Shadows
YaBB God
Posts: 4,956
|
 |
« on: May 08, 2017, 10:24:54 PM » |
|
Lyin' Ted: Well, are you familiar with 8 USC Section 1182?
YATES: Not off the top of my head, no.
Lyin' Ted: Well, it -- it -- it is the binding statutory authority for the executive order that you refused to implement, and that led to your termination. So it -- it certainly is a relevant and not a terribly obscure statute.
By the expressed text of the statue it says, quote: ‘Whenever the President finds that the entry of any alien or class of aliens into the United States, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for any period he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, 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 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 in respect to the INA, is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described. But my concern was not an INA concern, here; it rather, was a constitutional concern.
Lyin' Ted: There is no doubt the arguments you laid out are arguments that we could expect litigants to bring, partisan litigants who disagree with the policy decision of the president. I would note, on January 27th, 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." Three days later, you determined, using your own words, that although OLC had -- had opined on legality, it had not addressed whether it was, quote, "wise or just."
YATES: And I also, in that same directive, Senator, said 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 E.O. would be enforceable, would be lawful. They, importantly, do not look outside the face of the document.
And in this particular instance, particularly where we were talking 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 in and out his statements.
Lyin' Ted: A final, very -- very brief question. In the over 200 years of the Department of Justice history, are you aware of any instance in which the Department of Justice has formally approved the legality of a policy, and three days later, the attorney general has directed the department not to follow that policy, and to defy that policy?
YATES: I'm not. But I'm also not aware of a situation where the Office of Legal Counsel was advised not to tell the attorney general about it until after it was over.
Lyin' Ted: Thank you, Ms. Yates. I -- I -- I would note, that might be the case, if there's reason to suspect partisanship.
Klobuchar & Graham were laughing at Lyin' Ted after his humiliation & apparently Lyin' Ted went away for a while. Look at Lyin' Ted crying partisanship when he is unable to debate on legal merits of the case.
The funniest part of the case was "religious freedom" argument that Sally Yates used which must have made Lyin' Ted angry, using his signature argument ! Poor Lyin' Ted!
Source - Washington Post - full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference
|
