AFTER THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, SALLY YATES, ADDRESSED
TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CLAIMED SHE WOULD NOT
DEFEND IT BECAUSE SHE BELIEVES IT'S UNLAWFUL, DONALD TRUMP
DECIDED TO TAKE MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS AND FIRED HER.
HE
FIRED HER AND REPLACED HER IMMEDIATELY WITH ANOTHER
INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF DANA BOENTE, THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.
THIS SHOULD RAISE RED
FLAGS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE GENERAL ATTORNEY IS NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEONE WHO JUST AGREES WITH EVERYTHING THE
PRESIDENT DOES, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO INTERPRETS
THE LAW AND GIVES THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ADVICE BASED ON WHAT IS
AND ISN'T LAWFUL.
PART OF THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THEY WANT
TO AVOID LAWSUITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
YATES, ACCORDING TO A
WHITE HOUSE LETTER, HAD --
>>TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HER
REPLACEMENT --
>>I SHOULD NOTE THAT BOENTE HAS BEEN OPEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE
PLANS ON DEFENDING TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION ORDER, THAT IS
PRECISELY THE REASON HE WILL BE THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNTIL JEFF SESSIONS GETS CONFIRMED.
>>ATTORNEYS GENERAL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT, BUT THEY ARE
PICKED BY THE PRESIDENT AND WILL OFTEN GO ALONG WITH WHAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE ERIC HOLDER UNDER OBAMA, THE
PRESIDENT DIDN'T WANT THE BANKS PROSECUTED SO HOLDER DIDN'T
PROSECUTE ANY OF THEM, SUPER OBVIOUS.
UNDER BUSH, HE WANTED A
LOT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO FIND VOTER FRAUD.
A LOT OF THEM
COULDN'T FIND VOTER FRAUD AND THEY SAID I LOOKED, I'M A
REPUBLICAN, YOU APPOINTED ME, I COULDN'T FIND IT, AND THOSE GUYS
WOULD EITHER GET FIRED OR DEMOTED, THAT BECAME A SCANDAL.
BUT FROM TIME TO TIME THEY DO STAND UP, WHETHER IT IS THE
REPUBLICAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WHO SAID YOU WANT ME TO FIND IT
BUT THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD, OR, FUNNY ENOUGH, JAMES COMEY WHEN
HE WAS THE NUMBER TWO IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO ATTORNEY
GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, AND WHEN ASHCROFT WAS IN THE HOSPITAL AND
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DO
SOMETHING THEY PERCEIVED TO BE ILLEGAL, JAMES COMEY STOOD UP
AND SAID WE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THAT, THAT IS ILLEGAL AND WE
WON'T DO IT.
SO YATES NOW IS SAYING SOMETHING LIKE COMEY DID,
I THINK THIS ORDER IS ILLEGAL, SO I'M GOING TO TELL THE PEOPLE
WHO WORK UNDER ME IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO NOT FOLLOW IT
BECAUSE THAT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
>>RIGHT.
AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LISTEN TO
THE LEGAL ADVICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OTHERWISE THERE IS
REALLY NO POINT IN HAVING AN ATTORNEY GENERAL.
YOU ARE
SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL, AND
OF COURSE TRUMP JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT SHE DOESN'T
AGREE, SO HE FIRED HER IMMEDIATELY.
BOENTE IS MORE THAN
WILLING TO WORK WITH TRUMP AND JUST AGREE WITH THIS IMMIGRATION
POLICY.
HE SAYS --
>>OF COURSE THERE WAS ALSO THE 1973 SITUATION WHERE RICHARD
NIXON SAID, THAT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING ME, I'M
BOTHERED BY HIM -- BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT HE'S RIGHT -- SO HE
ORDERED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FIRE HIM, HE WOULDN'T, SO NIXON
AND FIRED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEN THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALSO WOULDN'T FOLLOW THE ILLEGAL ORDER AND ALSO WAS FIRED, THAT
WAS KNOWN AS THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE.
SOME ARE NOW CALLING
THIS THE MONDAY NIGHT MASSACRE.
SOME PEOPLE INCLUDING A PERSON
WHO IS ONE OF THE HIGHER-UPS AT IMMIGRATION WAS ALSO FIRED.
THEY
SAY THAT THAT FIRING WAS MORE IN THE WORKS, IT WASN'T JUST
BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY.
REMEMBER
THOSE PEOPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ALSO STEPPED DOWN, A
HUGE NUMBER OF THEM.
THERE IS A POLICY ANGLE TO THIS WHICH YOU
MIGHT BE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT I'M A LITTLE MIXED ON -- I WISH
SHE HAD BASED HER DECISION ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT
FOLLOWING FEDERAL COURT ORDERS.
>>THAT'S RIGHT.
THERE WERE AT LEAST FOUR FEDERAL COURTS THAT
ISSUED AT LEAST PARTIAL STAYS IN REGARD TO THIS IMMIGRATION BAN.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, SHE COULD HAVE USED THAT TO STRENGTHEN HER
ARGUMENT BUT SHE DIDN'T, I THINK THAT WORKED AGAINST HER.
>>LET ME BREAK IT DOWN THIS WAY.
ON THE ISSUE OF THE LEGALITY
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, THE ORDER ITSELF IS
A TRAVEL BAN THAT IS ARGUABLY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT
IT IS ARGUABLE.
FIRST OFF, IF YOU JUST SAID AS PRESIDENT OBAMA
DID IN 2011, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC SITUATION HERE WHERE WE HAVE LET
PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY WHO WE JUST FOUND OUT PLANTED A
ROADSIDE BOMB BACK IN 2005 IN IRAQ AGAINST OUR TROOPS, SO WE
WON'T DO A COMPLETE BAN LIKE TRUMP DID, AND WE WON'T DO
IT BASED ON RELIGION LIKE TRUMP, TRUMP SAID HE'S PRIORITIZING
CHRISTIANS, BUT FROM JUST THIS COUNTRY WE WILL SLOW IMMIGRATION
UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT IF THE SAME LOOPHOLE THEY USE TO GET IN
IS BEING USED BY ANYONE ELSE.
BUT DURING THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD
IT WAS NOT A HARD BAN, PEOPLE WERE STILL BEING ADMITTED.
BUT
CAN THE PRESIDENT CONTROL THE FLOW OF IMMIGRATION FROM CERTAIN
COUNTRIES?
AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, YES, SO THE ORDER
COULD BE LEGAL.
ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE PRESIDENT SAID I'M
GOING TO TARGET PREDOMINATELY BLACK COUNTRIES AND PRIORITIZE
WHITE PEOPLE FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND FORMER RHODESIA, IF YOU WANT
TO GO BACK THAT FAR, AND I'M GOING TO DE-PRIORITIZE BLACK
PEOPLE BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT'S GOING ON BEFORE WE LET BLACK PEOPLE INTO THE
COUNTRY -- IF HE SAID THAT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES WITH ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS.
IF SHE
HAD MADE A BETTER CASE FOR WHY THIS IS CLOSER TO I'M NOT
LETTING BLACKS IN, AND NOT CLOSE TO THE 2011 ORDER, OKAY, I THINK
SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ON MORE SOLID GROUND.
I WISH SHE HAD
SPENT MORE TIME EXPANDING THAT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT SECONDLY, THE
SECOND COMPONENT, IS WHO DECIDES WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
THAT PART IS CLEAR, IT'S THE COURTS.
AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN SAY UNTIL THE COURTS SORTED OUT, UNTIL WE
FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, UNTIL THEY DO, I'M GOING TO LET
THE COURTS DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD PROCEED AS THEY ARE
SORTING IT OUT. AND THE COURTS HAVE DECIDED, A STAY MEANS DON'T
ACT ON THIS ORDER, IT IS NOW ILLEGAL TO ACT ON THIS ORDER
UNTIL WE HAVE FINAL ADJUDICATION THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM.
>>FOR ME THAT IS THE MOST CONCERNING PART OF ALL OF THIS.
THERE ARE MANY ELEMENTS TO THE STORY THAT I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
BE CONCERNED ABOUT -- THE FACT THAT SALLY YATES GETS FIRED JUST
BECAUSE SHE DISAGREES WITH DONALD TRUMP, THE FACT THAT THE
ROLLOUT OF THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS LACKING ANY AND ALL NUANCE
AND LED TO A LOT OF CONFUSION, PEOPLE ARE STILL WONDERING
WHETHER THIS WILL IMPACT GREEN CARD HOLDERS, THAT IS AN ISSUE
AS WELL.
BUT FOR ME THE PART THAT CONCERNS ME IS THE FACT
THAT THERE ARE FOUR FEDERAL COURTS WHO, AGAIN, HAVE ISSUED
AT LEAST PARTIAL STAYS AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS
ESSENTIALLY SAID WE DON'T CARE, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD.
SO YOU'RE
RIGHT, WE SHOULD ALLOW THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ADJUDICATE IT,
A STATUS MEAN THEY'VE ALREADY DECIDED IT'S UNLAWFUL OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD, BUT WE NEED TO
KNOW WHAT HE PLANS TO DO AND HOW, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL.
>>SHE MIGHT HAVE BASED IT ON ALL THAT, I JUST WISH SHE HAD SAID
THAT PUBLICLY.
FOR EXAMPLE NOW WE HAVE REPORTING IN FROM TODAY
THAT THEY ARE STILL HOLDING 100 PEOPLE AT L.A.X.
BUT THEY HAVE
BEEN ORDERED BY FEDERAL COURTS NOT TO HOLD THESE PEOPLE.
THAT
IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND TRUMP SAYS I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW,
THAT'S WHEN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL SALES, AND SHE DID, AGAIN I WISH
SHE HAD CLARIFIED BETTER, YOU HAVE A FEDERAL COURT ORDER --
IT'S UP TO FIVE COURTS NOW -- FIVE COURTS HAVE TOLD YOU YOU
CAN'T HOLD THOSE PEOPLE, THE ORDER HAS BEEN STAYED.
THAT
MEANS IT IS NOT IN EFFECT.
IF YOU WANT ME TO SAY IT'S IN
EFFECT I WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL COURT ORDERS AND I'M
NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE I'M A LAWYER, IN FACT I'M THE TOP
LAWYER AS ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THAT IS ON THE POLICY
END.
ON THE POLITICAL END I DON'T HAVE GOOD NEWS FOR US.
I
THINK THIS WILL PLAY WELL, NOT JUST FOR HIS BASE BUT FOR PEOPLE
IN THE MIDDLE.
PROGRESSIVES CAN STAND HIM, THIS ISN'T THE STRAW
THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK, THE CAMEL WAS ALREADY OBLITERATED.
BUT HE WILL SEEM STRONG AND DECISIVE, I GAVE YOU IN ORDER
AND YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW IT, JUST LIKE AT THE END OF CELEBRITY
APPRENTICE YOU'RE FIRED.
>>BUT WHAT ABOUT HIM IGNORING THE COURTS?
WILL THAT PLAY WELL
WITH INDEPENDENT VOTERS?
>>THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION ABOUT POLITICS, AND THAT DEPENDS ON
THE DEMOCRATS.
IF THE DEMOCRATS KEEP GETTING DISTRACTED AND IT'S
UNDERSTANDABLE, GIVEN HOW MANY THINGS HE'S DOING OUT THERE 100
MILES AN HOUR, AND LOSE FOCUS ON WHAT THE IMPORTANT PARTS ARE --
YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD A GOOD CASE, WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE
DOING IS, FOLLOW COURT ORDERS OTHERWISE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS
ILLEGAL AND THERE IS ONLY ONE REMEDY FOR A PRESIDENT WHO IS
ACTING ILLEGALLY AND THAT IMPEACHMENT.
YOU ALREADY HAVE 20
REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE VOICED CONCERN ABOUT THE BAN, WHICH IS
UNUSUAL FOR REPUBLICANS, YES?
YOU NEED THOSE GUYS IF YOU ARE
GOING TO PUT REAL PRESSURE -- NOT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
IMPEACH TRUMP TOMORROW, BUT TO PUT PRESSURE ON HIM TO SAY OH, I
SEE HOW THIS IS COSTING ME POLITICALLY.
DEMOCRATS, FOCUS ON
THE COURT ORDERS.
THEY ARE AMAZING IN THEIR INCOMPETENCE.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE STARTED JUSTICE DEMOCRATS,
STRONG PROGRESSIVES MAKE THESE MISTAKES.
For more infomation >> Sección de farándula del martes 31 de enero | Al Rojo Vivo | Telemundo - Duration: 9:06. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét