Skip to content
Advertisements

Sally Yates admits the Office of Legal Counsel deemed Donald Trump’s travel ban lawful and overrode it by looking outside the Executive Order

May 8, 2017

  Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified in front of the Senate today about her decision not to enforce Donald Trump’s travel ban (this decision led to her being fired) and she admitted that the Office of Legal Counsel deemed it lawful but she decided to overrule the counsel.

  Here is some of the transcript:

Cornyn: Ms. Yates, this is the first time that you’ve appeared before Congress since you left the Department of Justice, and I just wanted to ask you a question about your decision to refuse to defend the president’s executive order. In the letter that you sent to Congress, you point out that the executive order itself was drafted in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel, and you point out that the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed it to determine whether, in its view, the proposed executive order was lawful on its face, and properly drafted. Is it true that the Office of Legal Counsel did conclude it was lawful on its face, and properly drafted?

Yates: Yes, they did. The Office of —

Cornyn: And you overruled them?

Yates: I did. The Office of Legal —

Cornyn: What is your authority to overrule the office of legal counsel whether it comes to a legal determination?

Yates: The Office of Legal Counsel has a narrow function and that is to look at the face of an executive order to determine purely on its face whether there is some set of circumstances under which at least some part of the executive order may be lawful.

  I stopped the transcript there because next she explains why she ruled the Office of Legal Counsel was wrong and I wanted to separate it:

And, importantly, they do not look beyond the face of the executive order, for example, at statements that are made contemporaneously or prior to the execution of the E.O. that may bear on its intent and purpose. That office does not look at those factors. And in determining the constitutionality of this executive order, that was an important analysis to engage in, and one that I did.

  In other words, the Office of Legal Counsel only looked at the Executive Order’s wording to see if it was legal, which of course is what they are supposed to do, while she went outside of what was written in the order and made her decision based on some of the rhetoric coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth during the campaign.

  There is no doubt Donald Trump made the right move in removing her from office. Her job is to enforce the laws that are on the books and not to interpret them for political reasons as she sees fit

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
11 Comments leave one →
  1. May 8, 2017 7:25 pm

    Reblogged this on Deplorables Seeking Justice-DSJ.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 8, 2017 7:47 pm

      Thanks for the reblog.

      Like

  2. May 8, 2017 7:26 pm

    Reblogged on Deplorables-Seeking-Justice.com

    Liked by 1 person

  3. May 8, 2017 9:09 pm

    These two posts sum up the whole fiasco. I got to see some of the hearing. It was a disgrace. Just another political hack and throw in Clapper.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 9, 2017 5:27 am

      Clapper needs to go but the problem is if Trump lets him go now it will be played as if Trump did it to protect himself. One of his biggest mistakes is not removing Clapper on January 21st.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Bruce permalink
    May 8, 2017 9:17 pm

    Again and again the left proves that Orwell wasn’t writing fiction, but rather predicting the future. Yates shows that like the Pigs, she is more equal than the President or the Office of Legal Council.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 9, 2017 5:27 am

      Yep, he was issuing a warming and we did not listen.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. May 8, 2017 10:01 pm

    What she is stating is the OLC only looked at the E.O. as to legal form. Legal form is legalize for was the E.O. OK as to layout not its legal content. Layout for example means does the E.O. have a title, are there “whereas” statements and a “therefore” statement and the proper signature block, is there a date and is it on the right size paper.

    This is how US attorneys work and especially how legal counsel works. They will never tell you if something is legal or not. Yates is stating the E.O. was OK form wise but was not proper as to its intended purpose. It is as if you need two attorneys. One attorney to do the legal research and the other to verify the proper form was used.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. May 9, 2017 4:49 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

    • May 9, 2017 5:28 am

      Thank you.

      Like

      • May 9, 2017 8:05 am

        You’re welcome.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: