ACLU lawyer admits Donald Trump’s travel ban ‘could be constitutional’ if Hillary Clinton issued the order
Below is interesting audio of an ACLU lawyer arguing today against Donald Trump’s travel ban where he admits the order “could be Constitutional” if any President other than Donald Trump had issued it.
When pressed by the lawyers from Derek Smith and James White – Tacoma Criminal Defense Lawyers, 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.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
Swiftey isn’t going to get a raise with this one. Wow… nice catch.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. You think he would have been better prepared but it seems like he was not expecting a question like that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
haha ~ They’re not all knowing are they.
When their king obama did his travel bans they had no problem, why now? Since all the alphabet news are against it, we know it must be right!
The very countries of concern happen to be those the US Gov was used by the Shadow people/Deep State to interference with their Gov. structure ~ coincidence?
I see Canada is in the ‘insanity spell’ too: “The largest school district in Canada has canceled all future trips to the U.S.A. over fears that some of its students may be impacted by President Donald Trump’s travel order putting a temporary moratorium on travel from a list of terror-prone countries.” How ignorant and blinded they are from reason and truth.
After eating all the media lies that’s what happens – a society is bamboozled into cesspool living as the norm, because those feeding on their feelings and sentiments are the very scum of the earth that reside there. Misery loves company.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is funny to watch them twist, turn, and change their positions based on who is in office. They are all a bunch of frauds and political hacks who only really care about holding on to power.
LikeLike
This is like being a little pregnant. Lawerys can really twist facts and the constitution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He sure did try…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am taking this to mean that if the regime had kept it mouth closed about the intention of the executive order it would most likely would not have been blocked which is what I have been suspecting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is what it sounds like to me and I think that is irrelevant. All they should be looking at is is it lawful and is it constitutional?
LikeLike
Why is Mr. Trump’s intentions irrelevant? Do we not want the intentions behind the legislation to be used by the courts especially in matters of the Constitution (the courts in the past have used the Federalist Papers in their rulings)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This whole notion that a law can be deemed unconstitutional under one president but the same law with the same wording is constitutional under another president is an idea I cannot wrap my mind around. I admit Trump did not do himself any favors with this campaign rhetoric but the EO was crafted according to the law.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Brittius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLike
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person