Apparently the most egregious part of the Trump so called “travel ban” otherwise known as “extreme vetting” is his thought crimes. If Hillary Clinton had written the order it would have been constitutional so goes the ACLU attorney before the Appeals court. It was brought up yesterday at the Yates Clapper hearing as well, that it wasn’t the Executive Order that constituted illegality, but rather Trump’s “thoughts” behind it. America’s Watchtower caught this gem from the oral arguments before the Appeal Court- well worth a listen. From his post:
When pressed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat talked himself around in circles, trying not to sound politically motivated, by claiming at one point the order could be Constitutional if another candidate (read Hillary Clinton) had won the election while at the same time trying to claim the order was unconstitutional on its face, even if the wording was the same.
“The same action could be Constitutional in some circumstances and not in others” is the key quote in my opinion. Either an action is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. There can no longer be any doubt this whole thing is politically motivated.
UPDATE: I did find Yates with the same spin on it.
BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! 