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

Plaintiff in Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque

The plot thickens on this one. First we have Obama in Hawaii, then we learn that the judge who ruled happens to be a classmate of his from Harvard, and last?

Judge Watson, managed to produce a 43-page decision within two hours of the case being filed in Hawaii. (Let’s make Hawaii the new Gitmo.)

The judge issued his 43-page ruling less than two hours after hearing Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order to stop the ban from  being put into practice.

Speedy guy, huh!  More at Gateway Pundit and we learn this:

The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, a native of Egypt, leads a Muslim Brotherhood-tied mosque in Honolulu, Hawaii, and claims he is suffering ‘irreparable harm’ by President Trump’s temporary travel ban.

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”

Read more at WND

%d bloggers like this: