ACLU Says One Simple Thing Would Make Trump’s Travel Ban Completely Acceptable
May 8, 2017 by streiff
President Trump’s executive order limiting travel to the US from failed states and state sponsors of terrorism was on the agenda with the Fourth Circuit today and the challengers did not have a great day. Perhaps for the first time, the travel executive order case was heard by a judge who didn’t get his law degree from a box of Cheerios.
The highlight of the day came when Judge Paul Niemeyer was questioning a stooge from the ACLU named Omar Jadwat. He trotted out the bizarre attack line that has been used by many of our robed would-be masters that Donald Trump’s campaign statements in favor of restricting Muslim immigration make the order illegal despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected by the order.
All of this is good but skip to 0:46 for the fun.
Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.
“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.
Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.
Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.
“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.
Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.
And there is this classic:
The last part of the audio is rather funny. Jadwat, asked whether the order on its face is valid, says No. Why? “I don’t think so, Your Honor, because the order is completely unprecedented.” To which one of the Fourth Circuit judges replies, with astonishment that seems mostly genuine: “So the first order on anything is invalid?”
This argument reveals the corrupt reasoning demonstrated thus far in the legal battles over what are clearly legal and proper executive orders. The bottom line is that a portion of the judiciary opposes Donald Trump. Period. And they are willing to use their power to pervert the course of justice in order to hand Trump a defeat. That’s it. This travel ban is going to be found legal and when it is there should be impeachment waiting for any judge who ruled it was illegal.
Who Compelled Sally Yates To Act? GOP Senators Want To Know
You’ll be hearing a lot from the lefty social media sphere about how former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates DESTROYED Texas Senator Ted Cruz in her appearance before the Senate Subcommittee today as they investigate Russian involvement in the last election. Let me go ahead and show that to you now, to get it out of the way.
It was a good exchange, and she held her own; which is impressive given Cruz’s abilities as a hard-charging appellate attorney. Pay attention to what Cruz says at the end about suspecting partisanship, because that’s the general tenor of today’s hearings, at least on the Republican side.
Cruz, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa were particularly open in their assertion that Yates, in “warning” the White House back in January that now ex-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has associations with Russian contacts that compromised his ability to do his job, may have had a partisan motive for her actions.
Yates was also grilled pretty heavily by GOP members about why she refused to enforce President Donald Trump’s travel ban, a move which led to her termination at the Department of Justice. Yates contends she found the ban unconstitutional and would have been violating her oath to enforce it. The very shrewd litigator, when questioned about the travel ban, turned into something of an activist, using expressions about “truth” and mentioning that she saw the ban as a religious test (hence the unconstitutional part) intended to discriminate against Muslims.
Cruz reminded her that the Executive Order issuing the travel ban was declared legal as it related to its constitutionality. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy even went so far as to ask Yates when she became a member of the Supreme Court, since deciding the constitutionality of orders was their purview alone.
For her part, Yates came across as a person of integrity and conviction. She was most believable when she was insisting that one of her primary reasons for taking her concerns about Flynn to the White House was that Vice President Mike Pence was being sent out with inaccurate information and was “unknowingly lying” to the American public. But she did leave a nagging feeling she must have been encouraged to “take a stand,” particularly as it relates to Flynn.
She was clear that she never requested Flynn be unmasked, but could never answer — partly due to the fact that she couldn’t answer questions related to an ongoing investigation – how Flynn came to be unmasked. Who ordered the unmasking and why was particularly interesting to Graham, and he made sure to mention at the close of the hearing that he would be seeking answers to those questions.
The insinuation is, of course, that Flynn’s associations were a witch hunt to harm the new administration, prompting Kennedy to wonder why Flynn was given “double secret” security clearance that allowed him to serve in the White House if his phone call with the Russian ambassador was known about during the transition period between the election and the inauguration.
So many questions. The Dems, for their part, kept mentioning a special committee and a special prosecutor to investigate the ties of the new administration to Russia. GOP members want further investigation as to how and why Flynn was unmasked — not to mention who in the intelligence community leaked his name to the Washington Post that allowed them to break the story.
Former head of the Department of National Intelligence James Clapper, who also testified today, had a third agenda for his appearance: he simply, he said, wants the electorate to be aware of how hard Russia is working to undermine the US democratic system.
YATES GIVES NO EVIDENCE GEN. FLYNN VIOLATED ANY LAWS
No evidence of wrongdoing presented whatsoever
May 9, 2017 by Jerome Cori
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the House Judiciary Committee that lasted nearly three hours on Monday, neither Sally Q. Yates, the former Attorney General of the United States, nor James R. Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, could produce any evidence Gen. James Flynn, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, had violated any law in his discussions with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
In questioning that was at times highly political, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ended the hearing by entering into the record a McClatchy Washington Bureau newspaper article dated March 20, 2017, that reported the FBI’s Russian influence probe was investigating news sites Breitbart and Infowars, offering no proof that the McClatchy new report was true.
To date, Infowars has received no inquiry from the FBI regarding an investigation into collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Under questioning from subcommittee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, Yates testified she did not know how information about General Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russians got leaked to the Washington Post.
Yates refused to answer whether there was a FISA warrant authorizing electronic surveillance of either Kislyak or Flynn, nor would she answer whether Flynn was picked as a collateral person of interest simply because he talked with the Russian ambassador, who may have been the initial target of the Justice Department investigation.
Nor would Yates answer repeated questions regarding who in the Department of Justice authorized the “unmasking” of Flynn, identifying him by name in the electronic surveillance that involved the Russian ambassador, even though she admitted there should be a record within the Obama administration indicating precisely the identity of the person or persons with the Obama administration who requested and authorized the information about Gen. Flynn be “unmasked.”
By “unmasking” the information, Flynn – an American citizen – was identified by name in intelligence reports as he was picked up in the electronic surveillance of the Russian ambassador being conducted by the Obama administration, supposedly under a FISA-court order.
Under oath, Yates testified she did not know how the classified information about Gen. Flynn got passed to the newspapers so soon after she explained it to the White House counsel.
She also testified that she never served as an anonymous source or authorized anyone to act as an anonymous source to leak information about Donald Trump to the press.
Under persistent questioning from Sen. John Kennedy, (R-La.), Yates admitted she wrote the memo that got her fired by President Trump, in which she instructed Department of Justice lawyers not to defend in court President Trump’s initial travel ban executive order, because she felt the executive order constituted an unconstitutional attack on religious liberty.
“Who appointed you to the U.S. Supreme Court?” Kennedy asked, ending a line of questioning in which he accused Yates of exercising her personal political prejudices supporting Obama-era immigration policies that had open U.S. borders to Muslims fleeing the Middle East as refugees.
While there seemed to be a consensus among Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee that Russia had intervened into the 2016 presidential election to benefit Donald Trump, the hearing neglected to investigate evidence Russia may have preferred Clinton had won, given the potential to blackmail the Democrats over lucrative business deals concluded with Russia while Clinton was Secretary of State.
Infowars.com has reported the Clinton Foundation was rewarded by Russia for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to award to Russia some 20 percent of U.S. uranium production, or that Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, John Podesta, had been paid by Russia for his participation in the technology transfer to Russia under Sec. Clinton’s “reset” policy, receiving stock from Russia through a shell company in the Netherlands that Russia created to facilitate money laundering.
Also, missing from the hearing was questioning over historical evidence the Russians had intervened in previous presidential elections to assist Democratic Party presidential candidates.
In 1968, Anatoly Dobrynin, then Russia’s ambassador to the United States, was ordered by Moscow to offer Richard Nixon’s Democratic Party rival, Hubert H. Humphrey, Jr., “any conceivable help in his election campaign – including financial aid.”
In 1984, Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy asked then-Russian Premier Yuri Andropov to intervene in the U.S. presidential election to help defeat Ronald Reagan.
Exclusive: Roger Stone Has Documents Exposing Obama Moles Inside White House / State Department
Trump: ‘Fake media’ unhappy with ‘old news’ Yates testimony
May 8, 2017 by Anna Giaritelli
President Trump criticized former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates on Monday evening for her not sharing new information about Mike Flynn or Russia at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
“Sally Yates made the fake media extremely unhappy today —- she said nothing but old news!” Trump tweeted.
Although no major breaking news came out of the former Obama administration officials at the hearing, Trump does not think this will be the end of the controversies surrounding Russia.
“Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is ‘no evidence’ of collusion w/ Russia and Trump,” Trump wrote. “The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?”
Instead, Trump said the “biggest story” that came out of the hearing was what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Yates said about surveillance