Appeals Court hearing of Travel Ban: ‘If Clinton had ordered it, it would have been legal’


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.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Appeals Court hearing of Travel Ban: ‘If Clinton had ordered it, it would have been legal’”

  1. teelee2013 Says:

    Ludicrous.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Sums it up nicely.

      Like

  2. Steve Dennis Says:

    Thanks for the link! This is remarkable, isn’t it?! It is not often you get an admission like this, they keep managing to surprise me whenever I think they cannot!

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      This is the most obvious account of what their regard for the constitution is.

      Like

  3. Mustang Says:

    I see nothing but morons inside the beltway. We should have them terminated before they have a chance to reproduce.

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      There really isa need for eugenics.

      Like

  4. hocuspocus13 Says:

    Reblogged this on hocuspocus13 and commented:
    jinxx♠xoxo

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Thanks muchly! 🙂

      Like

  5. Simply Linda Says:

    The whole Yates/Clapper thing is a dog and pony show, in my honest opinion. These snowflakes (judges and alike) are getting on my last nerves. sigh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Yes….. thought crimes… wowow eee.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Simply Linda Says:

        yep…all subjective theories of their own makings.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    I posted last night:
    “The judge asks lawyers attacking Trump “travel ban”: If anyone but Trump had put out this order, would you find a problem with it?
    Answer: “No”.
    Are you kidding me? A law’s legality rests on who issues it?
    These are liberal lawyers and the way they attempt to think.
    So much for blind justice.”
    Great minds think alike.
    So do we. 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      I caught the same thing at the Yates hearing yesterday. Her statement that the Office of Legal Affairs didn’t take into account his motivation. I couldn’t find the clip, but it is really getting rare.

      Liked by 2 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: