FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Sally Yates - Your Fired

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Just like The Apprentice

how dare she speak up, perhaps she is far to close and snuggled up to obama

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

Indeed, how dare she say that, as the highest ranking lawyer in the country, she thinks that what Trump is doing is not legally defensible. How inconvenient for Trump. Best he get rid of her as acting AG and put another acting AG in place whilst Trumps chum Session's allegations of racism are looked into.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Indeed, how dare she say that, as the highest ranking lawyer in the country, she thinks that what Trump is doing is not legally defensible. How inconvenient for Trump. Best he get rid of her as acting AG and put another acting AG in place whilst Trumps chum Session's allegations of racism are looked into.

-Matt"

Lets be realistic Matt;

1; she spoke out against him and his instructions

2; she has far too short hair

3; her heels are not high enough to show off her legs

4; she is getting on a bit

some females suit short hair, but nope, she needs to grow hers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So if you employ someone and they do not perform as instructed you keep them on anyway?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Sally Yates, out,

Dana Boente, in

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atcoupleCouple
over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia


"So if you employ someone and they do not perform as instructed you keep them on anyway? "

You are absolutely right!

Did she disobey Obama when he identified certain countries for restrictions?

Trump is right to replace her and get the job that he was elected for done!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Just like The Apprentice

how dare she speak up, perhaps she is far to close and snuggled up to obama"

Well done hand for not actually knowing what the role of the AG actually does...

It tries to keep the government on the right side of the law... so if she thinks an act is unlawful then she has to tell people that

She is beholden to the law and the constitution... not a president

In fact.. let me put it even simpler hand... if our AG had done his job properly the government would have not lost the Gina miller brexit case... because they would not have contested it after high court, when most people who know the law said they would lose the appeal....

Trump is trying to turn a judicial decision into a political one....

And oh... you might want to go back and look at her congressional approval hearing... she got praised on all sides

No other republicans have come out praising the decision....just let that stew a bit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"So if you employ someone and they do not perform as instructed you keep them on anyway? "

Which part of her job was she not performing?

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"So if you employ someone and they do not perform as instructed you keep them on anyway?

You are absolutely right!

Did she disobey Obama when he identified certain countries for restrictions?

Trump is right to replace her and get the job that he was elected for done!"

Her job is not to obey or disobey the President. Her job is to ensure that the government is operating legally.

I guess her view was that Obamas requirement that travellers from those 7 countries obtain a visa for travel was legal. Being that she was deputy AG at that time, I'm not sure if it was her decision though.

Her view that Trump's sudden banning of travel of people from those countries unilaterally out of the blue not in response to any incident is not legal.

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

She is beholden to the law and the constitution... not a president

Trump is trying to turn a judicial decision into a political one....

And oh... you might want to go back and look at her congressional approval hearing... she got praised on all sides

No other republicans have come out praising the decision....just let that stew a bit

"

Fabio; you forget one thing;

She has "NO" Job, she has been sacked, dismissed, she "betrayed" the justice department end off,

why is it you always back the loser?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Trump is used to telling staff what to do in his business and they have to carry out his commands.

As president he must abide by the law and the constitution.

I can see many more sackings coming up when people say NO to him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

It has nothing to do with us

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"

She is beholden to the law and the constitution... not a president

Trump is trying to turn a judicial decision into a political one....

And oh... you might want to go back and look at her congressional approval hearing... she got praised on all sides

No other republicans have come out praising the decision....just let that stew a bit

Fabio; you forget one thing;

She has "NO" Job, she has been sacked, dismissed, she "betrayed" the justice department end off,

why is it you always back the loser?"

Oh. I see. You didn't read the words.

Never mind

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

She is beholden to the law and the constitution... not a president

Trump is trying to turn a judicial decision into a political one....

And oh... you might want to go back and look at her congressional approval hearing... she got praised on all sides

No other republicans have come out praising the decision....just let that stew a bit

Fabio; you forget one thing;

She has "NO" Job, she has been sacked, dismissed, she "betrayed" the justice department end off,

why is it you always back the loser?"

Again hand.... she made a decision based on the law and her interpretation of it... it looks like the only person in law that saw it was Rudy guliani... and even he has said his brief was to get it as close to a Muslim ban as legally possible...

Various judges think there is a valid enough case that it is unconstitutional to say they can't do parts of what they wanted.. which is why the green card holders had to be let in

It's not about winning or losing... it it staying within the rhelms of the law

If it is deemed unconstitutional she is going to have a hell of a lawsuit for defamation and dismissal....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oncupiscentTonyMan
over a year ago

Kent


"On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions. My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just. Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful. Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

She is beholden to the law and the constitution... not a president

Trump is trying to turn a judicial decision into a political one....

And oh... you might want to go back and look at her congressional approval hearing... she got praised on all sides

No other republicans have come out praising the decision....just let that stew a bit

Fabio; you forget one thing;

She has "NO" Job, she has been sacked, dismissed, she "betrayed" the justice department end off,

why is it you always back the loser?

Again hand.... she made a decision based on the law and her interpretation of it... it looks like the only person in law that saw it was Rudy guliani... and even he has said his brief was to get it as close to a Muslim ban as legally possible...

Various judges think there is a valid enough case that it is unconstitutional to say they can't do parts of what they wanted.. which is why the green card holders had to be let in

It's not about winning or losing... it it staying within the rhelms of the law

If it is deemed unconstitutional she is going to have a hell of a lawsuit for defamation and dismissal.... "

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So if you employ someone and they do not perform as instructed you keep them on anyway? "

So a director tells a HR manager to sack all muslim workers, HR manager refuses so the directors correct to sack the poor HR person...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Trump is used to telling staff what to do in his business and they have to carry out his commands.

As president he must abide by the law and the constitution.

I can see many more sackings coming up when people say NO to him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Someone who runs a country by executive orders not consulting his government and fires anyone who disagrees...thats definitely not a dictatorship...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

What is even funnier (if you can call it funny) is that Sessions actually told Yates (in her confirmation in 2015) that the AG or Deputy AG should stand up to the President if they order something they deem unlawful!

Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDjylQ5Ps

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now"

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now"

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

"

Had telephone conferences yesterday and today with my colleagues in the US and today this topic was top of the agenda. Yesterday, it was about the chances of Trump getting impeached within the first half of his term. We were all wondering after what he did yesterday, what steps the man child might take if he comes under a formal investigation? It seems incredulous, yet entirely true to form, that he would not think twice about clearing out the top level of the FBI.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

Had telephone conferences yesterday and today with my colleagues in the US and today this topic was top of the agenda. Yesterday, it was about the chances of Trump getting impeached within the first half of his term. We were all wondering after what he did yesterday, what steps the man child might take if he comes under a formal investigation? It seems incredulous, yet entirely true to form, that he would not think twice about clearing out the top level of the FBI."

Nothing wrong with clearing out corruption & the corrupt, throw out the dead wood

The USA has the chance of a new beginning, a better way of life

and god is on their side

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"

Nothing wrong with clearing out corruption & the corrupt, throw out the dead wood

The USA has the chance of a new beginning, a better way of life

and god is on their side"

How would you define corrupt?

How do you define someone who claims to no longer have an interest in his business because his children run it?

How would you define someone who just does what they're told without question? Is that preferable to speaking truth to power?

The USA also has the chance of a new beginning with a worse way of life.

Under a God without empathy, or sympathy or love.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"

Nothing wrong with clearing out corruption & the corrupt, throw out the dead wood

The USA has the chance of a new beginning, a better way of life

and god is on their side

How would you define corrupt?

How do you define someone who claims to no longer have an interest in his business because his children run it?

How would you define someone who just does what they're told without question? Is that preferable to speaking truth to power?

The USA also has the chance of a new beginning with a worse way of life.

Under a God without empathy, or sympathy or love."

you are feeding the troll

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Under a God without empathy, or sympathy or love."
... Pretty realistic then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

Had telephone conferences yesterday and today with my colleagues in the US and today this topic was top of the agenda. Yesterday, it was about the chances of Trump getting impeached within the first half of his term. We were all wondering after what he did yesterday, what steps the man child might take if he comes under a formal investigation? It seems incredulous, yet entirely true to form, that he would not think twice about clearing out the top level of the FBI."

YFOS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

all "if's and what if's"

gets boring after a while

perhaps some should "but out" and wait see the end results.

how many times over the past year have your predictions been wrong, truthfully now

Again... dear lord..... please try to understand

HE made a decision based on politics

SHE made a decision based on the law and the constitution

HE made a political decision to sack her... HE is trying to turn a legal argument into a political one

Had telephone conferences yesterday and today with my colleagues in the US and today this topic was top of the agenda. Yesterday, it was about the chances of Trump getting impeached within the first half of his term. We were all wondering after what he did yesterday, what steps the man child might take if he comes under a formal investigation? It seems incredulous, yet entirely true to form, that he would not think twice about clearing out the top level of the FBI.

YFOS"

What's your brier score?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top