Posted on 08/09/2016 4:53:12 PM PDT by Elderberry
Incontinent or incompetent, at this point whar fifference does it make.
Intentional. Just didn’t work so they are trying to cover their tracks.
Kind of confused why they are bothering to try though. The LSM won’t cover this.
Lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lied. Its the signature manifestation of the entire Obama regime and its cabinet officers. THEY LIE.Then everyone lies from the Cabinet Secretaries right on down to the lowliest civil servant
The whole mess of them would sooner lie than tell the truth. After all, that’s how they get the big bucks?
I think certain DOJ lawyers should be disbarred for it.
Meanwhile if you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And That young black man shot in righteous self defence? He could have been me, could have been my son.
To tell the honest truth, i wish it had been him, then the dirty bastid would not have been unleashed upon an unsuspecting nation voting enthusiastically for our “first black president.” He may have been first, and he may have been black (but I doubt even that), but he sure as hell was no president.
Meanwhile Obama is doing whatever the hell he feels like all along.
Fortunately for us, he’s mostly playing golf. Got his 300th round in this week IIRC.
+infinity
What? That’s it. What about all the illegals they let in? It’s ok now? Just sit in corner for an hour? Although the judge at first appeared to be fair, it is now apparent he has been compromised.
The DOJ flunkies obviously short circuited.
Don’t miss the real backstory on this issue. Judge Hansen granted Texas a preliminary injunction against the DAPA policy, and that is the decision that was affirmed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and “affirmed” in the SCOTUS in a tied 4-4 Per Curiam opinion. That sent the case back to Judge Hanen to try the case on the merits under the guidance of the 5th Circuit opinion.
In order to grant the preliminary injunction, Judge Hanen had to find it was likely for Texas to prevail upon the merits of the case. In so doing, he looked at the companion DACA program, which was implemented prior to DAPA. (DACA has not been successfully Constitutionally challenged. Mississippi and the Border Patrol union tried but found to have no standing to sue in Crane v. Johnson). In reviewing the DACA program, Judge Hanen found that there were no examples of a DACA applicant being turned down where they met minimal application requirements. Because of that, he found that the DACA program was not an exercise of discretion but instead the de facto creation of a new class of alien, which DHS was not authorized to do without Congressional action.
Since DAPA is the same program targeted to a different type of alien, Judge Hanen found it was the same unconstitutional creation of a new class of alien, and ordered the program halted.
But what the government did was go ahead and process DAPA applications, and lied to the Judge about it. Clearly unethical behavior, but done with a legal purpose. The purpose was to randomly draw some names out of the stack of applications and deny them. “See Judge, we ARE exercising discretion.” So when the case gets set for trial on the merits, the government can be expected to offer proof of their “discretion” and save the program.
The question is whether Judge Hanen will allow such evidence when it was obtained in under false pretenses of telling the Judge they were NOT processing DAPA applications.
Of course, this is all moot. Either Hillary Clinton will appoint the deciding 5th Justice for SCOTUS, who will rubber-stamp the approval of the DAPA program, or Donald Trump will rescind the program by executive order, and make further litigation moot.
intentionally these are high ranking attorneys with all kinds of support.
Just like Hillary....yes we lied and obfuscated but we didn’t really mean to
He should put them in contempt of court right now lock them up
No judge. THEY LIED!!! Start throwing Obamatons in jail. There is no other way.
“See, we are not corrupt. Just incompetent.”
Yeah. Right. Suuuure.
An hour of ethics training will have nor more effect on these lawyers the the 80 hours of EEO training I had to site through.
Water board them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.