Clever Sally Yates toileted Senator "Turdish Ted" Cruz

© 2017 Peter Free

 

09 May 2017

 

 

Caveat

 

Readers may have to have an American legal background to fully appreciate Sally Yates' lawyerly skill, during the American Senate encounter with Senator Ted Cruz that I am about to describe.

 

 

You can see the most pertinent parts of the hearing, here (at The Guardian).

 

The Washington Post published a full transcript of the hearing, here.

 

 

Oh happy day

 

This was one of those cosmic justice, kick the fool's behind thrashings.

 

What happened should delight anyone, who has had to suffer an Incessant Ass's unwelcome pokings.

 

 

Who is Sally Yates?

 

Sally Yates used to be Deputy to the Obama Administration's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.

 

When Lynch resigned to make way for incoming President Trump's choice for the office — whoever that would turn out to be — Justice Department careerist Yates became Acting Attorney General.

 

Within 10 days, Yates crossed swords with President Trump. She refused to implement his executive ordered "Muslim ban."

 

The President fired her.

 

Yesterday, Yates found herself testifying before the below described Senate hearing. (Which supposedly was to have nothing to do with her firing.)

 

There — having previously taken on the President with a display of admirable professional courage — Yates came to make short and laughable work of Senator "Turdish Ted" Cruz, who is arguably nemesis of decent people everywhere.

 

 

Senator Cruz has made a career of being maximally abrasive

 

So, I took delight in seeing the exceptionally poised, femininely articulate Sally Yates elegantly "matador" Senator Cruz's characteristically scrotum-displaying bullish charge.

 

Yates skillfully pirouetted to foil Cruz's initial rush and then thrust intellectual steel deep into the Senator's snarly hide.

 

With a concluding flick of deft fingers, Yates exquisitely "sallied" Cruz's tottering carcass into the metaphorical toilet bowl's turd-welcoming water.

 

 

Specifics

 

In a Senate committee meeting intended to:

 

 

investigate Russian influence on the 2016 American presidential election

 

and

 

examine former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn's alleged contribution to national secrets wrongdoing . . .

 

 

Senator Cruz irrelevantly attacked Yates for her (pre-firing) refusal to enforce the President's controversial Muslim immigration ban.

 

Note

 

The subject matter irrelevance of Cruz's assault on Yates may explain why the United States Senate is arguably the least efficient legislative body on the planet. He was not the only one to pontificate voluminously, while so gloriously off-track.

 

 

Senator Cruz — once a supposedly accomplished Attorney General type himself — made the schoolboy's mistake of:

 

 

(a) finding one law that supported his attack on Yates' past behavior,

 

while

 

(b) evidently forgetting to look for another that might support it.

 

 

When Cruz imperiously advanced federal statute 8 U.S.C. Section 1132 to impugn Yates' defiance of President Trump's Muslim ban, she quickly countered with a Cruz-obliterating section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

And then — not content with plunging so mild a stick into Turdish Ted's arrogant eye — Yates elegantly took him to the woodshed for an even more meaningful slap-around.

 

 

In the woodshed

 

This is where the Senator's foundational misunderstanding of the subordination of statutes to the United States Constitution revealed itself:

 

 

"But my concern was not an INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] concern here," [Yates] explained.

 

"It was, rather, a constitutional concern:

 

Whether or not this — the executive order [—] violated the Constitution, specifically with respect to the establishment clause and equal protection and due process."

 

© 2017 Seth Millstein, Sally Yates Shut Down Ted Cruz So Badly, He Ran Away, Bustle (08 May 2017) (paragraph split)

 

 

So much for a Harvard Law School education

 

We experienced the same lack of proper Constitutional training with Harvard Law's much more famous graduate, former President Barack Obama.

 

Evidently Harvard's appeal comes (at least in part) because it teaches the Elite's children to interpret the Constitution as being inapplicable (a) to them directly or (b) to anything they wish to do.

 

 

Woodshed Ted then driveled on in his prickishly irrelevant way

 

This nastily inappropriate harassment is the kind of thing that Senator Cruz does, evidently because he is too unethically inclined to win an argument in "on point" style.

 

After Sally Yates woodshed-explained her position (regarding the Constitution's effect on President Trump's Muslim ban), Cruz tried to impeach her with an intellectually extraneous objection to her behavior regarding it.

 

He essentially asked Yates whether any other Attorney General had defied both the Department of Justice's interpretation of legality, as well as the President's:

 

 

"In the over 200 years of 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?," Cruz asked.

 

"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 a policy until after it was over," she replied.

 

© 2017 Seth Millstein, Sally Yates Shut Down Ted Cruz So Badly, He Ran Away, Bustle (08 May 2017)

 

 

My point with the above quote is not Yates' reasonable response, but a larger one still

 

My objection to Cruz' impeachment tactic is that it was vacuously irrelevant to the legal question supposedly being reviewed.

 

Whether:

 

(i) a previous Attorney General

 

(ii) ever felt forced to uphold the Constitution

 

(iii) in the way that Yates believed was necessary today —

 

has nothing to do with:

 

 

(a) the accuracy of Yates' legal interpretation of the Constitution itself

 

or

 

(b) the legitimacy of her assessment of her Office's responsibility in implementing the Constitution's mandates,

 

(c) under immigration conditions as those existed in January 2017 (the time when she defied the President).

 

 

Senator Cruz's question is like asking someone whether any other Attorney General had been hit by an out of control bus (or lightning) — under circumstances in which the current Attorney General had to hop out of the way of exactly such a strike.

 

The fact that no out of control buses (or lightning) have previously threatened an Attorney General has nothing to do with Yates' presence of mind in detecting a bus (or lightning bolt) headed her way today.

 

Senator Cruz also mashed together a bunch of separate legal elements that any genuinely competent attorney could separate in her sleep.

 

Cruz's "past Attorney Generals" question was off the point — even with respect to his own previously irrelevant meandering attack on Yates regarding issues that also had nothing to do with Russians or Mike Flynn.

 

An ass squared.

 

 

Turdish Ted's tactics are those of a thoroughly nasty human being

 

Which may explain why so many people would not mind seeing his vital organs metaphorically squashed by God's Fist.

 

 

The moral? — Once in a while, more ethically acting people win

 

Sally Yates' cool trouncing of the asininely assaultive Senator Cruz was an:

 

 

incontestable

 

inarguable

 

irrefutable

 

smash-em-up

 

stomp-his-foolish-guts-out

 

brain-bashing.

 

 

I loved every second of it.