Comey, Trump, Russia, Gorsuch, hearings, leaks leaks leaks

FBI Director James Comey spoke publicly in DC on Monday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, stating there were in fact investigations occurring with regard to Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and also between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

It was clear to me, from the outset, that it was politics, politics, politics. Something of which Director Comey has become quite adroit in at least the past year.

The line was drawn in this fashion: Demorats wanted President Trump’s wiretap allegation smashed and derided, whilst Republicans were primarily concerned with the leaking of classified information.

Trey Gowdy begins the interaction with Director Comey and sets the foundation for his line of questioning involving FISA and safeguards.

Please note that Congressman Gowdy specifically utilizes the term “wiretap” to describe the acquisition of communications belonging to an “unnamed US citizen.” Again, Comey outs the Trump investigation but refuses to discuss anything to do with the leaks at all. Do you see my point and my resulting frustration?

I highlight this portion because of its incredible importance. Do you see?

GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?

COMEY: I don’t know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI’s work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting — we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance — to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don’t — I can find out the exact number, I don’t know it as I sit here.

GOWDY: Well, I think, Director Comey, given the fact that you and I agree this is critical, vital, indispensable, a similar program is coming up for reauthorization this fall with a pretty strong head wind right now. It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name. Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name.

COMEY: Sure. The number is relevant but what I hope the U.S. — the American people realize is the number’s important, but the culture behind it is in fact even more important. The training, the rigor, the discipline. We are obsessive about FISA in the FBI for reasons I hope make sense to this committee but we are — everything that’s FISA has to be labeled in such a way to warn people this is FISA, we treat this in a special way.

So we can get you the number, but I want to assure you the culture of the FBI and the NSA around how we treat U.S. person information is obsessive and I mean that in a good way.

GOWDY: Director Comey, I am not arguing with you and I do agree that culture is important, but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that’s 100 different potential sources of investigation and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is.

So the number is relevant. I can see the culture is relevant. NSA, FBI, what other U.S. government agencies have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think all agencies that collect information pursuant to FISA have what are called standard minimization procedures, which are approved by the FISA court that govern how they will treat U.S. person information. So I know the NSA does, I know the CIA does, obviously the FBI does. I don’t know for sure beyond that.

GOWDY: How about the department of — how about Main Justice?

COMEY: Main Justice, I think does have standard minimization procedures.

GOWDY: All right, so that’s four. The NSA, FBI, CIA, Main Justice. Does the White House have the authority to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers’s folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it’s important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can’t on their — they don’t own their own collect and so they can’t on their own unmask. I got that about right?

ROGERS: No, that’s correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

GOWDY: I guess what I’m getting at, Director Comey, is you say it’s vital, you say it’s critical, you say it’s indispensable. We both know it’s a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later on this fall. And by the way, it’s also a felony punishable by up to 10 years.

So how would you begin your investigation, assuming for the sake of argument that a U.S. citizen’s name appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times unlawfully. Where would you begin that investigation?

COMEY: Well, I’m not gonna talk about any particular investigation…

GOWDY: That’s why I said in theory.

COMEY: You would start by figuring out, so who are the suspects? Who touched the information that you’ve concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people, or include people as more serious suspects.

GOWDY: Do you know whether Director Clapper knew the name of the U.S. citizen that appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post?

COMEY: I can’t say in this forum because again, I don’t wanna confirm that there was classified information in the newspaper.

GOWDY: Would he have access to an unmasked name?

COMEY: In — in some circumstances, sure, he was the director of national intelligence. But I’m not talking about the particular.

GOWDY: Would Director Brennan have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: In some circumstances, yes.

GOWDY: Would National Security Adviser Susan Rice have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I think any — yes, in general, and any other national security adviser would, I think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business.

GOWDY: Would former White House Advisor Ben Rhodes have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name?

COMEY: I don’t know the answer to that.

GOWDY: Would former Attorney General Loretta Lynch have access to an unmasked U.S. citizen’s name? COMEY: In general, yes, as would any attorney general.

GOWDY: So that would also include Acting AG Sally Yates?

COMEY: Same answer.

GOWDY: Did you brief President Obama on — well, I’ll just ask you. Did you brief President Obama on any calls involving Michael Flynn?

COMEY: I’m not gonna get into either that particular case that matter, or any conversations I had with the president. So I can’t answer that.

But wait. I have what I consider to be an obvious question but one I’ve not yet heard people ask. Director Comey stated the investigation has been ongoing since July of 2016. If so, wouldn’t an integral part of such an investigation be surveillance of the Trump campaign and others aligned or linked therein?

Yet Mr Comey says there was no surveillance going on. How can that be? Was the FBI conducting half an investigation? A fraction of an investigation? How otherwise can one explain the information collected regarding General Michael Flynn? How was it gathered? How was it distributed? How did it get leaked and by whom? How does one acquire telephone conversation content — on Michael Flynn or Trump’s conversations with Australia’s PM Turnbull or Mexican President Nieto for example — absent wiretapping or surveillance in the first place?

In the process of conducting said highly important investigations wouldn’t you want to use all the tools at your disposal and, furthermore, collect as much pertinent evidence as possible? Of course you would. The statement makes no sense.

Where was James Comey with regard to Obama’s aides improperly accessing the names of Americans swept up in foreign surveillance or whether they leaked classified documents to the US press? Director Comey could confirm that, well, yes, we’re closely examining President Trump’s Russian “collusion” but otherwise could not confirm there was any sort of investigation on the matters of felonious leaking by government officials (Who else could have done so?) and would not talk about it. Why not? What’s the difference?

Another very important question. By the FBI’s own account and everyone else’s, including the Russians, it was believed with certainty that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for the presidency. Why, then, did the Russians magically decide to assist Donald Trump — as James Comey alleges — when people were convinced Trump would lose in a spectacular manner?

It doesn’t make sense. Neither the investigation nor the assumption about the Russians.

Perhaps the biggest question is this: will the leakers be identified and, if so, will they be arrested? Or is it in the best interest of the deep state to obfuscate the matter to the point that the leakers are never found?

Because, trust me, if the leakers are prosecuted and there is federal penitentiary time attached, you’ll hear sphincters slamming shut all around DC and the warm breezes will turn cold. That’s called a chilling effect.

Also quite disturbing is this, from McClatchyDC.com:

FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at far-right news sites

by Peter Stone & Greg Gordon

Federal investigators are examining whether far-right news sites played any role last year in a Russian cyber operation that dramatically widened the reach of news stories — some fictional — that favored Donald Trump’s presidential bid, two people familiar with the inquiry say.

Operatives for Russia appear to have strategically timed the computer commands, known as “bots,” to blitz social media with links to the pro-Trump stories at times when the billionaire businessman was on the defensive in his race against Democrat Hillary Clinton, these sources said.

In other words, the FBI under Comey is investigating “fake news.” What is fake news?

The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News, the sources said. Some of the stories were false or mixed fact and fiction, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the bot attacks are part of an FBI-led investigation into a multifaceted Russian operation to influence last year’s elections.

For every individual arguing that InfoWars or Breitbart is fake news, I can provide a great deal of documentation indicating, over numerous years, that what people term the mainstream media such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and many others are equally or more fake than those two named above, and have been specifically colluding with the Democrats and Leftist-themed ideologues for a lengthy period of time.

The FBI investigating “fake news” is indeed disturbing. It is no less true now than any time prior that one must be an enlightened consumer of news and, as an adult, know enough about your country, your surroundings and your world in order to make the best informed decision regarding the portrayal of information to you by various news organizations. In other words, it blows to be stupid and there are penalties for being so, though we know that a “sucker is born every minute.”

Perhaps we should ask what there was to learn from the hearing today with FBI Director James Comey. I conclude below with the real lesson to be intuited from the hearing, but in terms of hard facts we discovered there are, well, no real hard facts. There is still no evidence that Russia hacked the election or somehow influenced the presidential election despite what the American Media Maggots emphatically say. There is still no evidence that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign or his staffers. We learned that James Comey is rather selective in terms of the political topics he’s willing to address.

We learned that no evidence was provided that indicated Obama wiretapped Trump. But if that were true, then why has Fox News summarily fired Judge Napolitano for saying this?

Why indeed.

House Intel Chair Devin Nunes weighed in, and he wasn’t terribly happy.

Then there was this little-publicized questioning of Director Comey by NY newbie freshman Rep. Elise Stefanik, who zeroes in on Comey immediately.

Did you notice Director Comey was a bit nonplussed at her direct first question? I did. She has taken Comey aback. He did not anticipate such pointed and informed questions from a neophyte. When Comey said he didn’t have a DNI, that was bullshit. He did. It was James Clapper. The lying James Clapper. The lying under oath James Clapper. You know. That guy.

Did you also hear James Comey admit to Rep. Stefanik that, along with the Demorats and DNC, the Republicans were tapped as well? He stated so. But what was the difference between the GOP being tapped and the DNC being tapped? That’s right. The lack of corruption in the content of the emails and information.

But let me say this. Elise Stefanik has a great career ahead of her because she appears fearless, resolute, and unimpressed by dark, carved wood. You get my drift. “When did you notify the White House?” Boom. Done. Owned.

Let us transition.

“I am a faithful servant to the Constitution.” So said Judge Neal Gorsuch in his opening statement with regard to his SCOTUS nomination, on Monday. The actual flames and grilling begin Tuesday morning at 9:30. First, here’s the Demorat take on Gorsuch, from CBS.

Then there are the actual words of Judge Gorsuch himself as he makes his opening statement.

Bottom line regarding Neil Gorsuch? He will be confirmed. I also predict the Demorats will not choose to use their filibuster against him. You’re dealing with an individual who

  • Presided over 2,750 case on the 10th Circuit;
  • Wrote 175 majority opinions;
  • Wrote 65 concurrences or dissents;
  • Had 72 in-person meetings with US Senators

Charles Krauthammer may have jinxed things when, on Monday, he said: “Too stupid. Even the Democrats won’t do it.”

But never minimize the ability of Demorats and Leftists to see racists and sexists everywhere. Joe Dinkin, National Communications Director for the Working Families Party (yes, that is a party) states that Neil Gorsuch is a white supremacist and nationalist because Gorsuch hasn’t overtly and publicly disavowed President Trump’s travel ban. It’s a Muslim ban, you see. So Gorsuch wears a white robe and a pointy hat. Insanity.

In conclusion, do not doubt that there is a message to be acquired from Comey’s hearing today, and the message to President Trump as well as his advisors, staff and assistants comes from not just Director James Comey, the Demorats and a portion of the GOP, but much of the embedded deep state as well.

The message is: back off. Leave the DC swamp as it is. Undrained. The creatures prefer it unmolested. If you fail to heed our warning, we’ll destroy you at all costs and by any means necessary.

If you were President Trump you’d have to be asking yourself: whom can you trust?

That potential pool is dwindling by the day.

BZ

P.S.

You should now be asking yourself: is FBI Director James Comey the source of the leaks?

 

Sources: Obama went outside US to surveil Trump

From FoxNewsInsider.com:

The Justice Department on Monday asked lawmakers for more time to gather evidence related to President Trump’s claim that former President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower’s phones during last year’s presidential campaign.

The House Intelligence Committee said it would give the Justice Department until March 20 to comply.

Current and former administration officials have been unable to provide any evidence of the Obama administration wiretapping Trump Tower, yet the president’s aides have been reluctant to publicly contradict their boss.

I wrote at length about the situation here, on March 6th. Other sources have confirmed the allegation.

Continuing, there are additional sources tending to lend credence to the wiretapping, as revealed by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

One video I was told to watch was this, wherein Mark Levin sets an argument for the wiretapping of Trump.

Senator Rand Paul also happens to think it would have been relatively easy to wiretap Donald Trump.

I’d like to make this point obvious for those who may not know. The days of trying to access some kind of big closet or room with lots of copper connectors are over. You no longer have to physically access that room covertly and then attach any number of alligator clips and check your buttset. Most phone systems in business and agencies run VOIP, which is Voice Over Internet Protocol. Right. The internet. Go figure.

Folks, this is not yet done, not by a long shot.

BZ

 

Wisconsin judge interferes with 2nd Trump travel stay

But not nearly to the extent that did Judge Robart in Washington state, and with a fraction of the prior focus on President Trump’s second travel stay, Executive Order 13769 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States).

From Politico.com:

Revised Trump travel ban suffers first legal blow

by Josh Gerstein

Federal judge in Wisconsin blocks impact on Syrian family as other courts mull broader relief.

President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order suffered its first legal setback Friday as a federal judge blocked the directive’s potential impact on the family of a Syrian refugee living in Wisconsin.

Madison-based U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary retraining order at the request of the Syrian man, who is referred to as “John Doe” in court filings. The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said Trump’s new executive order cannot be used to delay the man’s effort to bring his wife and 3-year-old daughter from the wartorn country to the U.S., but is limited to the individuals involved in the case.

As you can see the effect is limited in scope and quite pointedly focuses on one Syrian man’s family.

Do not doubt, however, that every Leftist and sympathetic federal judge aren’t in deep talks at this very moment in an attempt to craft the perfect eliminatory argument.

The major differences between the first and second Trump EO:

  • Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
  • Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
  • Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;

Other differences include:

President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations.

In addition, the nation’s refu­gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.

One the most significant unmentioned differences? The absence of national protests. Do we see a tiny crack in the Leftist/anarchist armor?

Judge Napolitano weighs in on President Trump’s second Executive Order:

Surely there will be more to come.

BZ

 

Reacting to the Ninth Circuit opinion

Following an unsatisfactory ruling by Judge Robart in the state of Washington and an equally dissatisfying opinion from the Night District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, analyses have to be made and new plans created.

The Ninth and Robart’s court essentially gave due process rights to people in Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Iran. People outside this country possess no constitutional rights whatsoever. Additionally, despite that, 77% of refugees arriving in the US since the travel stay suspension have been from those seven enumerated countries. One-third of that 77% are from Syria alone.

Even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is telling us the obvious.

Dr John Eastman, a constitutional law scholar, law professor and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California weighed in on the Ninth’s opinion.

9th Circuit court’s coup d’etat flouts immigration law, precedent

BY DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR –

Like it or not, Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States on Nov. 8, 2016, and sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2017.  He won the election, in significant part, because he promised to enforce our nation’s immigration laws more vigorously and to enhance significantly the vetting of refugees and other aliens seeking admission to the United States, in order to ensure to the extent possible that terrorists were not coming to our shores.

Nevertheless, there is now a concerted effort by many on the left (and even some on the “Never Trump” right) to block President Trump at every turn in order to prevent him from implementing the agenda on which he was elected.

For instance, according to FoxNews.com:

As of Wednesday, Trump was still waiting on confirmation for 10 of his 15 Cabinet nominees. By this time in 2001, then-President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet confirmed. Then-President Barack Obama was just three short of a full Cabinet on Feb. 8, 2009. 

Senate Republican leaders asserted this week that — based on numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, Plum Book, and Congress.gov — Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in the presidency of any incoming president since George Washington. 

Continuing with Dr Eastman:

Regrettably, that effort now seems to include using the courts to achieve political ends that could not be achieved through the electoral process.

The 9th Circuit’s order upholding Judge Robart’s nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) is nearly as bereft of legal analysis as was the original TRO.

For example, in determining whether Trump was likely to succeed on the merits, one might have expected some discussion of the relevant statute that unambiguously gives the president the authority to do what he did here (and what President Carter, in response to the Iranian take-over of our embassy in Tehran, did back in 1979).

That statute, Section 1182(f) of Title 8, provides:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, 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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restriction he may deem to be appropriate.”

If you are a reader of this blog and a listener to my radio show, I suspect some of this information is beginning to sound repetitive. 8 USC 1182? President Carter?

It does not get much clearer than that, yet the 9th Circuit does not even cite, much less explain away, that statute.

Why? Why not refer to the obvious? Because, after all, Leftists absolutely insist there are no agendas whatsoever entering into the lives or opinions of federal judges, right? Except that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wants to change the Electoral College most recently.

Nor did the 9th Circuit cite the language in controlling Supreme Court precedent that makes unmistakably clear that the decision whether or not to admit aliens or any class of aliens is an inherent aspect of sovereignty vested by our Constitution in the legislative and executive branches of our government that is “largely immune from judicial control.”

Instead, the 9th Circuit held that the denial of visas to foreign nationals from countries that President Obama himself had certified as being hotbeds of terrorism likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, despite the fact that another controlling decision of the Supreme Court has quite clearly held that foreign nationals have no right whatsoever to enter the United States, and hence no property or liberty interest that is subject to the Due Process clause.  

Again, does this not sound familiar to you? Dr Eastman summarizes wonderfully.

Whether or not a particular judge or panel of judges likes the policy judgment made by the president, it is the president, not the judge, who was elected to make that decision.  

Indeed, the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.  

That a panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the order does not place it on more solid footing but rather merely expands the lawlessness to a higher court.  One can only hope that the Supreme Court will put a stop to this usurpation, and quickly.  

Otherwise, we as a nation have a much bigger problem to confront than terrorists seeking entry to the United States.

Some have distilled the decision to some solid bullet points, like Ben Shapiro.

1. States Suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” If Aliens Can’t Come To University Classes.This is absolutely absurd. It would strike down virtually any immigration law. All immigration laws restrict classes of people from entering, numbers of people from entering. Some of those people would undoubtedly go to university, or teach there. Does this mean that states can now sue to overturn all immigration laws?

2. The Federal Government Doesn’t Suffer “Irreparable Injury” If The Courts Overrule Immigration Policy. The court casually states that while the government has an interest in combatting terrorism, the “Government has done little more than reiterate that fact.” The executive branch didn’t explain sufficiently to the judiciary why the executive order needed to be put into effect, and so the executive branch has to go home emptyhanded. Again, this is ridiculous. Are we supposed to wait to be hit? Would the judiciary apply this same standard to, say, gun control laws?

3. Everybody Has Due Process Rights. This is perhaps the craziest element of the ruling: the statement that everyone from lawful permanent residents to aliens with a visa traveling abroad has due process rights. The court even says that illegal aliens have due process rights. The Constitution isn’t just for citizens anymore – which begs the question as to why anyone would bother applying for citizenship.

4. Courts Can Look To Motive Rather Than Text. The court said that they could look at Donald Trump’s statements during the campaign about a Muslim ban in order to evaluate this executive order. This is dangerous. Attempting to read the minds of those who put together laws is far more arbitrary than reading the text or looking at the application of the law. It’s also amazing that the Ninth Circuit would say this now, but that the Supreme Court would ignore President Obama saying for YEARS that Obamacare was not a tax, then rule that Obamacare was indeed a tax.

5. The Court Refuses To Strike Down Portions. Normally, the court works to avoid striking down entire laws or staying entire executive orders. Instead, the court just threw up its hands and suggested that it had done its best, but it couldn’t bother doing a close read.

First, a brief bit of truth about the Middle East.

Second, an interview by Tucker Carlson of the District of Columbia (DC) Attorney General (AG), Karl Racine, who allows us to peek briefly into the minds of the Cabal of Black Robes.

Please note Tucker extrapolating the argument, doing what I call the “logical extension,” as if it hadn’t occurred to an attorney and — perhaps it didn’t. Which in and of itself is a massively short-sighted and extremely troubling issue, particularly when unseen by a highly educated individual like AG Racine.

What Tucker has exposed if you’re reading between his questions is the insular and inbred fashion in which the law exists today via the manner in which it is interpreted by Left-leaning judges.

AG Racine, however, does provide some light, some very noteworthy light, in his response to Tucker’s questions about “what next”?

The government argued that Trump’s executive orders were “unreviewable.” I’m going to go out on a limb a bit and say 1) that was a major tactical error on behalf of the government, because 2) human nature became involved, meaning 3) the judges got pissed off and reacted viscerally — as in “oh really? We shall now show you what is ‘unreviewable.’ ”

AG Racine made one incredibly-important point by intimating the government had not done its homework, when it could not provide one instance in which a refugee had been arrested or charged with terror in the US. Judge Robart said that was because there were none to cite, which is a lie. Racine made the point, however: the government was ill prepared. I cited numerous cases here, however.

Tucker then brought up the issue of Soviet Jews who were allowed into the US up until 1988 simply because of their persecution due to religion — clearly a “religious test.” Again, upon which AG Racine was caught flat-footed in response. Being a student of Paul Ekman and Sgt Carl Stincelli, I noted during the formulation of Carlson’s question the darting concern in the eyes of Racine as he either consulted notes or accessed spheres in his brain from which to respond.

AG Racine then made more interesting points when he said the words of Trump and his aides essentially came back to bite them. Yet Tucker perseveres with the truth when he factually refers to US law having been predicated upon “country of origin.”

However, AG Racine once more provides illumination to Tucker Carlson.

  1. “Your department of justice did not make any of the arguments you made.”
  2. “They found the government’s arguments were unavailing.”

The underlying subtext being: had the government made those arguments, would they have prevailed?

Moreover: why did the government not provide those arguments?

Then let us listen to Newt Gingrich bring some history into view with regard to federal judges.

It was Judge Andrew Napolitano who initially thought the Ninth Circuit might overturn Judge Robart.

Now, Judge Napolitano suggests a different strategy.

That tactic is: “Rescind the executive order and issue a new one.” As of this writing there are 48 lawsuits against President Trump; Napolitano believes that, if the case does hit the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts will consolidate all of them.

Or: “if you don’t succeed, try, try again.” President Trump stated:

“We are going to keep our country safe. So we’ll be doing something very rapidly, having to do with additional security for our country. You’ll be seeing that sometime next week.”

What went wrong? I think we’re starting to see.

Leftists, Demorats and the courts insist that politics play no part in the decisions handed down. I humbly suggest that politics play most every part in the decisions handed down if one is, of course, cognizant of history and the past actions of, say, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

It is, considering history, acceptable for both of those persons to have stopped immigration for a period of time, referencing this post for Obama and this post for Jimmy Carter.

The only difference? Truly, the only difference?

Trump has an (R) behind his name.

BZ

 

Byron York nails federal judge James Robart

Who, as it turns out, knows next-to-nothing about the state of immigrants in America.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

by Byron York

James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump‘s executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried.

Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State’s claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart’s brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department’s response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground.

“A judge is just a lawyer who curried favor with a politician.”
— Russell Baker, NYT columnist

True, as you get to become a federal judge by being nominated by a senator from your individual state. In the Ninth DCA, remember, covering California, Oregon and Washington, you’re getting six Demorat senators who are going to do nothing but nominate Demorat judges. Can I get a “duh” from the audience?

Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart’s restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president’s constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and “second-guesses the president’s national security judgment” about risks faced by the United States.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?”

“Your Honor, I don’t have that information,” said Bennett.

Who does? Judge Robarts swears he does but he either 1) knows nothing, or 2) simply pulled the figure out from his judicial arse.

“Let me tell you,” said Robart. “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you’re here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

No support for that? ISIS has, in fact, said time after time that it insinuates members into refugee streams throughout all the European nations. The Washington Post throws out a number: 60. Byron York writes about Judge Robart’s ruling:

Now, it turns out Robart might not know as much as he let on. Last summer, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest analyzed public sources of information, seeking to learn more about people convicted of terror-related offenses. The Justice Department provided the subcommittee with a list of 580 people who were convicted — not just arrested, but tried and convicted — of terror-related offenses between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2014.

But more specifically:

The subcommittee investigated further and found that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born and that an additional 129 were of unknown origin. Of the 380, there were representatives — at least 60 — from all of the countries on the Trump executive order list. And with 129 unknowns, there might be more, as well.

Byron York continues with his original argument:

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President’s Daily Brief. Perhaps not.** In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

“Your Honor, I think the point is that because this is a question of foreign affairs, because this is an area where Congress has delegated authority to the president to make these determinations, it’s the president that gets to make the determinations,” Bennett said. “And the court doesn’t have authority to look behind those determinations.”

Again I repeat, at the risk of becoming the Department of Redundancy Dept., President Trump’s authority to primarily do as he did is granted under 8 USC 1182.

Please read the rest of Mr York’s excellent article which essentially states this: a federal judge overstepped his bounds. Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in again and thinks the Ninth District Court of Appeals may just reverse Judge Robart and reinstate the executive order as he believes Washington and Minnesota lack the requisite standing.

Also please see my first post about Trump’s travel stay here, where I go into great detail about the executive order, its roll-out and legality.

Finally, Judge James Robart is an odd-duck cipher; a Bush-appointed Republican who goes askew on strange issues. From BlueLivesMatter.com:

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

by Officer Blue

Federal Judge Accuses Police Union Of Killing Black People, Proclaims ‘Black Lives Matter’

Seattle, Washington – U.S. District Judge James Robart on Monday expressed a strong anti-police bias when dealing with a case involving Seattle police union’s contract negotiations. Judge Robart went on a rant about deadly force statistics against black people and proclaimed, “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart is presiding over a 2012 consent decree requiring the city to adopt reforms to address Department of Justice allegations of biased policing and excessive force. The proposed changes will have a major effect on all union members, including discipline being investigated and determined by non-law enforcement investigators. The changes make it faster and easier to discipline an officer if the public believes that the officer was wrong, whether or not that was actually the case.

Continuing to build an image in his mind of being some sort of folk-hero, Judge Robart went on to say that 41 percent of the shootings by police were of blacks, when they represented 20 percent of the population. Judge Robart then declared that “Black Lives Matter.”

Judge Robart’s rant is actually a perfect example of why law enforcement officers cannot be excluded from the process of disciplining other officers. The statistics on police shootings that Judge Robart cited were completely out of context, and ignore the reasons that shooting occur.

Milo Yiannopoulos talks about immigrants and refugees having destroyed Europe.

I don’t believe Americans or Europeans hate immigrants or immigration. What they do dislike is watching their countries — particularly the EU — being consumed from within by hordes of individuals in such numbers as to almost ensure no assimilation whatsoever. Sadly, it is from the EU that we should learn. Again, thank the Atlantic Ocean.

Bottom line? I believe the law is on President Trump’s side. That does not mean there weren’t visual problems with its roll-out and coordination. And it doesn’t mean that judges don’t have axes to grind or agendas to keep.

One interesting note: the judge in Boston who held for President Trump likely has the Boston Marathon Bombing in the back of his mind, has experienced the reality of close terror and wants to ensure we know whom we’re allowing into our nation.

BZ

P.S.

This is England. This could be the United States — beginning with Michigan — shortly. Remember: “demography is prophecy.”

Wise up, America. Educate yourself about Islam.

Finally, this is President Trump speaking about illegal immigrants and the need to follow the rule of law.

Oh wait, sorry. That was Barack Hussein Obama in 2005. My mistake. A black man can say this about illegal immigration but Caucasoids cannot. A grievous error on my part.