Sally Yates Russiagate Senate Testimony

[Breccia]

And of course, this has fuck all to do with the subject of this hearing today. Fucking embarrassing display by Grassley, Cruz, Cornyn, and Kennedy.

You must be talking about this:

[Gref]

After watching it nonstop for 3 hours I came to the conclusion that the people on the left side of Mr.Graham, (from viewer point) specifically Mr.Kennedy and Mr.Cruz are total garbage. Especially during Mr.Kennedy's talk I was like "dude better shut up instead of talking like you know your shit and acting like a big boy". If my understanding is correct they are on the Trump side and they have nothing to say against the allegations or anyway to defend Trump or Flynn. All they speak is bullshit. Repeat same drama, which is basically: "We are not happy with what you did Sally + refusing what is an undeniable fact".

The people on the right side of Mr.Graham were far better at discussing the topic especially Mr.Blumenthal. Those people actually tried to discuss the topic at hand.

Mr.Graham also looked like he really wants to get this shit figured out, he wants answers (which are classified) and he will get them. Mr.Whitehouse as well, nice performance.

This Flynn guy is seriously is in trouble and if What Mr.Frank said got any truth into it (he was speculating of course, the idea of all the members of Trump team having ties with Russia that is why Flynn was not fired immediately) it means serious trouble for Trump team.

Anyway it made me happy to see how effective (personal opinion) your congress works. If everybody upholds their words, positions etc, this will be solved. Soon. And I don't think it will be good news for Trump.

As a bonus, I have also come to the conclusion that Trump is a child, stupid or a pawn (you pick) that he can't devise or plot anything complex. The people in his team however are smart enough to tinker with complex processes.

[Ulmita]

"It should be an article 5 violation"... Lol... Good old 'Murica.

Always, hide behind the crew when someone that can fight back is involved.

[Edge-]

You must be talking about this:

I hope he gets sent an email with that link every day for the remainder of his time in office. I get what he was going after (getting Clapper to answer a question under oath that could be used against him later), but that was one of the most hilariously awful attempts that I've ever seen.

[Mormolyce]

One corrupt asshat won...the other corrupt asshat lost. I think the Victory is mocking you as much as you try to mock back.

Their levels of corruption are in very different leagues.

Obama warned them beforehand. They used Flynn anyways. They lied to the public. Yates heard their lies and thought they were genuinely clueless. When she warned them they fired her to cover it up.

But let's enjoy these choices anyways:

1. Trump and his team are incompetent

or

2. Trump and his team committed treason

Come on now, it can easily be both.

[Artaxerxes]

Obama warned them beforehand. They used Flynn anyways. They lied to the public. Yates heard their lies and thought they were genuinely clueless. When she warned them they fired her to cover it up.

But let's enjoy these choices anyways:

1. Trump and his team are incompetent

or

2. Trump and his team committed treason

But as the old expression goes, treason is a matter of dates.

[Deleted]

Shit, Im out of popcorn.

Popcorn has arrived

[Healing Rain]

It bears repeating: Yates was so correct about the Muslim Ban, that the first one was blocked, and Trump gave up. Then, they re-wrote it specifically around the court ruling, and that one was blocked too. That's how right Yates was. Even a specific intent to force it to be legal, wasn't enough.

And it's not going great this time, either.

First of all, the ban was to be 90 days and it's closing in on 60 days since the second block in a hurry. As some point, the smart move is to just work on extreme vetting, which was the point of a temporary ban in the first place. The first ban would have expired by now.

Second of all, the one thing they can't change was Trump's flat-out stated intentions to which he got thundering applause. He can say whatever he wants now, he said he wanted a Muslim Ban. And that's unConstitutional. It came up today. One of the judges asked "Has the president ever repudiated the campaign statements he made about a Muslim ban?" And there is only one answer to that: no. The Muslim Ban was on Trump's website until literally today.

Third of all, even FOX News is suggesting a loss here. Yeah the case isn't over, but the headline "Appeals court casts skeptical eye at revised order" from the most favorable network to Trump is not a great sign.

And fourth of all, even if it passes the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, there's still the Ninth, who blocked it the first time. Trump has to win both cases. And I'll remind you, Trump has directly threatened the Ninth and impugned their objectivity. If he's right, they'll block him out of spite. If he's wrong, their arguments remain valid.

Her "feelings": were irrelevant. Her job as AG was to help enforce the President's orders. If she had problem with them she should voiced them to the President, and if he ignored her concerns her choices were to carry out the order or resign.

[Vanyali]

Her "feelings": were irrelevant. Her job as AG was to help enforce the President's orders. If she had problem with them she should voiced them to the President, and if he ignored her concerns her choices were to carry out the order or resign.

That's actually not true, and wrong even at a kindergarten level of interest.

[ati87]

Despite me hating on cruz and would be a bad president. One of his redeeming qualities would be that he would not bow down to trump with the other republicans.

I hope that this is sarcastic right? It's hard sometimes when you have people arguing based on alternative reality


- - - Updated - - -

After watching it nonstop for 3 hours I came to the conclusion that the people on the left side of Mr.Graham, (from viewer point) specifically Mr.Kennedy and Mr.Cruz are total garbage. Especially during Mr.Kennedy's talk I was like "dude better shut up instead of talking like you know your shit and acting like a big boy". If my understanding is correct they are on the Trump side and they have nothing to say against the allegations or anyway to defend Trump or Flynn. All they speak is bullshit. Repeat same drama, which is basically: "We are not happy with what you did Sally + refusing what is an undeniable fact".

The people on the right side of Mr.Graham were far better at discussing the topic especially Mr.Blumenthal. Those people actually tried to discuss the topic at hand.

Mr.Graham also looked like he really wants to get this shit figured out, he wants answers (which are classified) and he will get them. Mr.Whitehouse as well, nice performance.

This Flynn guy is seriously is in trouble and if What Mr.Frank said got any truth into it (he was speculating of course, the idea of all the members of Trump team having ties with Russia that is why Flynn was not fired immediately) it means serious trouble for Trump team.

Anyway it made me happy to see how effective (personal opinion) your congress works. If everybody upholds their words, positions etc, this will be solved. Soon. And I don't think it will be good news for Trump.

As a bonus, I have also come to the conclusion that Trump is a child, stupid or a pawn (you pick) that he can't devise or plot anything complex. The people in his team however are smart enough to tinker with complex processes.

Did you forget that Trump gave away Graham cellphone number? And all of the shit he talked about his BFF McCain?

Most republicans in congress hate Trump, most didn't support him even. Most of them just follow and the first chance they get they will betray Trump, the likes of Cruz (who could be shut on the senate floor accounting to Graham and people would cheer) are just slimmy enough to follow when needed but even he will betray trump

[Deleted]

Seems at every Russia hearing the Repubs only want to talk about non-Russia stuff.

[Cyberowl]

Seems at every Russia hearing the Repubs only want to talk about non-Russia stuff.

Want them to write "I'm a cockholster" on their forehead?

[Kiri]

First of all, the ban was to be 90 days and it's closing in on 60 days since the second block in a hurry. As some point, the smart move is to just work on extreme vetting, which was the point of a temporary ban in the first place. The first ban would have expired by now.

Nah, you see, that would not just be the sensible thing, it would also mean acknowledging defeat by Trump. And that is something he can't do. He promised his voters a Muslim ban, that is what he will deliver. Just like with the border wall, this is not about actually making the US safer, it is about him 'delivering' on his campaign promises. And, incidentally, a travel ban is kind of like a wall, too, if you think about it. Then again, he is showing the same pattern when it comes to healthcare, where the repeal and replace is important, not that the replacement is actually better. But the analogy still breaks down

[NYC17]

You must be talking about this:

That...and Yates' thorough owning of Cruz and Cornyn. Yesterday is what happens when people who "know" they're smarter than everyone else are confronted with the reality of their intellectual limitations.

- - - Updated - - -

Her "feelings": were irrelevant. Her job as AG was to help enforce the President's orders. If she had problem with them she should voiced them to the President, and if he ignored her concerns her choices were to carry out the order or resign.

Lawful orders*. She determined the EO didn't meet that standard. She was correct.

[Shadowferal]

Some things from Yates’s dramatic Senate testimony

Yates’s testimony is trouble for the White House
The core of her account was that she held two meetings with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27 warning about the dangers pertaining to Flynn. The former lieutenant general would not resign until Feb. 13, after the shortest-ever tenure as national security adviser.
As Yates portrayed it, she was clear with McGahn that Flynn was compromised. She believed — correctly, as it turned out — that Flynn had misled senior figures in the administration, including Vice President Pence, about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, during the transition period.
“To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised by the Russians,” Yates said, in one of several memorable lines during the hearing. She also raised the possibility of Flynn being blackmailed by the Russians.

The battle over Trump’s ‘travel ban’ has not ended
The issue central to Yates’s firing still generates political heat — as was shown during one of the most spectacular clashes of the hearing.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) needled Yates over her decision to refuse to defend the travel ban. The Texas senator asked her if she was familiar with a certain part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the president broad authority to decide who can enter the United States.
Yates, who seemed prepared for that line of attack, shot back that she was equally familiar with another statue that outlaws discrimination in immigration matters on the basis of race or nation of birth, among other things.
Yates held her own against similar questioning from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who complained that she had “countermanded an executive order of the president of the United States because you disagreed with it as a policy matter.”

No break from partisanship
In his opening remarks, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) emphasized his hope that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election could transcend party lines.
“When a foreign power interferes in our election, it doesn’t matter who they targeted, we are all in the same boat,” Graham argued.
But the questioning of Yates and Clapper did not fulfill that hope.

[Daelak]

Lawful orders*. She determined the EO didn't meet that standard. She was correct.

Conservatives and Trump supporters demand fealty. It should be obvious to anyone not a Trump supporter or a US conservative that their movement and ideology is grounded in authoritarianism and the perpetuation of a system that only enriches their interests, not the interests of the public.

[Adam Jensen]

It's clearly a bigger issue than having a white house full of foreign agents.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is probably why Cruz was audibly laughed at. That was great.

The guy went wildly off topic trying to trash Yates for being fired over the immigration ban. Why was there no one to say "hey, get back on topic and shut up!"

[NYC17]

- - - Updated - - -



The guy went wildly off topic trying to trash Yates for being fired over the immigration ban. Why was there no one to say "hey, get back on topic and shut up!"

My guess is that would fall to Graham? If so that's all the explanation one should need.

[DocSavageFan]

thats the thing she was doing her job

Despite Justice Department lawyers apparently telling Yates that the executive order was lawful. This wasn't about the law...it was about her personal political ideology. She never said the EO was unlawful nor that defending it was unreasonable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.523189d5b3e5

https://lawfareblog.com/quick-though...sive-statement

[Shadowferal]

Some things from Yates’s dramatic Senate testimony Yates’s testimony is trouble for the White House
The core of her account was that she held two meetings with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 and Jan. 27 warning about the dangers pertaining to Flynn. The former lieutenant general would not resign until Feb. 13, after the shortest-ever tenure as national security adviser.
As Yates portrayed it, she was clear with McGahn that Flynn was compromised. She believed — correctly, as it turned out — that Flynn had misled senior figures in the administration, including Vice President Pence, about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, during the transition period.
“To state the obvious, you don’t want your national security adviser compromised by the Russians,” Yates said, in one of several memorable lines during the hearing. She also raised the possibility of Flynn being blackmailed by the Russians.

The battle over Trump’s ‘travel ban’ has not ended
The issue central to Yates’s firing still generates political heat — as was shown during one of the most spectacular clashes of the hearing. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) needled Yates over her decision to refuse to defend the travel ban. The Texas senator asked her if she was familiar with a certain part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the president broad authority to decide who can enter the United States.

Yates, who seemed prepared for that line of attack, shot back that she was equally familiar with another statue that outlaws discrimination in immigration matters on the basis of race or nation of birth, among other things.
Yates held her own against similar questioning from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who complained that she had “countermanded an executive order of the president of the United States because you disagreed with it as a policy matter.”

No break from partisanship In his opening remarks, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) emphasized his hope that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election could transcend party lines.
“When a foreign power interferes in our election, it doesn’t matter who they targeted, we are all in the same boat,” Graham argued. But the questioning of Yates and Clapper did not fulfill that hope.

Seems to me she knows the law better than anyone on Trump's team, which kinda figures.