that position, she was one of very few people who were able to read the transcripts.

Although the FBI might record the Russian Ambassador's telephone conversations routinely, it is unlikely that the FBI pays any attention to them. The FBI does not have an infinite number of counter-intelligence officers who can waste their time on usually unproductive activities. For some reason, though, the FBI spent considerable effort to record and transcribe Kislyak's conversations after Donald Trump was elected President.

In my opinion, the only reason for such a wasteful effort was to catch some member of Trump's transition team discussing foreign-policy issues with the Russian Ambassador before Trump's inauguration and thus violating THE LOGAN ACT and thus becoming subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL -- a nutty concern voiced almost uniquely only by Susan Yates.

Another reason to suspect Yates is that she is extremely partisan and willing to cause stupid trouble for our President Trump. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, Clinton probably would have promoted Yates from Acting Attorney General to actual Attorney General. Trump's victory made Yates become hysterical.

Chuck said...

Unknown said...
...

Chuck, care to opine on why Islamists shouldn't be treated like the Mormons were treated?


Maybe because there have been massive changes in federal statute and case law since the 19th century. Perhaps not always for the best. And remember; I am not much arguing substantive immigration law. I am just pointing out the simple fact that with competent lawyers arguing both sides, the discussion is so much more nuanced and interesting, than the usual partisan lay-opinions on blogs.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck at 9:26 AM

Who is going to prove that [the leaker was Yates]? How?

Evidently, the FBI never will investigate the leak as long as James Comey is the FBI Director.

Here we are already in mid-May, and the FBI still has not questioned the obviously prime suspect -- Susan Yates.

Sally Yates Testifies She Has Never Been Questioned By FBI About Intelligence Leaks to Media

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/05/08/sally-yates-testifies-she-has-never-been-questioned-by-fbi-about-intelligence-leaks-to-media/

So, I suppose nobody ever will prove that she is the leaker.

Chuck said...

Kirk Parker said...
...
...
See why most of us, rightly, abominate you?


Yeah; and it is a mystery to me, how the Althouse blog has gotten so pro-Trump. I can perhaps understand Trump as an amusing phenomenon for Althouse. I can understand Trump as a case study in leftwing media bias. (She does a magnificent job on both of those things.) I can also understand Trump, possibly, as a cagey means to deconstruct from within any remaining opposition to the legal normalization of homosexuality. But Althouse ought to speak for herself on that, and she might legitimately feel that there is insufficient data on which to judge Trump on that one.

What I don't get is with a sharp, intelligent and highly trained legal mind as possessed by Professor Althouse, she seems so sanguine about Trump's varied and repetitive offenses to legal thought, legal discipline, the English language and generally clear thinking.

As for "most" of you abominating me, I care less than nothing.

Original Mike said...

"What I don't get is with a sharp, intelligent and highly trained legal mind as possessed by Professor Althouse, she seems so sanguine about Trump's varied and repetitive offenses to legal thought, legal discipline, the English language and generally clear thinking."

Maybe it's you.

Chuck said...

Rusty said...
...
Chuck has the unfortunate trait of thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.


Personally, I think Ann Althouse is the smartest person in this room. She might not think so; and you might not believe anything that I write.

But at least I've made it clear who I think it is. And you, as usual, got it wrong.

Original Mike said...

Good grief, watching Spicer's press briefing. We can see what the media's marching orders are today: "why did it take 18 days to fire Flynn?" is being asked again and again.

Known Unknown said...

If Yates had such a problem with the EO and Trump in general, she should have resigned in protest.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"We can see what the media's marching orders are today: "why did it take 18 days to fire Flynn?" is being asked again and again."

-- The correct answer to this is: "Why did Obama never fire the failures in the various offices that literally caused people to die, whether in the V.A. or fumbling the F&F?"

18 days is awhile, but the guy still got fired, compared to people whose negligence literally killed people.

Mike Sylwester said...

jr565 at 12:18 PM

... when the Times reported "Some officials regarded the conversation as a potential violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes involving the American government, according to one current and one former American official familiar with the case." It almost assuredly is referring to Sally Yates. How many officials at the time knew about Flynn's conversation? it was a very small group.

I think that the ONLY person with this nutty concern about RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL over THE LOGAN ACT was Sally Yates.

Original Mike said...

"18 days is awhile, ..."

I think 18 days is nothing, given what we know about Flynn's "offense."

Original Mike said...

And, apparently, it was 11 days after the White House saw the evidence.

Drago said...

"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I am just pointing out the simple fact that with competent lawyers arguing both sides, the discussion is so much more nuanced and interesting, than the usual partisan lay-opinions on blogs."

Not according to legal beagles who aren't carrying water for the Dems, like you.

I'll stick with Dershowitz, the Powerline guys and the other heavy hitters over some guy in MI.

Unknown said...

I think EDH is correct in his reconciliation of the statutes, but for a supposedly renowned Supreme Court advocate, Cruz did a poor job: when Yates came back at him about the subsequent statute that "trumps" the prior statute as she put it (does it? I'm an English lawyer so can't comment beyond saying that in the UK, apparently conflicting statutes have to be reconciled) Cruz should have asked how the power under the prior statute could ever be exercised at all - by definition, an EO banning a certain category of persons will be discriminatory in terms of the second statute.

The zinger would have been if Cruz could have referred to an Obama EO adopted after the second statute and asked Yates how that could have been lawful. As I recall, during the furore about the first of Trump's EO's, it was pointed out that Obama had banned the entry to the US of nationals of certain countries characterised by adherence to a certain murderous cult: was that subject to the statute Yates referred to and if so why did that EO not discriminate on grounds of religion? Cruz really should have been able to nail her on that.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

lifelong republican" Chuck: "Yeah; and it is a mystery to me, how the Althouse blog has gotten so pro-Trump."

Not so much pro-Trump as vehemently anti SJW/crazy left.

We all see where you come down.

Drago said...

Of course, none of us will really know what to believe until after "World Renowned Expert On Everything Who Apparently Must Be Accorded Complete Obedience Because "Milwaukee Radio Market" Charlie Sykes chimes in.

Inga "hipped us" to that newest "rule" earlier today.

Drago said...

Original Mike: "And, apparently, it was 11 days after the White House saw the evidence."

I think you meant to write "And, apparently, it was 11 days after the White House saw the supposed "evidence"."

Birkel said...

AGAIN:

The Logan Act has never supported a single conviction and is likely unconstitutional.

It is a canard.

Original Mike said...

Yeah, I thought about putting scare quotes on "evidence".

BTW, Inga's knowledge of Milwaukee and surrounds pegs her as the original Inga (for those who doubted it).

Drago said...

Birkel: "AGAIN:
The Logan Act has never supported a single conviction and is likely unconstitutional.

It is a canard."

There has never even been an attempted prosecution unde the Logan Act, much less a conviction!

Such are the tender considerations of Chuck's beloved Ace Asst AG Yates!

We all know the collusion/blackmail/kitchen sink strategies of the Dems/"lifelong republicans" is nothing more than an attempted cover for obambi domestic spying.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Not so much pro-Trump as vehemently anti SJW/crazy left."

Yes. The Left is fighting to fight Trump every step of the way - on immigration, court appointments, everything. Including things you say you approve of.

I don't understand why you think you are somehow being constructive when you join with the left, make exactly the same arguments they do and champion people like Yates. Do you really think they wouldn't be doing this to Rubio or Cruz or those shitstains Jeb and Kasich?

Your hatred of Trump is so great you're willing to climb into bed with the Left to undermine Trump just because he wasn't the GOP president you wanted. How you think that helps the GOP I don't know.

Original Mike said...

Boy, the media sure wasn't interested in Adm. Rogers' testimony today. The one where he expressed his doubts the Russians were pro-Trump.

Trumpit said...

We need more Sally Yates in this world to do the right thing when faced with a choice to obey or disobey an illegal, immoral order in this case from President Trump. Typical of toady Ted Cruz to portray her brave act of defiance as partisan. He assumes everyone has terrible motives like him.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, well, mention the "crazy left" and up pops Trumpit, the blog's resident psychotic.

Matthew Sablan said...

"We need more Sally Yates in this world to do the right thing when faced with a choice to obey or disobey an illegal, immoral order in this case from President Trump. "

-- She disobeyed none of the illegal, immoral orders from Obama -- she and those supporting her didn't bat an eye at Obama's EO. There is nothing courageous in what she did. She took Trump's trust and betrayed it for partisan gain, exactly as people warned him Obama hold-overs would do.

jr565 said...

Mike wrote:
The article indicated that the leaker was motivated by concern that Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL because Ambassador Kislyak knew from his telephone conversation with Flynn that Flynn had violated THE LOGAN ACT.

Boom. The democrats had set this up as a "Flynn violated the Logan act! Gasp!" Type scandal from the beginning. The only problem being, no one has ever been tried for vioatling it. No matter. It was the grounds to assert that Flynn did something untoward in the first place.

But it was already appearent based on the earliest reporting that this is where the democrats were going. And that is the ONLY reason that yates would have warned the president about Flynn being blackmailed.

If thats all they have then THERE WAS NO BLACKMAIL THREAT. ANd i there was no blackmail threat then Flynn wasn't compromised. And if Flynn wasn't compromised there was no reason to get so up in arms as to unmask him, warn the president about his actions, let alone leak his conversation to the press so they can selectively report on it and INSINUATE wrong doing.

unnamed OFFICIAL says he might have violated Logan Act! Gasp! Oh yeah, does that officials last name rhyme with GATES?
Apparently nothing came of Logan Act violations since Flynn was never even charged with that. But who cares, if you can get a scalp through a political hit piece.

jr565 said...

"The article indicated that the leaker was motivated by concern that Flynn was subject to RUSSIAN BLACKMAIL because Ambassador Kislyak knew from his telephone conversation with Flynn that Flynn had violated THE LOGAN ACT."
If Trumps order was a ban on muslims, why wasn't Obama's restriction on visas to the same countries also not a restriction on Muslims? And why would Sally Yates sign off on THAT,but not on this?
Trump has the authority to set immigration restrictions. The law is not about a muslim ban. WHere then is it unconstitutional? The legal dept signed off on its legality. Who is sally yates to say its not legal? And what was her reasoning?
Again, the dems offer nothing but "its unconstittutional becuause Trump did it. The ACLU was on record saying if Hillary had passed same damn EO, it would probably be constitutional. Democrats clinging to this flimsy political reasoning and compllete partisanship should be ashamed.

hombre said...

Blogger Chuck said...
"I liked this exchange. Ted Cruz is a good and capable lawyer; so is Sally Yates. This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter. At least, that there are good arguments, each with good legal authority."

Except for the fact that Yates' statements were intended to lean on, justify or bolster the questionable decisions made by federal judges reviewing the orders and had little to do with the reasons she originally gave for declining to enforce the order. She compromised herself again in order to further the party line, which may be what you found appealing.

It is simply not true that the legal issues are unclear, a fact made eminently apparent in the Ninth Circuit dissent. I think you know that.

More importantly, the intent behind Cruz's questions was to demonstrate her politicization of her job and, by implication, the continuation of corruption from the Obot DOJ. He succeeded.

jr565 said...

Sally Yates and all these judges who blocked Trumps EO, for purely partisan reasons, are like Kim Davis X1000. She just woudlnt sign a marriage license. These judges think their personal animums means they dont have to follow valid laws. Nor even provide a basis to defend their law breaking that makes any logical sense.

We are going to loook back on these judges actions in a few eyars and realize they were among the most lawless. Kim Davis went to JAIL, These judges are far more lawless and yet democrats defend their actions as if they had the law on their side. NO THEY DONT. And neither did Sally Yates.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

Trumpit wrote: "Typical of toady Ted Cruz to portray her brave act of defiance as partisan. He assumes everyone has terrible motives like him."

Unfortunately, more and more lefty moonbats now consider violating the law or their sworn oaths, to be brave rather than partisan. Even worse, they think if the motive for the lawless act fits their definition of "good," that the illegality is admirable. Consequently, Democrats, whose motives moonbats always consider pure are arrogantly corrupt and lie under oath with impunity.

Drago said...

Original Mike: "Boy, the media sure wasn't interested in Adm. Rogers' testimony today. The one where he expressed his doubts the Russians were pro-Trump."

Correct.

We now know definitively that the conclusion that Russia attempted to interfere with our election in order to support Trump was NOT:
1) unanimous amongst intelligence leaders
2) well sourced

Again, all diversions to hide obambi domestic spying

Drago said...

Hombre: "Unfortunately, more and more lefty moonbats now consider violating the law or their sworn oaths, to be brave rather than partisan."

Well, lefty moonbats and their "lifelong republican" partners.

jr565 said...

When Yates defended her blocking of the executive order she said the following:
"Yes, because in this instance, in looking at what the intent was of the executive order, which was derived, in part, from an analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful, yes."

So, they looked at the words Trump or some of his people said and not at the law as written. And somehow determined intent, based on those words, and not the law. Despite the legal dept saying it was totally legal.
Analysis of facts outside the face of the order. WHAT FACTS? the democratic talking points masquerading as facts? That was not a constitutioanl argument. She literally argues that she didn't really look at the laws actual wording to determine legality. She has no basis to serve in govt if thats' how she detemrines whether to enforce Executive orders. Shes no hero at all.

jr565 said...

:=""Ted Cruz is a good and capable lawyer; so is Sally Yates. This was an intelligent interchange, which demonstrated that there is no easy answer in the Trump immigration EO matter."

Facts not in evidence when it comes to Yates being a good lawyer And if there is no easy answer Yates certainly did not provide a good reason for why she'd block an EO. Saying "looking at what the intent was of the executive order, which was derived, in part, from an analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful, yes." invalidates the arguments that she had a good reason to block the order.
If she provided a constitutional reason to block EO it might show that there were in fact no easy answers. But that's not what she did. Partisanship is fact the answer for her actions, and its not compilcated at all.
She was a partisan. She had no basis to block that she articulated to any specificity that makes any sense, except as a partisan action. and if you defend her, you are yourself a partisan.

Mike Sylwester said...

jr565 at 2:53 PM

... in looking at what the intent was of the executive order, which was derived, in part, from an analysis of facts outside the face of the order, that is part of what led to our conclusion that it was not lawful.

Speaking of intent, President Obama intended to deport as few illegal aliens as possible. His discretionary-prosecution justifications were a sham.

Therefore, Obama's executive orders to prioritize and postpone deportations were not lawful.

jr565 said...

Drago wrote:
We now know definitively that the conclusion that Russia attempted to interfere with our election in order to support Trump was NOT:
1) unanimous amongst intelligence leaders
2) well sourced

even if the Russians hacked the DNC, do we really think that they were trying to get Trump to win? Who thought trump was going to win the election? the media was saying he had a 4% chance of winning. The Russians had the same information and most likely assumed his chances were teh same. So, even if they hacked the DNC to impact the election they had no impression that it would lead to Trumps victory. Instead, they may have assumed that Hilary would be weakened going in as president.

Mike Sylwester said...

jr565 at 3:03 PM

even if they [the Russians] hacked the DNC to impact the election they had no impression that it would lead to Trump's victory. Instead, they may have assumed that Hilary would be weakened going in as president.

The hacking target was not the DNC.

Rather, the hacking target was John Podesta, because he had occupied a position on the National Security Council during the Obama Administration and because he practiced poor security practices.

The Russian Government began hacking Podesta's computer while he was serving on the NSC and simply continued to hack it after he transfered to the DNC.

rhhardin said...

You'd think Sally Yates would be an astronaut or a pilot and she turns out to be this awful person with no ambition except to screw things up.

Bruce Hayden said...

I too question whether or not Yates is a good lawyer, or a politely hack, left in place to screw up the incoming Trump Administration. My vote, after that Cruz exchange is the latter. Cruz was essentially correct with his opening salvo - if you are going to hold an EO specifically referencing and implementing a law is legal or unconstitutional, you need to know that law. That she didn't showed me incompetence. And if you are going to argue that a later law overrides an earlier one, you cone with the dates of the two statutes, and probably case law explaining that rule of interpretation. And, if you are going to (conveniently) interpret an EO to violate the 1st Amdt based on intent, you are going to need a cite to both the evidence showing intent, and case law allowing it to be taken into account. Obviously, she had none of this, which is why my vote is that she is a political hack who went to law school, and not a good lawyer.

walter said...

Matthew Sablan said...She disobeyed none of the illegal, immoral orders from Obama -- she and those supporting her didn't bat an eye at Obama's EO. There is nothing courageous in what she did. She took Trump's trust and betrayed it for partisan gain, exactly as people warned him Obama hold-overs would do.
--
Oh..what's the value of consistency when there's a "Resistance" to buoy?

walter said...

Titus FTW
I wonder if he played it with the sound up.
The "Hot or not" of politics.

Michael K said...

Sally has made herself a hero to the left, which was most likely her intent.

The law and the Constitution had nothing to do with it.

sdharms said...

Sorry, Ann, even a NON-LAWYER can see and hear that Yates was non-responsive to Cruz's question. She wasn't familiar with that statute???? Really. If I could have questioned her, I would have made her cry. She was arrogant, went back repeatedly to her talking points. She is well known to those in industry who suffered EPA inspections while she was the DAG tagged to EPA. As soon as you get a notice you start assembling a "Yates File" meaning any and all records whether pertaining to the issue at hand and under EPA jurisdiction or not. SHe is a FACISIST.