This is former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a woman who has prosecuted terrorists...

This is former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a woman who has prosecuted terrorists, fought public corruption and who loves her country.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8RU69gzQbeM
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/
lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement
reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5r5kz9/this_is_former_acting_attorney_general_sally/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You are fucking FIRED.

Bump

She is a PATRIOT who was fired for standing up for what she believes in.

and she couldn't bring herself to comply with her boss' directives so she is no longer employed by him- you know, how it should be

and she's probably dirty or (((someone))) threatened to slaughter her family

Nice flag friend

>Democratic Party
>loves her country

lol no

everyone has a boss. I can't go rogue.

consequences will never be the same with PRESIDENT Trump

No, retard. She was just one of Obama's appointees who has loyalty to king nigger

...

FUCK DRUMPF

F I R E D
I
R
E
D

>who has prosecuted terrorists, fought public corruption and who loves her country
Looks like she forgot how to do her fucking job now it seems.

Obama leftovers into the trash

good one CTR

You're Fired.

KING Trump everybody, bow down to the monarch

She served under Bush and Obama so just how bad does it have to be for her to find it questionable to enforce Trump's EO?
It was clear should could have been more open and direct about the issue like the various federal judges have found were appropriate grounds to grant an injunction from its enforcement. Makes one wonder why she tried to temporize.

BYE BYE

youtube.com/watch?v=8RU69gzQbeM

She made her decision primarily based on "what she thought was right", and consideration of whether or not Trump's order was lawful was secondary.

As such she disgraced herself before our system, which is a system of laws, not of men.

She let her political feelings get in the way of doing her job. Fired! Good riddance!

>She made her decision primarily based on "what she thought was right"
Just like the various federal judges who found the order unenforceable for violating the Constitution and issue an injunction?

>CTR is still trying to be relevant

and apparently knows shit all about constitution.

Stfu leaf

She's an insubordinate Obongo drone intent on destroying American values and ideals

Fuck muslims they don't want to assimilate and they hate us ban/kill them all

She's mostly just a sacraficial lamb.
The dumb cunt wanted to act smug.
Trump needed to show he wasn't fucking around.
The other traitors will think twice before trying anything.

And now she's fired :^)

>liberal americans go about calling themselves patriots like its a girl scout badge
HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHHHA
direct descendants of benedict arnold

Draining the swamp.

>mfw my president is so indefensibly stupid and corrupt that the few idiots that support him have to pretend everyone is out to get them

Everyone hates Trump you fucking retard. Everyone hates you for voting for him. How hard is this to understand?

>consequences will never be the same
I know; because I back traced it!

Fuck Dumpf

shartblue detected

She's also WRONG to do what she did. No excuses.

I'd still probably let her blow me though.

Amen.

This.

She was an interim appointee until sessions clears the Senate and I think the vote is tomorrow. This cunt was just virtue signalling and setting herself up for a comfy position at a private practice. Completely selfish move, the adult thing would have been to resign quietly if she disagreed.

She's a filthy COMMUNIST TRAITOR.

>have to pretend everyone is out to get them
>Ha ha! Everyone hates you and is out to get you
The Left, ladies and gentlemen.

She's not a judge.

Also, the office of legal counsel said the order was legal.

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/

>A few quick observations. First, the statement seems to indicate that the executive order was reviewed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which apparently concluded that the executive order was lawful. Second, Yates does not claim that she cannot defend the executive order because it is unconstitutional or because the Justice Department would be unable to offer good-faith arguments in defense of its legality. To the contrary, Yates claims she is ordering the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it is not “wise or just.” This is quite significant. I am not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.

This. Just a political move from a king nigger carry-over.

Mike "Remember Ben Fischbein" Pence

>literally cannot STAND to hear how unpopular Trump really is
I'm sorry that the truth hurts.

The left isn't out to get you. You've taken their victim complex and magnified it 100-fold. The majority of our country thinks you're fucking annoying at best and ignorantly dangerous at worst.

woah there reddit

fired

*was

FIRED

>She's not a judge.
I didn't claim that she was a judge. I pointed out various judges have found an interpretation similar to hers in direct contradiction to the claimed "her decision was based on "what she thought was right" rather than the law."

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/acting-attorney-general-orders-justice-department-attorneys-not-to-defend-immigration-executive-order/
Thanks for the opinion piece but it is just that, an opinion not an article that states facts. The opinion is making a questionable "observation" when it claims it was "found lawful" based upon a statement that included, "nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful" which directly contradicts said observation.

>WaPo

Don't tell me that. Tell that to the guy who provided the link.

She has to go back

She's just another crooked democrat. Drain the swamp. Fuck her.

Nice flag Halloumi

Go back to Algeria

This. She was a holdover until Sessions gets appointed.

Resigning because you can't do your job is one thing.
Getting fired because you think you can get away with not doing your work is another.
If you can't do your job, you shouldn't be doing it.

>The opinion is making a questionable "observation" when it claims it was "found lawful" based upon a statement that included, "nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful" which directly contradicts said observation.

I said that the Office of Legal Counsel found the order to be lawful. She didn't say that she found it to be unlawful, she said that she "wasn't convinced that the Executive Order is lawful" which is different and is not the usual standard the AGs stick to when deciding whether or not to defend an executive order.

Also as far as your inane "just an opinion piece" criticism, no shit sherlock. Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, they give their legal opinions on things.

Here's another legal opinion:


lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

>Yates states at the end of her letter that she is “not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.” This statement summarizes the two major points above. First, she believes the standard for defending the EO is “best view of the law,” not reasonable legality, and she is not convinced the EO is consistent with the best view of the law. But as noted above, the typical standard for the Attorney General to defend an EO of the President is not whether she is convinced of its legality. Rather, the standard is something closer to the idea that she should defend the EO unless she is convinced of its illegality--i.e. she defends if there is a reasonable argument for its legality.

She circles the drain as we speak.

Trump is losing control. This will end fast and dirty.

>decide to stay
>know you will oppose the elected leader of the country
>get fired
patriot? she is going against the will of the people

And nothing of value was lost.

Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative legal blog hosted by WaPo, but is editorially independent from WaPo.

They are pretty fucking based.

>left riots
>left block roads
>left attacks trump supporters
no you guys are the ones who are hated and who have a victim complex

reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5r5kz9/this_is_former_acting_attorney_general_sally/

go back to where you came from

She wasn't very good at her job was she. She claimed she didn't even think President Trump's order was legal. How the fuck did someone so ignorant of the law get to be US AG?

>I said that the Office of Legal Counsel found the order to be lawful
That's YOUR opinion piece? You sir a retard if you come to a conclusion that is expressly denied from the source "observed."

>She didn't say that she found it to be unlawful
Did I claim that she did or did I point out how idiotic it is to claim it is lawful when the text specifically says "NOR (not the negative form of or) am I convinced that the EO is lawful." At best that is arguing from ignorance, ie. because I haven't been proven wrong in my opinion it must be right kind of retardedness.

>blog
Great job supporting your opinion with another opinion.

reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5r5kz9/this_is_former_acting_attorney_general_sally/

next time include the source so we can all laugh at it

new CTR is really working overtime

There is nothing I like more than thinking about a person who spent their entire career in the public sector going to the unemployment line. Especially when they are democrats.

>to claim it *was found lawful

>leaf
>knowing patriotism

FUCK OFF CTR

Now she's unemployed.
Like the rest of us.

Oh, and I should ask even if the OLC _had_ stated that it wasn't lawful on its face would that have stopped Trump from signing it anyway? It seems having the acting AG point out issues resulted not in wise contemplation but in retaliatory termination.

>>I said that the Office of Legal Counsel found the order to be lawful
>That's YOUR opinion piece? You sir a retard if you come to a conclusion that is expressly denied from the source "observed."

Are you fucking retarded? The AG is separate from the Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC found the order to be legal. The AG said she wasn't convinced of its legality. Those are two entirely separate opinions.

>Did I claim that she did or did I point out how idiotic it is to claim it is lawful when the text specifically says "NOR (not the negative form of or) am I convinced that the EO is lawful." At best that is arguing from ignorance, ie. because I haven't been proven wrong in my opinion it must be right kind of retardedness.

I already argued that the standard for whether or not an EO is defended by an AG is supposed to be whether or not there is a reasonable argument for its legality. Whether or not the AG is wholly convinced that the argument will be vindicated is irrelevant, as I already explained.

>Great job supporting your opinion with another opinion.

How the fuck do you think law works you fucking retard?

Press F to blame Fascism
F

I saw that Reddit thread too but seriously it is impossible to become AG without being a total scumbag criminal sycophant asshole.

she betrayed President Trump so she can go burn in hell.

If the OLC had stated that the EO wasn't lawful than the AG would be justified in not defending it.

Since the OLC said it was legal, her "I don't think the policy is wise or just" argument is bullshit. She should have resigned if she didn't want to argue in favor of the order.

Refusing to defend it even though she wasn't convinced that it was unlawful was disgraceful. She's not someone who was elected to give voice to her SJW morality, she was appointed to uphold the law.

the problem is she believed in the wrong thing

You all need to go back to CTR HQ. AKA Reddit

>The AG is separate from the Office of Legal Counsel.
Distinct but I wouldn't call it separate. The OLC is a part of the Department of Justice with the AG, including acting AG, heads.

>I already argued that the standard for whether or not an EO is defended by an AG is supposed to be whether or not there is a reasonable argument for its legality
Which she clearly didn't find and various judges have found were not reasonable enough to survive a request for a TRO.

>How the fuck do you think law works you fucking retard?
Please tell me you are not comparing a typical layman's opinion as equivalent to the basis of stare decisis or let the decision stand or judicial opinion. That would only be another nail in the coffin of your retardedness.

>Since the OLC said it was legal
[citation needed]

BASED

nevermind the stupidity on the left about things

>there are no checks and balances!
checks and balances preventing Jeff Sessions from taking office as AG
>no you're just trolling
wat.

>Which she clearly didn't find and various judges have found were not reasonable enough to survive a request for a TRO.

What judges have found isn't relevant. Her job is to defend the government's position.

>Please tell me you are not comparing a typical layman's opinion as equivalent to the basis of stare decisis or let the decision stand or judicial opinion. That would only be another nail in the coffin of your retardedness.

I cited LEGAL BLOGS from highly regarded legal scholars you fucking idiot. Neither source was a layman's opinion.

>>Since the OLC said it was legal
>[citation needed]

The citation was already provided.

you mean some dumb cunt who made a scene just before getting replaced by jeff sessions?

>What judges have found isn't relevant.
Nice unilateral conclusory statement you made there. Yeah, we'll just ignore evidence that is contrary to your position entirely because that would be convenient for you.

>The citation was already provided.
You mean the one that interpreted and "observation" or as I refuted as "arguing from ignorance" because it postulates a position from a basis of it not being disproven? No, you didn't provide a citation if you are referring to that WaPo opinion piece.

No, that's a traitorous cunt who is out of a fucking job. Good riddance.

Go away Crew(CTR)

Salty Yates

Am I right fellas?

jesus fucking christ what kind of fuckwit are you?

JUST FIRE MY SHIT UP SENPAI

To further refute your retarded "just an opinion" argument, when the Supreme Court rules on a case and splits, there is the "Majority Opinion", "Concurring Opinion(s)", and the "Dissenting Opinion".

Law is based on opinion.

One that is an actual American that knows our laws and how common this is? This cunt deservingly got the boot. Fuck off abbo.

>>What judges have found isn't relevant.
>Nice unilateral conclusory statement you made there. Yeah, we'll just ignore evidence that is contrary to your position entirely because that would be convenient for you.

Again, her job is to defend the government's position.

Based on your logic the government should never provide its own defense for laws and/or orders that a judge or set of judges has ruled against.

The standard is supposed to be whether or not there's a reasonable argument in favor of legality, not the converse.

>Law is based upon opinion
That's like saying the "theory of evolution is just a theory." There's a difference between an opinion and a judicial opinion. One that is based upon an adversarial process and a determination or "finding" of facts. This opinion piece is nothing even close to a judicial opinion that is case law.

Wow, that's not a sign of dictatorship?

Fuck you bootlicker.

WHORRRREEEEE

Right as rain

HERE'S A LIST OF THE CTR SHILLS NAMES AND ADDRESSES

Fuck off commie piece of shit. You don't know what fascism even means.

>Again, her job is to defend the government's position.
Abandoned the evidence based upon judicial opinion? Glad that was established.
No, her job is to exercise the authority granted to her by the citizens of the United States. Unless you believe legitimate authority comes from the President or some other source other than the people governed?

>Based on your logic the government should never provide its own defense for laws and/or orders that a judge or set of judges has ruled against.
Bullshit. That's some Olympic gold level piece of mental gymnastics. Pointing out the fact that she found the EO to be facially unenforceable is not an argument that the government shouldn't provide for its own defense. Only that THIS decree is clearly of questionable lawful value. A point you tried to refute with an opinion piece using some questionable truth value.