Sally Yates was pushed out.

6  2017-02-15 by iAintReddit

I've seen plenty posts claiming Flynn was pushed out due to his views and actions. Why is it not being discussed that Yates might have been as well? Its obvious she was pushed out due to disloyalty to the Trump administration. I believe they pushed her out because she was concerned about Flynn back in January. Trump was not concerned, for reasons that I won't speculatehere, UNTIL the news came out to the public. The furiousness of the "leak" is misdirection. You would have been furious about it before we all found out. He's tweeting about classified documents like he's mad that we know now because the information was classified aka free ticket to lie. His ticket was taken and he threw Flynn, who he has been keeping safe from being reprimanded, under the bus.

71 comments

n/a  sweetholymosiah 2017-02-15

It's public knowledge that she refused to move forward on the whole immigration ban. Rather than do something illegal, she refused and was let go. Pretty controversial situation, but not secret.
I don't see the connection to how Flynn was pushed out by the intelligence mafia bosses, though.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

I don't see how he was pushed out after two years. Why didnt they do it then in 2015? He resigned because of the lie I believe. Either that or to help Trump save face he took blame. I'm just drawing similar lines of conversation between the situations to promote similar discussion. If He's being pushed out she could have too if your evidence is the persons viewpoints and other people not liking them.

n/a  sweetholymosiah 2017-02-15

I read that he was booted from the Obama cabinet? for speaking out on our ISIS strategy.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Okay that's new to me. But I was going off info from a post of documents from 2015. If he was already handled for that it had no factor here. Which was another point of my post, that that time frame and this event are likely unrelated.

n/a  Technocroft 2017-02-15

As I understand it, the ban isn't illegal.

Certain judges have said it was unconstitutional, and now it needs to be decided by (supreme?) court whether it is or not.

n/a  aleister 2017-02-15

they pushed her out because she was concerned about Flynn back in January.

Then why not push her out in January instead of waiting for a completely legitimate reason to get rid of her?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

They needed a reason. Her refusal to uphold the ban gave them a reason they could use. I said the same thing about Flynn yesterday and someone responded to me "because its the cia"

n/a  seanr9ne 2017-02-15

1) She wasn't appointed by Trump, she was acting AG during the transition.

2) She was fired after refusing to defend the travel ban, which was literally her job.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Her job is to legally do her job and she didn't feel that was the case. Which, courts have sort of sided with her at this point and time.

n/a  seanr9ne 2017-02-15

And some courts have sided with Trump on the ban too, that is not an argument for this topic. If the AG won't defend Trump's order then he has every right to put in place someone who will. If she didn't agree with the order, she could've resigned.

It's not a conspiracy, it's what happens when your boss tells you to do something and you don't.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

I believe there's more to it, hence why I posted it here and stated my belief. But I agree with you, I just think that was what they were waiting for.

n/a  Th_rowAwayAccount 2017-02-15

She was an interim appointee by Obama, and it's well within the President's Jurisdiction to fire any of his appointees.

Trump fired both of them. What are you suggesting?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Flynn resigned, to us anyway. That's the public news.

n/a  Th_rowAwayAccount 2017-02-15

Flynn resigned, to us anyway. That's the public news.

The cognitive dissonance on the internet these days is astonishing.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

That comment you quoted was minor in the scale of the post. Just something I thought to note since we're taking the events at face value.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

Think you got the wrong sub, friendo - we're bigly Trump fans over here. The real conspiracy is that she wouldn't violate the constitution!

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Jesus, this is why liberals shouldn't be in charge of public education. Say it with me now: The constitution doesn't apply to people who aren't citizens of this country. It's not unconstitutional anyways, law clearly states the president can ban any class of aliens from the country he or she deems inadmissible. It's been used multiple times in recent history by democratic presidents.

Don't be a sheep.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

go back to the_donald

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Read the damn law and form your own opinions like a human and not a brainless animal:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens 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 to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

your own opinions like a human and not a brainless animal

says the guy brainlessly repeating t_d and literal white house talking points?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

I'm literally copying and pasting the law for you to read. Can you read? Here it is again:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens 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 to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

You can repeat yourself until the end of time. I'm not a government lawyer nor will I pretend to be one for your benefit. In fact, it really doesn't matter what I think about it - it cares what the 9th circuit thinks about it.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

It doesn't take a government lawyer to read simple jack, just read it and tell me how Trump broke the law. Can you do that?

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

In fact, it really doesn't matter what I think about it - it matters what the 9th circuit thinks about it.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

No, it matters what the supreme court thinks about it.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

4-4 split along party lines means the lower court ruling holds

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

The supreme court has not ruled on this EO you absolute fucking retard.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

George is getting upset!

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Has the supreme court ruled on this EO yes or no?

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

did I ever assert that they had? nah, I didn't, whereas you were the one who clearly asserted:

He hasn't challenged it in court yet you dunce.

http://archive.is/8NTyD if you want the link.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Yes, you literally commented:

4-4 split along party lines means the lower court ruling holds

When was there ever a 4-4 split on this issue? When was this EO brought into the supreme court? You're making shit up and you know it.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

When was there ever a 4-4 split on this issue

wow, you're really scrambling now. Sorry that you got confused about what you were arguing about and are now trying to pull out, though!

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

You said their was a 4-4 split in the supreme court on this EO, when did that happen?

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

I didn't say "their was," I was very obviously saying that if it goes to SCOTUS, a 4-4 split means the lower court ruling holds. You're nitpicking at semantics to try and backpedal. Sad!

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Wait, so you predicted what the courts were going to rule and used your prediction as if it was fact?

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

this is a really sad display. Have a good one!

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

You can't even defend yourself, how pathetic.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

LMFAO you edited this from "absolute retard" to "uninformed casual"

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Prove it. Has the EO been ruled on by the Supreme court yes or no?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Is the ban ongoing now? Because? Say it with me. If it was as clear cut as you say there would be no problems or way to stop it.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

If it was as clear cut as you say there would be no problems or way to stop it.

That's provably false. Judges can act however they like, it doesn't mean they're right. Here's the law bc I know you've never actually read it, tell me what part of it Trump broke:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens 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 to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

That's provably false. Judges can act however they like

you live in the hopium den known as The_Donald where you just repeat everything that's on the front page that day as fact lol

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Tell me what part of this law Trump broke, that's all I'm asking. Can you do it?:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens 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 to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

Go read the judgment from the 9th circuit and you'll find out for yourself, chief! I'm not a govt lawyer nor will I serve in that capacity for some dipshit on reddit

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

I have, the judgement doesn't reference any law at all and you know that's true if you've actually read it. It's literally all based on his own opinion, that's why it's pure obstructionist bullshit.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

It's literally all based on his own opinion

that's how I can tell you literally haven't even bothered to engage the basic facts of the case beyond the front page of The_Donald

n/a  seanr9ne 2017-02-15

You do realize other courts outside the 9th district have reviewed the order and ruled in Trump's favor, don't you?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Never said he broke any law. Just said it was ruled against, which is a fact. And on record. Not from the Supreme Court but a court nonetheless. If it was clear cut he would have won there as well as the Supreme Court and any other court

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

If it was clear cut he would have won there as well

He hasn't challenged it in court yet you dunce.

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

So DOJ lawyers didn't argue a case in front of the 9th circuit?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Do you think the 9th circuit is the final say on judicial law in this country?

n/a  a9832941 2017-02-15

Go confer with the bright minds of the_donald on what your next comeback should be, I'll be waiting

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

What I mean is if its that clear a Presidential power it would never be in a court in the first place

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Are you actually arguing that there's no way the Seattle 9th circuit court is wrong simply based on the fact they challenged this particular EO?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Nah I'm just saying if its as absolute and clear a power as everyone claims why is it questioned at all? Can't be that clear. That's what I'm arguing in this little piece of comments.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

why is it questioned at all?

Because people are motivated by their politics? Because people get things wrong? Because he knew he had the support of the establishment media and his colleagues in dark blue Seattle? I mean I've already proved to you they've gotten multiple court cases overturned by the supreme court, are you still actually asking me how could they possibly be wrong?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying those powers can clearly be debated depending on the form of their implementation. Clearly its a power he has but he clearly used it wrong because clearly if things were done right nobody would be able to question him using it. That's what I'm saying. Not saying its unlawful, just that he did it how he wanted to and everyone doesn't agree with that. Sally was one person who didn't feel that was the way to use that power. Those select judges who don't seem to matter don't agree either. The Supreme Court may! But there is also the chance they won't agree either, if there was no chance it wouldnt even make it there.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

because clearly if things were done right nobody would be able to question him using it.

Their you are making that claim again. You are literally saying "because he saw a problem with Trump's EO the EO must be unlawful", it's demonstrably false and I already proved it to you. A judge can rule on a law based on his own personal opinions and they do it all the time

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

I agree with you. Never disagreed. Only disagreeing about what you're saying I'm saying. Because I don't feel like I'm saying that.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

You said "if he did it right nobody would be able to question him" and that's false dude. Now tell me, are you not saying if any of the hundreds of judges around the country object to a EO, that EO must have something wrong with it.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

If... Its clearly stated... That he can do as such... And courts... Are for law... Why... Is it... Even... In a court... To begin with?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Now you're just purposely acting like a retard, that sentence doesn't even make sense.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

If its clearly stated that he can do as such (The EO in question), and courts are for law, why is it even in a court to begin with? Let's forget the fact that a judge can rule what he wants. Why is it even in front of a judge?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

why is it even in a court to begin with?

Because Judge Robart, in his opinion, thought it shouldn't be legal. That's literally it.

Why is it even in front of a judge?

What are you even saying? Nothing has to be "in front" of him, he can literally just declare it illegal. Trump could of said fuck you I'm going to keep doing this see you at the supreme court, but he chose to respect it.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

You mean after an appeal right? Isn't he still going to appeal?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

No, he hypothetically could have kept the muslim ban implemented until the case reached the supreme court. Hold on, one thing at a time you've already demonstrated to be incredibly slow. Do you understand now?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

That's what I'm afraid of and the point of this post. Thanks for that insight. I'm more in the middle on most of these things here. I don't discount stuff unless it doesn't make any sense. I'm just spurring conversation from both sides, similar conversation. If it can be said that Flynn was pushed out we can discuss the possibility of others being done similar.

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

You mean the Obama appointee purposely refusing to enforce the law?

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

The law that was found unlawful?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

"Found unlawful" but one judge. It's being fought in court and Trump will win. Here's the damn law, just read it for yourself:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens 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 to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

Keyword. May.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

They needed a reason. Her refusal to uphold the ban gave them a reason they could use. I said the same thing about Flynn yesterday and someone responded to me "because its the cia"

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Has the supreme court ruled on this EO yes or no?

n/a  RememberSolzhenitsyn 2017-02-15

Yes, you literally commented:

4-4 split along party lines means the lower court ruling holds

When was there ever a 4-4 split on this issue? When was this EO brought into the supreme court? You're making shit up and you know it.

n/a  iAintReddit 2017-02-15

I agree with you. Never disagreed. Only disagreeing about what you're saying I'm saying. Because I don't feel like I'm saying that.