Sally Yates cited this in her testimony: Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited another portion of the US Code regarding foreign states: "Except as specifically provided in...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited another portion of the US Code regarding foreign states:

"Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), and 1153 of this title, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence."

Not being an attorney, I don't think she got the slam dunk on Ted that the anti-Trumpsters are claiming.

The ban was on countries who lack documentation to properly be vetted or to "clear" a person as being free from terrorist contact/involvement. There is nothing in the EO which implied anyone was being denied immigrant status based upon ANY of the above listed provisions.

I found Ted's response disappointing in light of his great intelligence/knowledge base.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

nwtk2007 wrote:

Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited an... (show quote)

When Yates made her statement, Ted should have replied, "except,,,, 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."

Brightbart, yes I spelled it that way, claims Ted cleaned HER clock, that she should have been expressly aware of the statute Ted cited, but the fact is, he wasn't up to being familiar with the one she cited. He should have been expressly aware of the one she cited, and, should have been prepared for it.

Brightbart said her bias made her so short sighted that she didn't remember the statute which was actually cited in the second EO. Well, I think old Ted was a bit short sighted for the very same reason.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

nwtk2007 wrote:

Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited an... (show quote)

"....there is the matter of him making the comments, during his campaign, that the court is troubled about..."

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Trump's own words, whether the words themselves are hyperbole or rants possess a grain of truth and that's what is biting him in the ass. And since he will never apologize and expect his lawyers and brain-dead spoke persons and apologists to always cover for him, this may never be resolved.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Dummy Boy wrote:

"....there is the matter of him making the co... (show quote)

I know what they said, but it is over-reach. By the definition of what the EO's say, they do NOT single out Muslims. It is a SIMPLE fact that the EO's did not effect but a fraction of Muslims and only then by chance of the country they might be traveling from. Your denial of the truth of this indicates that you should apply your quote to yourself, " The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him." This liberal court, in their anti-Trump fashion, selected this to provide some semblance of reason for proclaiming the EO's unconstitutional. In fact, it's so obvious as to make those who stand by it to look totally dishonest. Fact is, we ALL know what the truth of the matter is.

wuzblynd Loc: thomson georgia

nwtk2007 wrote:

I know what they said, but it is over-reach. By t... (show quote)

Yes we do know what the truth is, Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

Rivers

nwtk2007 wrote:

Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited an... (show quote)

This is from the INA not U.S. Code Law. She changed subjects on Ted, and he picked that up. He was citing U.S. Code, and she changed the subject to the INA code, which was initiated from a bill submitted by Ted Kennedy back in 1965. And, that is the crust of the whole issue. The left (Democrats) want to take away immigration authority from the president and make the INA (Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965) the authority not the current U.S. Constitution and U.S. Law Code. She was pretty sneaky in doing that, and I contend that was done on purpose. Because that is what will be what the SCOTUS will be reviewing and ruling on here in the not so distant future.

Ricktloml

nwtk2007 wrote:

I know what they said, but it is over-reach. By t... (show quote)

Didn't this activist judge rule against the travel ban based on what he decided President Trump's motives were, rather than the text of the law

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

nwtk2007 wrote:

I know what they said, but it is over-reach. By t... (show quote)

I didn't deny the truth, there are two facts. The president tends to state one thing and then provide legal documentation (however accurate), which clarifies his position. He is being duplicitous not me.

That being said, when has an act of terrorism occurred since all of this has happened with the existing vetting process?

...but, yea, it's over reach-no argument there.

Rivers

Ricktloml wrote:

Didn't this activist judge rule against the travel ban based on what he decided President Trump's motives were, rather than the text of the law

He based it on comments Trump made during the campaign.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

wuzblynd wrote:

Yes we do know what the truth is, Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

But that is irrelevant to the travel ban.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Rivers wrote:

This is from the INA not U.S. Code Law. She chang... (show quote)

Thanks for the info. I still think old Ted should have been ready with an answer. The ban doesn't violate the INA either.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Ricktloml wrote:

Didn't this activist judge rule against the travel ban based on what he decided President Trump's motives were, rather than the text of the law

He sure did. Said it wasn't needed.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Dummy Boy wrote:

I didn't deny the truth, there are two facts. The president tends to state one thing and then provide legal documentation (however accurate), which clarifies his position. He is being duplicitous not me.

That being said, when has an act of terrorism occurred since all of this has happened with the existing vetting process?

...but, yea, it's over reach-no argument there.

The presidents comments are not legal documentation, unless it's a direct order to a subordinate.

About a forth of terrorist acts are committed by immigrants. Thus, the need to get better info on them is needed.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

Dummy Boy wrote:

"....there is the matter of him making the co... (show quote)

You need to take some of your own advice.

Radiance3

nwtk2007 wrote:

Upon questioning by Ted Cruz, Sally Yates sited an... (show quote)

===============
Sally Yates was fired by President Trump, because she refused to execute her duties according to the framework of the constitution.
She then had this ill-gotten will thus retaliated against President Trump.