Reader Mail

Posted on by

From today’s mailbag, we’ve got a question…

…for Joe Doakes from Como Park:

Hello Mitch…

Does “Joe Doakes from Como Park” have time to answer a question from the Norwegian Lutheran contingent of the NARN Peanut Gallery?  [Not sure that narrows it down much – Ed]

My question:  In her haughty refusal to obey a Presidential executive order. One vetted by the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel and which counters Emperor Obama’s previous directive that ignored federal law…

Did Miss Yates also violate 18 USC 2384?

Respectfully submitted, 

– Tor S.

Scum of the earth technical writer

Deplorable infidel

Lord of the low frequencies

I need a Doakes Signal to shine on a low-hanging cloud.

33 thoughts on “Reader Mail”

  1. Thanks for asking, Tor. It warms my curmudgeonly heart to see SITD readers actually citing the law in support of their arguments, such a refreshing change from dealing with Liberals.

    Before I answer, I must give you two standard disclaimers: first, although I am a lawyer, I’m not YOUR lawyer, so I can’t give you legal advice about your rights or obligations. You must retain your own lawyer for that. And second, my area of practice is real estate law so I’m not an expert in federal conspiracy law and therefore my opinion is little more valuable than the guy on the next barstool.

    Having said all that, and based on what’s been reported in the media, I think the answer is “Not yet, because a seditious conspiracy requires two or more people acting in concert. One person cannot a conspiracy make. But it’s early days and who knows how many Deep State actors are involved?”

    You know whose opinion I’d love to hear? Learned Foot. Is he still lurking around the internet somewhere?

  2. But she is just one of many who get their directions from Soros. Isn’t the fact nobody said boo in 2011 who are now all up in a lather makes it a case?

  3. Yates was sworn to uphold the Constitution, not serve the President. She’s doing her job.

    But a competent administration has their own experts validate an order before it is signed to be reasonably sure that it is both legal and constitutional. Trump process seems to be to put his latest thoughts on paper, put it out there, and see what flies. An unending series of lawsuits will result, which will each take months or years to resolve. At this rate, the courts will be clogged with lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive orders long after Trump is gone, and very little will have been accomplished.

  5. Yates was sworn to uphold the Constitution, not serve the President. She’s doing her job.

    So are you saying Holder was not doing his job in 2011? eTASS, now you are not even trying! Your idiotic adherence to talking points and abject absence of critical thinking is indeed worthy of both admiration and scorn. But you keep buggering that strawman, champ, you need more progeny to put up.

  6. Yates was sworn to uphold the Constitution, not serve the President. She’s doing her job.

    Her job is not to interpret the Constitution, her job is to enforce the law. Lacking a SCOTUS decision to the contrary, an executive order signed by the President has the effect of law in the area of immigration.

    You poor things are just running out of steam, aren’t you SSOLSEmery?

  7. Yates thought the precedents set by Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch of ignoring laws they don’t like still stands. Nope.

  8. Regarding “her job is (was) to enforce the Constitution”, well, yes, but her own refusal to enforce the order admits that she does not view it as unconstitutional or illegal. She merely disagrees with its merits.

    And really, even if she’s right on the merits–I disagree but let’s go with it–had she continued in that position, her subordinates would have held HER insubordination up to her every time she wanted to make an unpopular decision. Good luck with that one.

  9. EI as a political appointee Yates “serves at the pleasure of the president” in the executive NOT the judicial branch of the government. It quite simply is not her duty to adjudicate – she failed at her duty and was justifiably terminated.

  11. Kel: Yes, I agree the President had every right to fire her. Although most here seem to ignore that Trump’s staff seems to have muddled the roll-out of his proposed new immigration policy. I don’t know if Mr. Trump’s immigration restrictions are aimed, as he says, at terrorism or, rather, at slowing Muslim immigration. Both are perfectly legitimate goals although not necessarily wisely implemented in this instance.

  12. My my. Was that a picorn flying by my window? Did I just hear “I was wrong?” from eTASS? And then this: I don’t know if and yet he offered his opinion. My my. I think them hamsters are lose in someone’s nether regions cavity, causing a mind numbing spin.

  14. It’s also interesting to see how many trolls are now using the Comments section to promote Trump. Clearly someone’s taken a leaf from the Putin’s Book of Media Manipulation. Presumably this is all part of a job creation scheme for the mentally challenged…

  15. LEARNEDFOOT J. concurring in the DOAKES opinion and concurring in the result.

    The relevant part of 18 USC sec. 2384 here is:

    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to…or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”

    As the DOAKES opinion correctly holds, no conspiracy exists in evidence presented before this comment section and therefore no conviction is possible under the statute. I would also point out that unless the Acting AG used *force* to, er, not do her job, her conduct likewise does not amount to seditious conspiracy as provided in that section.

  16. It’s also interesting to see how many trolls are now using the Comments section to promote Trump

    I see eTASS just gave birth to another strawman. Not only did he not address his shortcomings as an oxygen breather and the specious vacuity of his own comments, he know imagines things as well. Please point out, eTASS any comments that “promote Trump”. Or is your comprehension and command of English have left your shell of a body last time you farted?

  17. “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to…or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”

    Is this conspiracy to hinder?

    Democratic lawmakers in California are moving swiftly to pass a package of legislation that would restrict state and local law enforcement, including school police and security departments, from using their own resources to aid federal authorities in immigration enforcement.

    Along with restricting local action on immigration enforcement, Senate Bill 54, by Democratic Senate leader Kevin de León, would require schools, hospitals and courthouses around the state to adopt similar policies. It also would require state agencies to update their confidentiality policies so information on individuals’ immigration status is not shared for enforcement purposes.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article129038699.html#storylink=cpy

  18. “Yates was sworn to uphold the Constitution, not serve the President.”

    Yates can make that claim when she visits the unemployment office.

  19. Yates can make that claim when she visits the unemployment office.

    Or more likely on MSNBC.

  20. Senate Bill 54, by Democratic Senate leader Kevin de León

    Could legislative action be considered “force”?

  21. Scott; Yates, having been fired for cause, is not eligible for unemployment benefits in most states. That said, Mr. D. is probably right that she won’t need them.

  22. bike, I know you’re correct but that doesn’t stop folks from applying for benefits, I’ve discharged a number of people in the past and although their efforts were futile that didn’t stop their appeals.

    I concur with you and Mr. D, I’m betting she had already explored her future employment opportunities given she had to know her actions were insubordination. Further she could well be posturing as a “new face” in what is now a weak Dem party with her defiance of Trump. Yates could claim she stud up to the MAN.

  24. By not resigning, Yates was signaling that she was a loose cannon. She would enforce whatever laws it pleased her to enforce.
    Resignation would have been proper. She is the bad guy in this, not Trump.
    BTW, Obama lost 55% of the cases it argued before the SC: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/
    Obama taught constitutional law.
    The media worked very hard to normalize Obama, but he was an outlier among American chief executives. Trump’s actions so far indicate that he will be an Eisenhower Republican.

  25. Mr. Foot, if you are still lurking, does anyone have standing to sue MSM for #fakenews? Can it be done? Surely deliberately publishing factually incorrect information is not protected by the law and 1st amendment? Is it not akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater?

  28. 32% say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust

    Bullshit, I saw media approval around 15% at last check. Even that sounds high.

  30. If the Politico story is correct, the EO was vetted by and at least partially written by GOP Judiciary Committee staffers.
    This would make perfect sense. If you read the test of the immigration/visa EO, it looks like it was written by lawyers, not dictated by a real estate mogul and reality TV star. Sheesh.

  31. MP none of that matters to these people anymore, I’m only engaging lefties at this point if air know they are protesters and to see if I can getc one of them to do something stupid.

  33. Wooly One, did you not see the real facts as published by the enemedia that DHS was not consulted and knew nothing about the EO? Surely you are not intimating alternate facts are the actual facts as opposed to the real facts?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.