On March 6, Donald Trump signed a new executive order to ban Muslims, which was planned to take effect today (March 16). It’s really the same travel ban with some minor changes:
1) Iraq is not in the list that consists of the 6 other countries. Of course Iraq has been wonderfully democratic ever since that horrible dictator Saddam Hussein was removed.
2) Green card holders aren’t blocked, foreigners with a legal status to work and live in the USA.
3) People that already have valid visas aren’t blocked.
If the first blocking of the travel ban of the Donald Trump administration was lawful (remember that Trump didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court), then this new travel ban – of people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - doesn’t stand a chance.
Washington State, joined by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon, say the first restraining order should apply to the heart of the new travel ban. They’ve asked federal district Judge James Robart from Seattle to let the temporary restraining order against Trump’s January 27th ban also applies to this new version. Trump’s team didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the blocking of the first Muslim ban travel by Judge Robart.
They use the following legal argument “When a court enjoins a defendant from implementing policies, the defendant cannot evade that injunction simply by reissuing the same basic policies in a new form
Robart schedule a hearing yesterday (March 15).
These same states also argue that the ban will hurt their economies by limiting students and professors at universities, reducing tourism and curbing employment.
Also 2 other states have started their own lawsuits against the new travel ban in 2 federal courts — Maryland and Hawaii. Both of these lawsuits complain that the ban contravenes the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and discriminates against Muslims in violation of the equal-protection clause and the First Amendment rule against establishing religion: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... back-court
Yesterday, the 9th Circuit refused to reinstate the original ban.
Two Federal judges - in Hawaii and Maryland – have blocked the travel ban before taking effect. They used Trump's own words as evidence that it discriminates against Muslims.
While the Hawaii order only halts the ban temporarily, Chuang's ruling in Maryland took the form of a preliminary injunction, which will remain in effect indefinitely as the case is litigated.
Chuang did not block the entire executive order, because a temporary ban on refugees isn’t necessarily discriminatory. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case also wanted to stop a portion of the order that would reduce the number of refugees allowed to enter the country this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000.
The Trump administration argued that the ban was intended to protect the United States from terrorism. President Trump’s reaction to the blocking of his second travel ban was:
"This ruling makes us look weak … We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe. The danger is clear. The law is clear. The need for my executive order is clear
" - http://www.dailynews.com/government-and ... riminatory
If I understand correctly the number of refugees allowed to enter the USA has been lawfully reduced this fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. 110,000 is already much lower than the relative amount of immigrants coming to my home country the Netherlands…
I don’t believe for a second that Donald Trump really tries to ban Muslims from entering the USA; I believe this is a charade to divert the attention from what is really going on, while marking time for the planned false flag attack at which time the legal system will get the blame for jeopardising the national security of the USA.
Trump has reasons to divert the attention away from yet another man on his team; again Russia is involved…
US attorney general Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III is another lawyer, who is under scrutiny because he blatantly lied about his ties to Russia.
At the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in January, Senator Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do as Attorney General "if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign
Sessions replied: that he was “not aware of any of those activities
” and “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it
On January 17, Session repeated in reply to written questions from Senator Pat Leahy, that he had no contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government regarding the 2016 election.
On March 1, Sessions came under scrutiny after it became public knowledge public that he did have contact with the Russian government officials. Apparently Sessions had met the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, twice during Trump’s campaign (the ambassador that repeatedly discussed with Michael Flynn), once at the Republican National Convention in July, and again in his Senate office in September.
On March 1, Sessions replied to this (false?) news with "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false
Yeah sure - they weren’t talking about “the campaign”...
Sessions had already started a nice “investigation” of the alleged interference of Russia in the presidential election, but on March 2, announced that he would “recuse” himself from these investigations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opin ... .html?_r=0
There is more dirt on Jeff Sessions, he has been accused of being racist, violating human rights and using his office to attack Democrats, opponents for political reasons (including revenge).
When I look at recent stories about Sessions’ racism, they look sugar coated, but older articles are much harsher.
In 1986, Sessions was nominated by Reagan as judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, but his nomination failed due to criticism of his record on civil rights and racism.
In March 1986 the widow of Martin Luther King, Loretta Scott King, sent a letter opposing the appointment of Sessions as Judge on the District Court, because “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters
The most damaging statements came from the black Thomas Figures that had worked for Sessions, who testified that Sessions repeatedly called him “boy” and told him to “be careful what you say to white folks
Figures also told about an instance when Sessions was discussing the civil Hodge case with Figures and told him that “I wish I could decline on all of them
". Figures understood that Sessions wanted to decline civil rights cases in general.
J. Gerald Hebert, a senior civil rights attorney at the Department of Justice, testified that Sessions had described a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race
” for working with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Hebert also claimed, that Sessions had called various civil rights organisations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference: “un-American”.
Hebert was threatened by Alabama senator Jeremiah Denton, a close ally to Sessions, to help him get appointed as US District Court: “He said that I’d better get out there and straighten up this nomination, or else I might find myself packing my bags when I got back to the justice department
In 1990, after departing Sessions’ office and returning to private practice, Figures was defending a civil rights activist accused of dealing crack cocaine. A drug dealer, John Christopher, was expected to testify against Figures’ client. Figures went to see Christopher in jail, unaware that Christopher was offered a deal to set Figures up, and was wearing a wire. Christopher asked Figures to pay him $50,000 to stop him from testifying. Figures didn´t decline this offer. Figures later testified at his trial that he did this so he could have Christopher charged with attempted bribery.
In 1992, Figures was charged with attempting to bribe Christopher by offering $50,000. Figures faced a potential 15-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine if convicted, but was acquitted in March 1993.
Douglas Wicks, a former Mobile County commissioner, spent more than 5 years in prison after being convicted on charges that were brought against him by Sessions a few months after he had accused Sessions of calling him a “nigger”. According to Wicks: “Sessions decided to go after me because he didn’t get the federal judgeship
A businessman was sent into Wicks’ office by the FBI, wearing a wire, and recorded Wicks saying that he welcomed campaign contributions. The businessman was seeking a waste haulage contract from the county. Sessions accused Wicks of taking $3,000 in cash that the businessman had left in an envelope on his desk. Wicks denied that he ever saw this envelope: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... as-figures
Another interesting case is that in 1985, Sessions accused 3 black civil rights activists, known as the Marion Three, for voter fraud. This included Martin Luther King’s former aide Albert Turner. The defendants were accused of tampering with absentee ballots in the 1984 primary election. They charged them with violations of federal mail fraud statutes.
What makes this affair seem racist is that in 1982, Sessions was asked by then-District Attorney Roy L. Johnson to investigate voting irregularities including interference with absentee ballots in Perry County. In 1983, a majority-black state grand jury found that the right of black Perry County citizens to vote had been tampered with — and asked the federal government to intervene. But Sessions did not investigate that case.
The Marion Three were acquitted of all charges: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... ca08c074a0
There are other accusations against Sessions. The following story accuses Session of charging Democrats for political reasons, including: Lambert Mims, Bob Gulledge, and Gary Greenough.
Gurney Owens alleged that after he had been caught on tape soliciting a bribe from a local businessman he was offered a deal if he would frame some Democrats. Owens didn’t play along and was sentenced to 10 years in prison: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nistration
In my opinion this last story doesn’t prove that all of these “Democrats” were innocent, but it does show how corrupt lawyers (like Sessions) use their position to help their “friends”.