Ted Cruz Cleaned Sally Yates’s Clock. Here’s Why.
May 9, 2017 16:01:28 #
On Monday, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) exposed former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’s ignorance of the law, and the partisan nature of her decision to refuse to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending travel from several terror-prone countries.
One would not know that from the liberal media, which thinks Yates won the exchange, but Cruz proved his case decisively.
Here’s why — in short: Cruz brought up the law that authorized the executive order, and Yates did not recognize it. She then answered by referring to another law, which does not supersede the first. She then tried to argue that the order was unconstitutional, but Cruz pointed out that her argument was a partisan one, driven by her own policy views. She then claimed no court would enforce the order — which is contradicted by the fact that one actually did.
The left thinks Yates won the exchange because she was well-prepared with a set of talking points, and offered a snappy response. That shows how desperate Democrats are to salvage something out of the hearing — which failed to produce any new evidence to back up their Russian conspiracy theories — and also how urgently they need to find new champions.
It does not change the fact that Cruz was completely correct, and Yates was completely wrong.
Here is a more detailed explanation, with a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange, as well as a video (which the leftist who posted it called “Sally Yates Owns And Humilates Ted Cruz During Russia Hearing”).
Cruz: Well, are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. section 1182?
Yates: Not off the top of my head, no.
Think about that for a moment: the government’s chief lawyer was unfamiliar with the law that was the basis for the executive order, and which has been the basis of the government’s arguments in court in every one of the cases that she later cited. To a lay observer, asking about “8 U.S.C. section 1182” may sound like asking about a minor league baseball player’s batting average in 1987. But a senior lawyer involved in the issue should know exactly what Cruz was talking about — especially as the statute is referred to explicitly in the second version of the executive order.
Yates later said she is familiar with that law, but the fact that she did not recognize it suggests she was so biased that she had not bothered to familiarize herself in any detail with the legal arguments on the other side of the issue.
Cruz: Well, it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it is certainly a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute. By express text of the statute, it says, “whenever the president finds that the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.” Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?
Yates: I would, and I am familiar with that, and I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] that says “no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, or place of birth,” that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and that’s been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described.
The law Yates cited was passed in 1965 as an amendment to the law Cruz cited, which was passed in 1952. There are some lawyers who argue that the 1965 amendment supersede the provisions Cruz cited. However, no president has ever treated the law that way. In fact, every single Democratic president since then has used the provision that Cruz cited, specifically to exclude or restrict travelers from specific countries from entering the United States.
An essay in Time magazine — of all places — pointed out some examples earlier this year. Most notably, President Jimmy Carter barred Iranians from traveling to the United States, with rare exceptions, using the same provision that Cruz cited.
Logically, Yates’s argument also makes no sense. If the U.S. cannot discriminate among immigrants on the basis of nationality, that would invalidate federal immigration policy as a whole — hardly Congress’s intent.
Yates: But my concern was not an INA concern here. It rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not this — the executive order here violated the Constitution, specifically with the Establishment Clause, with Equal Protection and Due Process.
The argument that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional is, at best, debatable, and most likely just wrong. Even if he had opted for an explicit “Muslim ban,” as he suggested he would after the Paris terror attacks in 2015 (before amending that policy later), that would also have been constitutional, as Breitbart News pointed out at the time. Our immigration laws already discriminate on the basis of religion, both for and against particular faiths.
Cruz: There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments that we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note, on January 27, 2017, the Department of Justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the Office of Legal Counsel that the executive order, and I’ll quote from the opinion, “The proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality.” That’s a determination from OLC on January 27th that it was legal. Three days later, you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was “wise or just.”
Cruz pointed out exactly why Yates deserved to be fired. Her job was not to make an argument against the order, but to enforce the order, even if there was a chance that it would be found unconstitutional, as long as there was some basis to claim that it was constitutional and lawful, which the Office of Legal Counsel determined it was.
The Obama administration took many actions that were unconstitutional, and which the Department of Justice nevertheless defended to the hilt. In N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning (2014), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Barack Obama had violated the Constitution by arrogating to himself the power to declare when the Senate was in recess, for the purpose of making presidential appointments.
Did Sally Yates offer to resign when the Department of Justice moved ahead with defending that hopeless case? Of course she did not.
Yates: And I also said, in that same directive, Senator, that I was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of OLC looks purely at the face of the document, and again makes a determination as to whether there is some set of circumstances under which some portion of that EO would be enforceable, would be lawful.
There was, in fact, such a set of circumstances, as proven by the decision by a federal court in Massachusetts to deny a temporary restraining order against the executive order. The judge found that the president “has exercised his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f),” and added that “this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.” Democrats do not like to cite that case, for obvious reasons.
Yates: They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, where we were talking particularly 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 out in his statements…
Note how Yates dismissed the law that was the basis for the executive order as “some arcane statute.” She also decided that the president’s statements on the campaign trail — statements that he later walked back — were somehow within her purview. She cited religious freedom — but, again, did she resign when the Department of Justice was called upon to defend Obama’s intrusions on religious freedom, as in the Little Sisters of the Poor case?
She did not. Her answers to Cruz reveal that Sally Yates did not care about the law, did not care about her oath, and did not care about the Constitution as much as she cared about taking a political stand against the new president.
Video: https://youtu.be/1sC1dOiCSp0
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/ted-cruz-sally-yates/
One would not know that from the liberal media, which thinks Yates won the exchange, but Cruz proved his case decisively.
Here’s why — in short: Cruz brought up the law that authorized the executive order, and Yates did not recognize it. She then answered by referring to another law, which does not supersede the first. She then tried to argue that the order was unconstitutional, but Cruz pointed out that her argument was a partisan one, driven by her own policy views. She then claimed no court would enforce the order — which is contradicted by the fact that one actually did.
The left thinks Yates won the exchange because she was well-prepared with a set of talking points, and offered a snappy response. That shows how desperate Democrats are to salvage something out of the hearing — which failed to produce any new evidence to back up their Russian conspiracy theories — and also how urgently they need to find new champions.
It does not change the fact that Cruz was completely correct, and Yates was completely wrong.
Here is a more detailed explanation, with a transcript of the relevant portion of the exchange, as well as a video (which the leftist who posted it called “Sally Yates Owns And Humilates Ted Cruz During Russia Hearing”).
Cruz: Well, are you familiar with 8 U.S.C. section 1182?
Yates: Not off the top of my head, no.
Think about that for a moment: the government’s chief lawyer was unfamiliar with the law that was the basis for the executive order, and which has been the basis of the government’s arguments in court in every one of the cases that she later cited. To a lay observer, asking about “8 U.S.C. section 1182” may sound like asking about a minor league baseball player’s batting average in 1987. But a senior lawyer involved in the issue should know exactly what Cruz was talking about — especially as the statute is referred to explicitly in the second version of the executive order.
Yates later said she is familiar with that law, but the fact that she did not recognize it suggests she was so biased that she had not bothered to familiarize herself in any detail with the legal arguments on the other side of the issue.
Cruz: Well, it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it is certainly a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute. By express text of the statute, it says, “whenever the president finds that the entry of any alien or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate.” Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?
Yates: I would, and I am familiar with that, and I’m also familiar with an additional provision of the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] that says “no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, or place of birth,” that I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and that’s been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described.
The law Yates cited was passed in 1965 as an amendment to the law Cruz cited, which was passed in 1952. There are some lawyers who argue that the 1965 amendment supersede the provisions Cruz cited. However, no president has ever treated the law that way. In fact, every single Democratic president since then has used the provision that Cruz cited, specifically to exclude or restrict travelers from specific countries from entering the United States.
An essay in Time magazine — of all places — pointed out some examples earlier this year. Most notably, President Jimmy Carter barred Iranians from traveling to the United States, with rare exceptions, using the same provision that Cruz cited.
Logically, Yates’s argument also makes no sense. If the U.S. cannot discriminate among immigrants on the basis of nationality, that would invalidate federal immigration policy as a whole — hardly Congress’s intent.
Yates: But my concern was not an INA concern here. It rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not this — the executive order here violated the Constitution, specifically with the Establishment Clause, with Equal Protection and Due Process.
The argument that Trump’s executive order was unconstitutional is, at best, debatable, and most likely just wrong. Even if he had opted for an explicit “Muslim ban,” as he suggested he would after the Paris terror attacks in 2015 (before amending that policy later), that would also have been constitutional, as Breitbart News pointed out at the time. Our immigration laws already discriminate on the basis of religion, both for and against particular faiths.
Cruz: There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments that we can expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note, on January 27, 2017, the Department of Justice issued an official legal decision, a determination by the Office of Legal Counsel that the executive order, and I’ll quote from the opinion, “The proposed order is approved with respect to form and legality.” That’s a determination from OLC on January 27th that it was legal. Three days later, you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was “wise or just.”
Cruz pointed out exactly why Yates deserved to be fired. Her job was not to make an argument against the order, but to enforce the order, even if there was a chance that it would be found unconstitutional, as long as there was some basis to claim that it was constitutional and lawful, which the Office of Legal Counsel determined it was.
The Obama administration took many actions that were unconstitutional, and which the Department of Justice nevertheless defended to the hilt. In N.L.R.B. v. Noel Canning (2014), for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that President Barack Obama had violated the Constitution by arrogating to himself the power to declare when the Senate was in recess, for the purpose of making presidential appointments.
Did Sally Yates offer to resign when the Department of Justice moved ahead with defending that hopeless case? Of course she did not.
Yates: And I also said, in that same directive, Senator, that I was not convinced it was lawful. I also made the point that the office of OLC looks purely at the face of the document, and again makes a determination as to whether there is some set of circumstances under which some portion of that EO would be enforceable, would be lawful.
There was, in fact, such a set of circumstances, as proven by the decision by a federal court in Massachusetts to deny a temporary restraining order against the executive order. The judge found that the president “has exercised his broad authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f),” and added that “this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.” Democrats do not like to cite that case, for obvious reasons.
Yates: They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document. And in this particular instance, where we were talking particularly 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 out in his statements…
Note how Yates dismissed the law that was the basis for the executive order as “some arcane statute.” She also decided that the president’s statements on the campaign trail — statements that he later walked back — were somehow within her purview. She cited religious freedom — but, again, did she resign when the Department of Justice was called upon to defend Obama’s intrusions on religious freedom, as in the Little Sisters of the Poor case?
She did not. Her answers to Cruz reveal that Sally Yates did not care about the law, did not care about her oath, and did not care about the Constitution as much as she cared about taking a political stand against the new president.
Video: https://youtu.be/1sC1dOiCSp0
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/09/ted-cruz-sally-yates/
May 9, 2017 18:52:02 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Really, Breitbart's partisan view of the encounter? Would you accept the view of say, The Nation? Of course not.
Actually, when Ted Cruz tried to lecture Sally Yates on constitutional law...it didn't go well for him, at all. Muffled laughter was heard after she schooled/shamed him. The Independent, a British news magazine/paper wrote a concise, non partisan article on it. BTW, the embarrassment showed clearly on his face.
Actually, when Ted Cruz tried to lecture Sally Yates on constitutional law...it didn't go well for him, at all. Muffled laughter was heard after she schooled/shamed him. The Independent, a British news magazine/paper wrote a concise, non partisan article on it. BTW, the embarrassment showed clearly on his face.
May 9, 2017 19:08:24 #
Rivers wrote:
On Monday, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciar... (show quote)
Rivers, what is your conclusion to Yate's testimony? Vindictive, calculating, an attempt to force Trump's hand in revealing General Flynn's full conversation with the Russian ambassador that might expose John Podesta's pedophilia? Both Podesta brothers, John and Tony have large business ventures inside Russia and the Ukraine. We have all seen those files from WikiLeaks portraying Hillary as a witch, where Podesta's nickname for Hillary was "broomstick." This ain't top secret, ya know. The Russians did not "hack" John Podesta's computer, he released his data bank by accidently opening a phishing file.
More on Podesta is being reviewed by the NYPD that seized pedophile Anthony Weiner's laptop, which housed some 650,000 state department files sent by Weiner's wife, Humma Abadin who was Hillary's top aid at the State Department. Most likely, the Russian police are wondering how much sex trafficking the Podesta brothers are orchestrating inside Russia, the Ukraine, and through the Serbian Witch of whom they dine with, Marina Abramovich.
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/wikileaks-john-podestas-satanic-dinner-warning-graphic-content
WikiLeaks: John Podesta's Satanic Dinner
"WikiLeaks: Leaked email reveals Hillary Clinton's campaign chair attended disturbing "Spirit Cooking" dinner last year?
NEW YORK - WikiLeaks has released what may be the most disturbing email leaked from Hillary Clinton's inner circle. The email reveals John Podesta's brother Tony invited him to attend the Spirit Cooking dinner with Marina Abramovic on July 9, 2015 in New York City. The video above from Abramovic sheds some light on what "Spirit Cooking" actually is...."
Witch Marina Abramovic is also tied to the Bilderberg Group through its founders, Prince Bernhard and Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands. The Bilderberg Group is a secret society of corporate globalists, socialists, politicians, communists, central bankers, media moguls and royalty hoping to orchestrate the New World Order. I kid you not, many members of Bilderberg are communist enemies of the new Federation of Russian Republics, hoping to to overthrow Asia's newest democracy. David Rockefeller, Rupert Murdoch, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, and many other names of fame are members of this secret society. (see Daniel Estulin's book "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" for a list of its illustrious demons.)
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1658833
Marina Abromovich with the Dutch Queen Beatrix. The Queen wears for the occasion a pizza brooch!
Communism's biggest enemy is religion, so pitting the three children of Abraham (Muslims, Jews and Christians) against eachother in a religious war, a mockery of God and His laws, has been the agenda of both the Bilderberg Group and the United Nations. Perverts, pedophiles and witchcraft fit the bill. Poland just elected Jesus Christ as their King. Putin has declared Christianity as the official state religion of Russia.
Is it possible that Sally Yates is also a "witch"? Who is the husband of Sally Caroline Quillian Yates?
May 10, 2017 06:42:55 #
slatten49 wrote:
Really, Breitbart's partisan view of the encounter? Would you accept the view of say, The Nation? Of course not.
Actually, when Ted Cruz tried to lecture Sally Yates on constitutional law...it didn't go well for him, at all. Muffled laughter was heard after she schooled/shamed him. The Independent, a British news magazine/paper wrote a concise, non partisan article on it. BTW, the embarrassment showed clearly on his face.
Actually, when Ted Cruz tried to lecture Sally Yates on constitutional law...it didn't go well for him, at all. Muffled laughter was heard after she schooled/shamed him. The Independent, a British news magazine/paper wrote a concise, non partisan article on it. BTW, the embarrassment showed clearly on his face.
And, your stupid comment is not partisan? Eh, fence straddler? Ted was not embarrassed for having been caught in anything, if he was at the least bit, it was because he missed an opening when she changed subjects. Go back and look at it again...and try not to fall off the left side of that fence.
May 10, 2017 16:41:32 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Rivers wrote:
And, your stupid comment is not partisan? Eh, fence straddler? Ted was not embarrassed for having been caught in anything, if he was at the least bit, it was because he missed an opening when she changed subjects. Go back and look at it again...and try not to fall off the left side of that fence.
It is a blessing that Will Rogers never met you, Mr. Flatliner.
One of his greatest legacies would've been dismissed or forgotten. 
May 10, 2017 17:58:14 #
slatten49 wrote:
It is a blessing that Will Rogers never met you, Mr. Flatliner. One of his greatest legacies would've been dismissed or forgotten.
One of his greatest legacies would've been dismissed or forgotten. Ditto...fence straddler!
May 10, 2017 19:13:32 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Sally Yates was right about everything.
Josh Barro,Business Insider Tue, May 9 12:37 PM PDT
Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates is mostly known for two things: refusing to defend President Donald Trump's first executive order on immigration — an order several courts enjoined and the White House eventually withdrew — and warning White House counsel Don McGahn about activities of Mike Flynn, then the national-security adviser, whom Trump fired weeks later.
This is what made Sen. Ted Cruz's attempted grilling of Yates at Monday's hearing seem so strange. All Cruz's aggressive line of questioning did was show how right Yates had been about everything.
There is a procedural argument to be had about when an attorney general should decline to make an argument in court that the president wants made. (Not one that rises to the level of worrying about whether the attorney general has usurped the president's executive authority, I think, since the president has a remedy if they won't do what he wants — he can fire them, as Trump did.)
But if Yates' break with Trump on the executive order was merely a disagreement over a "policy decision" rather than whether the policy was lawful, as Cruz posited, why did federal courts keep blocking it, and why did Trump withdraw it instead of seeking to defend it in the courts?
Of course, this hearing wasn't even supposed to be about the so-called Muslim ban executive order. It was nominally about Russian interference in the 2016 election, including concerns that the Russian government could have compromised Flynn — concerns Yates raised with McGahn during Trump's first week in office.
I think a purpose of Republicans' questioning Yates about the order was to defend the White House from the conclusion that it recklessly ignored Yates' guidance about Flynn. If Yates was a partisan actor hostile to Trump, why should the White House have been expected to take her advice about presidential appointments seriously?
White House press secretary Sean Spicer made this argument on Tuesday, saying Yates is "someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda" as part of his explanation of why the White House did not act immediately on Yates' warning about Flynn.
But here, too, Yates' correctness is borne by the president's actions. Once it became publicly known that Flynn had discussed sanctions against Russia with its ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak — contrary to the public statements of Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials — Trump fired Flynn.
In both cases, Trump ended up following Yates' guidance, albeit belatedly. He should have listened to her, despite her being a Democratic appointee.
All Cruz and Spicer have achieved is showing that Yates repeatedly and correctly stood up to an unpopular president and got her way in the end. They are doing their part to help launch her political career, should she want one.
Josh Barro,Business Insider Tue, May 9 12:37 PM PDT
Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates is mostly known for two things: refusing to defend President Donald Trump's first executive order on immigration — an order several courts enjoined and the White House eventually withdrew — and warning White House counsel Don McGahn about activities of Mike Flynn, then the national-security adviser, whom Trump fired weeks later.
This is what made Sen. Ted Cruz's attempted grilling of Yates at Monday's hearing seem so strange. All Cruz's aggressive line of questioning did was show how right Yates had been about everything.
There is a procedural argument to be had about when an attorney general should decline to make an argument in court that the president wants made. (Not one that rises to the level of worrying about whether the attorney general has usurped the president's executive authority, I think, since the president has a remedy if they won't do what he wants — he can fire them, as Trump did.)
But if Yates' break with Trump on the executive order was merely a disagreement over a "policy decision" rather than whether the policy was lawful, as Cruz posited, why did federal courts keep blocking it, and why did Trump withdraw it instead of seeking to defend it in the courts?
Of course, this hearing wasn't even supposed to be about the so-called Muslim ban executive order. It was nominally about Russian interference in the 2016 election, including concerns that the Russian government could have compromised Flynn — concerns Yates raised with McGahn during Trump's first week in office.
I think a purpose of Republicans' questioning Yates about the order was to defend the White House from the conclusion that it recklessly ignored Yates' guidance about Flynn. If Yates was a partisan actor hostile to Trump, why should the White House have been expected to take her advice about presidential appointments seriously?
White House press secretary Sean Spicer made this argument on Tuesday, saying Yates is "someone who is not exactly a supporter of the president's agenda" as part of his explanation of why the White House did not act immediately on Yates' warning about Flynn.
But here, too, Yates' correctness is borne by the president's actions. Once it became publicly known that Flynn had discussed sanctions against Russia with its ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak — contrary to the public statements of Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials — Trump fired Flynn.
In both cases, Trump ended up following Yates' guidance, albeit belatedly. He should have listened to her, despite her being a Democratic appointee.
All Cruz and Spicer have achieved is showing that Yates repeatedly and correctly stood up to an unpopular president and got her way in the end. They are doing their part to help launch her political career, should she want one.
May 10, 2017 19:17:08 #
slatten49 wrote:
Sally Yates was right about everything. br br Jos... (show quote)
Absolute leftist bullshit!!!!!!! Hell, I thought you were a fence straddler, but if you actually believe this shit, you fell off the fence. You're just the typical brain washed leftist.
May 10, 2017 19:27:35 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Rivers wrote:
Absolute leftist bullshit!!!!!!! Hell, I thought you were a fence straddler, but if you actually believe this shit, you fell off the fence. You're just the typical brain washed leftist.
Seems you can't handle the truth. "If Yates' break with Trump on the executive order was merely a disagreement over a 'policy decision' rather than whether the policy was lawful, as Cruz posited, why did federal courts keep blocking it, and why did Trump withdraw it instead of seeking to defend it in the courts?" Do you even bother, as an ideologist, to read/think things through, or is it you just can't comprehend or accept truth and/or facts that fail to align with your beliefs? Sad.....
May 10, 2017 21:31:04 #
slatten49 wrote:
Sally Yates was right about everything. br br Jos... (show quote)
I think you missed the entire plot. Yates is a Democrat operative, hoping to smear the Republicans before the Republicans smear the Democrats.
Let me ask you, why did FBI Director Comey refuse President Trump's request to investigate the leakers or find the people responsible for unmasking General Flynn in this intelligence deep state maze tracking the "Russian connection"? Is Comey the leaker?
This is a shrewd game of gotcha and Trump has the winning cards. Let's see what the next FBI Director finds out.
May 11, 2017 06:31:37 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
I think you missed the entire plot. Yates is a Dem... (show quote)
Interesting theory, CR. Though, with both parties accusing Comey of collusion with the other, not likely. Much remains unknown as to how far the investigation has gone, and should, until it is complete.
As usual, time will tell.
May 11, 2017 08:07:01 #
slatten49 wrote:
Seems you can't handle the truth. "If Yates'... (show quote)
I can't handle the truth? Are you really that stupid, or just plain naive when it comes to politics? The federal courts blocked it because they're liberals!!!!!! Just like you, that's why you can't see the forest for the trees. They're Obama appointees!
Do I ever read/think things through?????? Apparently a whole lot better than you!!!!!!!!!! You're an idiot when it comes to politics, mainly because you're a leftist liberal.....brain washed, and have drank the Kool Aid.
I can't accept the truth or facts??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man, you really are delusional. You wouldn't recognize the truth, or a fact if it hit you between the eyes!
May 11, 2017 08:08:22 #
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
I think you missed the entire plot. Yates is a Dem... (show quote)
Thank you, but I'm sure this will go right over Slatten49's head, being a leftist himself.
May 11, 2017 08:25:11 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Rivers wrote:
I can't handle the truth? Are you really that stu... (show quote)
Rivers, I have followed you for some time now on the forum. While waiting for some scintilla of decency, integrity or understanding in even the simplest of political discussions with anyone who doesn't echo your thoughts, all I have read from you...beyond an occasional cut'n paste screening of highly partisan viewpoints matching yours...are hateful and disgusting exhibits of uncontrolled rage at those with opposing views. I know you are only one (of many) making such disgusting or laughable spectacles of yourselves. But, they can simply follow similar steps to cure their rude and crude behaviors. Now, calm down, take a breath and try to control yourself.
I want you and others (from all sides) to take note of these following two words with brief explanations of their meanings, and take them to heart in recognizing them as probable symptoms of socio-pathic induced tendencies.. I feel certain you are capable of becoming a reasonable, rationale person with an ability for respectfully composed and tempered arguments without spewing the venomous, vitriolic dark-side regularly seen in your posts. It may take an exorcising of these two components that constitute your illness:
1) 'Incorrigibility' is a property of a philosophical proposition which implies that it is necessarily true simply by virtue of being believed.
2) 'Intransigence' is a steadfast adherence to an opinion, purpose, or course of action in spite of reason, arguments or persuasion.
Here's wishing you success on your road to recovery.
May 11, 2017 09:51:51 #
slatten49 wrote:
Rivers, I have followed you for some time now on t... (show quote)
Blah....blah.....blah....typical leftist bullshit.....yawn......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You're sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo full of shit........yawn. Get a life, moron.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.