Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	1/31/2017 2:30:32 PM

How differntly will Sessions handle a disgreement with the President?

Sessions

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	1/31/2017 3:16:01 PM (updated 1/31/2017 3:20:12 PM)

If Sessions were to say "Here is why this EO is unlawful" and produce facts vs being a partisan hack who had no problems when Obama banned countries from entry, writing off a memo to tell people that since she disagrees with it on a personal level and to not do their job.  I would say that Sessions would probably be professional where Yates just comes of as a drunk fisherman from Lake Martin - just another mouthy liberal leftist  partisan democrat.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2017/01/30/youre-fired-bitch-acting-attorney-general-appointed-by-obama-wont-defend-trumps-immigration-order/

“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,” she said in a letter quoted by CNN.

“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,” added Yates.

Obviously, she is ignorant of the law:

Name:	RHH -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	1/31/2017 3:50:44 PM

I always thought Wix was the least informed participant on this forum (and I guess he still is), but Phil, you are closing the gap fast.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	1/31/2017 4:16:43 PM (updated 1/31/2017 4:20:34 PM)

To be deemed least informed by yourself or 2nd best by you is an honor.  please explain how you can utter that I am the 2nd least informed based on facts and posts.  Please show where I am factually wrong, and please compare and contrast that with where wix is factually wrong.  

She is a lawyer doing her job.

"If you Trumpanzees would get your heads out of the Fox cloud and listen to what the bipartisan experts are saying you might actually learn something."

Nope she is a Obama oppointee who decided to play politics and not do her job.  

We listened to a bunch of bipartisan experts for the last 8 years.  OBama is no longer in the white house, while  your bipartisan media is crying, pissing, monaing and wetting themselves.  Please go change your diaper as you smell really bad.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	1/31/2017 7:01:54 PM

Today must be "Opposite Day" .  Phil trounces you with, for you, inconvenient facts and you have the gall to say he is uninformed?  You are a dunce!

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	2/1/2017 9:40:41 AM

isnt THE LAW what Demokrauts want it to be ?

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	2/1/2017 2:35:55 PM (updated 2/1/2017 2:36:17 PM)

As a follow up to my "ignorance" - received this today from a friend who is a retired dean of a university.

Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952”?

I knew of this Act, but had forgotten it until recently; it has been a law for almost 65 years.

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our illustrious President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!!” It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."

And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.

But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Therefore, if it is true that the Quran evidently forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, then parhaps, ALL Muslims could and possibly should be refused immigration to OUR country.

Authenticated at:
http://library.uwb.edu/static/ USimmigration/1952_immigration _and_nationality_act.html

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Sessions and Yates????
Date:	2/1/2017 3:54:57 PM

This information just substantiates what we should all know, in effect, that there are so many laws and regulations on the books, that our whole governmental system has grown to the point that no one really knows what is contained therein. Take for example all the protesters who think that it is the "responsibllity" of the United States to take in every Tom, Dick, and Harry that shows up on our doorstep. Sure , we are an empathetic nation, but we are not responsible for all the worlds problems. Immigrants who are coming into our country are being provided with help and assistance that is "well" beyond what we do for many of our own citiizens. Protesters go out and create disturbances by waving their signs and banners, but what if anything are they doing "constructively" to help with the problem, particularly when we know that many of them are being "paid" to create havoc.