Sally Yates turned Sen. Ted Cruz into an AM talk show hack when she outmaneuvered his every attack against her principled stand against Trump's illegal Muslim ban.

By the end of his smug questioning, his efforts to smear her disagreement over the Muslim ban by labeling her a "partisan" which resulted in groans coming from those in attendance.

Throughout the entire hearing, Sally Yates displayed her character and integrity when she was questioned during the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Not only was she well prepared, succinct and spot on with her answers, she outsmarted Republicans on the committee when they questioned her partisanship and motives for coming out against Trump's Muslim ban.

Sen. Cruz began and immediately tried to send the former acting Attorney General back on her heels when he asked, "Are you familiar with 8 USC-Section 1182?"

She said she didn't off the top of her head.

Like a child, he replied that it was the statute that got her fired. Then he read off a portion of the statute that benefited his point of view.

Cruz read, "He may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate. Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?"

Yates knew the statue through and through and rejected his interpretation by knowing more about the statute than he did.

Yates said she agreed, but countered, "And I'm also familiar with an additional provision of the INA, that says 'no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality or place of birth.'"

She continued, "That, I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted, and that's been part of the discussion with the courts with respect to the INA is whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you just described, but my concern was not an INA concern here. - it rather was a constitutional concern, whether or not the executive order here violated the constitution specifically with the establishment clause and equal protection and due process."

After she rolled him on the facts, he agreed with her and then was forced to play the partisan card.

He told her that on January 27th, the OLC issued their official decision which they deemed legal.

Then Cruz said, "Three days later you determined using your own words, the OLC had not addressed whether it was, quote, wise or just."

Sally responded, "And I also in that same directive, Senator, said that I was not convinced it was lawful."

She disagreed with the way the OLC handled its ruling and concluded that "in this particular instance" the travel ban, when looked at with a "fundamental issue of religious freedom, not the interpretation of some arcane statute, but religious freedom, it was appropriate for us to look at the intent behind the president's actions."

Sen. Cruz cut her off and made some idiotic point, asking her that in over 200 years was she aware of another Attorney General, after an OLC ruling had "ever directed the department not to follow that policy and to defy that policy."

She responded that she had never heard of an OLC not informing an Attorney General of their decision because they never did inform her.

Yates said, "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 it until after it was over."

Boom!

Cruz was crushed so he ended by being a jackass.

Sen. Cruz replied, "Thank you, Miss Yates. I would note that might be the case if there's reason to suspect partisanship."

One of the most partisan Senators in Congress, attacks her motives without a shred of proof.

Boos and moans were heard after he uttered that idiocy, but his hackery couldn't blunt the humiliation he just suffered.