Trump Fumes At "So-Called Judge" After DHS Suspends "All Actions" On Travel Ban

Tyler Durden's picture

In what has been an almost complete reversal of Trump's immigration executive order, following Friday night's ruling by a Washington Judge to halt Trump's travel ban, on Saturday morning the Department of Homeland Security announced that "in accordance with the judge's ruling, DHS has suspended any and all actions implementing the affected sections of the Executive Order entitled, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." 

"This includes actions to suspend passenger system rules that flag travelers for operational action subject to the Executive Order. DHS personnel will resume inspection of travelers in accordance with standard policy procedure."

However, keeping the defiant tone, the DHS also said that "at the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the President's Executive Order, which is lawful and appropriate. The Order is intended to protect the homeland and the American people, and the President has no higher dury and responsibility than to do so."

That may be true, although at this point an "epic court battle", including a Supreme Court showdown now appears inevitable.

As a reminder, on at least two occasions today, Trump launched a full-court attack against Washington Federal Judge Robart who ruled for a nationwide halt to Trump's immigration ban. As reported previously, following the latest dramatic twist in the ordeal surrounding Trump's Immigration Executive Order, when on Friday night Seattle Federal Judge Robart (appointed by George W. Bush in 2003) blocked Trump's travel ban from seven Muslim countries, the White House promptly responded by stating that it intends to file an emergency stay of this "outrageous order and defend the executive order of the President, which we believe is lawful and appropriate."

Earlier, on Friday night, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson disagreed when he greeted Robart's ruling saying “It is not the loudest voice that prevails on the Constitution,” and added "we are a nation of laws, not even the president can violate the Constitution. It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does."

And so, with Trump's Executive Order now a constitutional matter and almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, where the judicial opinion of Trump's recent appointment Neil Gorsuch will soon be tested, on Saturday morning Trump wasted no time to attack "the opinion of so-called Judge" Robart, which Trump said "essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country" and warned the ruling "is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

He prefaced this warning for a showdown by saying that "when a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!" and defending his decision by invoking other Middle-eastern nations who allegedly "agree with the ban" (using a word which Sean Spicer would have preferred he did not as he will be brutalized by the press corps for it on Monday).

Then, on Saturday afternoon, Trump doubled down against the judicial decision:

Adding "Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision"

As expected, Trump himself was immediately attacked on social media for his "so-called" hint he disagrees with the separation of powers as per article III, section 1 of the Constitution which, as a reminder, reads: "Judicial power of the US shall be vested in the Courts." Others have asked, rhetorically, what would happen if the situation was reversed:

Meanwhile, as we prepare for the dramatic showdown and the fate of Trump's executive order is soon set to play out inside the Supreme Court of the United States, Reuters added that the State Department issued a statement in which it said that the DOJ informed it of the Washington state court ruling barring the U.S. government from enforcing certain provisions of Executive Order 13769, and thus "we have reversed the provisional revocation of visas under Executive Order 13769.  Those individuals with visas that were not physically cancelled may now travel if the visa is otherwise valid."

In other words, any travelers from the seven countries who have active visas, can once again enter the US. The department adds that it is "working closely with the Department of Homeland Security and our legal teams" and will provide "further updates as soon as information is available."

This means that entry for citizens from the seven formerly banned nations are once again permitted, and thus they can resume boarding U.S.-bound flights, major airlines said on Saturday, after a Seattle judge blocked the executive order. As Reuters adds, the ruling gave hope to some Middle East travelers but left them unclear how long the new travel window might last. Trump denounced the judge on Twitter and said the decision would be quashed.

In the wake of Friday's ruling, Qatar Airways was the first to say it would allow passengers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen to resume flying to U.S. cities if they had valid documents.


Fellow Gulf carriers Etihad and Emirates said they would do the same, as did Air France, Spain's Iberia and Germany's Lufthansa. Officials in Lebanon and Jordan said they had received no new instructions on the issue.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection told airlines they could board travelers affected within hours of Friday's ruling, but budget airline Norwegian, which operates transatlantic flights including from London and Oslo, said many uncertainties remained about the legal position. "It's still very unclear," spokeswoman Charlotte Holmbergh Jacobsson said. "We advise passengers to contact the U.S. embassy ... We have to follow the U.S. rules."

In Cairo, aviation sources said Egypt Air and other airlines had told their sales offices of Friday's ruling and would allow people previously affected by the ban to book flights.

As a result, following the Friday ruling, travelers from affected countries are delighted, and rushing to get to the US: "Ibrahim Ghaith, a Syrian barber who fled Damascus in 2013, told Reuters in Jordan: “Today we heard that the measures may have been abolished but we are not sure if this is just talk. If they go back on the decision, people will be overjoyed." Iraqi refugee Nizar al-Qassab told Reuters in Lebanon: "If it really has been frozen, I thank God, because my wife and children should have been in America by now." The 52-year-old said his family had been due to travel to the United States for resettlement on Jan. 31. The trip was cancelled two days before that, and he was now waiting for a phone call from U.N. officials overseeing their case. "It's in God's hands," he said."

Two Sudanese travellers told Reuters they were trying to travel as soon as possible, fearing the ban might be reinstated.

“I’m in a race against time," said a 31-year-old female academic who declined to be named for fear of any consequences.


"Today I face a real problem in Khartoum because the international airlines are refusing to sell me a ticket to travel for fear of contradicting the President’s decision. Now I am going from one airline company to another to convince them about the court’s decision,” she said.


A 34-year-old Sudanese engineer, who also did not want to be named, said: "After the court’s decision I am now trying to leave as fast as possible before the situation changes once more."

The State Department said on Friday that almost 60,000 visas were suspended following Trump's order. It was not clear whether that suspension was automatically revoked or what reception travelers with such visas might get at U.S. airports, although according to today's State Department clarification it appears that virtually all travelers who previously had an active visa will once again be allowed into the US.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BabaLooey's picture

The first crime committed by ANY that are let in by this cunt-judge?


Fuki's picture
Fuki (not verified) BabaLooey Feb 4, 2017 11:43 AM

No need to cry Babalooey

Fuki's picture

I bet you don't speak like that in front of your mother Conan

FreezeThese's picture
FreezeThese (not verified) Fuki Feb 4, 2017 11:55 AM

Ah the brilliance of checks and balances ... quite a timely reminder in the face of a facist coup ... here's to hoping the next four years aren't this big a cluster, embarrassment, for the American people

El Oregonian's picture

Boy, Trump must be thinking "This is like shooting fish in a barrel!".

I mean the libtards are so not right in the head...

Mareka's picture

Trump needs to start firing people in bulk.
One at a time isn't going to get it done with only 1,460 days in office.

Start by firing everyone appointed by Obama in the last 8 years.

OregonGrown's picture

Any and ALL fanatical federal judges, who think they are more powerful THEN EVERYONE ELSE and then issues TREASONOUS orders...... 



Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

So back to letting in people who we have no idea who they are, and back to giving granny and 6 year olds crotch gropes and other intrusive measures.  Sounds about right to me in the world of fucking make believe.

jcaz's picture

Looks to me like a good opportunity to get rid of DHS altogether-  clearly, they're just a bureaucratic layer that impedes real law,  and this is just a desperate attempt by DHS to look relevant;

When you take a good look at them,  DHS has been running amok for some time now, without any real accountability.  Most people think they just feel up people in airports and give wetbacks a ride back home,  but they're actually into everything from trying to make new law here to rounding up knockoff purses-   we already have plenty of bureaucracy in place to perform most of the tasks they're doing;

Buying futures on red ink.......

kellys_eye's picture

A DHS that's ever so keen to frisk honest and innocent Americans but is now happier to allow any potential criminal fcuker to come in???

The word traitor has taken on yet another meaning.

Manthong's picture

IWhen the SHTF I am willing to bet I know who the Marines and Air Force will side with.

I am not sure if the Army and Navy can fight effectively what, with all those trannnie dresses and all.

jeff montanye's picture

now really, how many can there be, in actual dresses?  that's got to still be a good first gambit.

the anti aircraft women in the battle of stalingrad had no survivor but kept out the germans for two days.  turns out aircraft guns can be lowered to 90 degrees and are effective against tanks.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Capitalism foreclosed on people’s ability to see disaster. Anyone that chases capitalism, such as this Muslins coming to America, are prone to escalate the disaster.

Communism too will fail into disaster. The reason communism won’t fail as bad as capitalism, it’s because it doesn’t have the global reach as capitalism.

To be fare to capitalism, as well as communism, human failure, to the point of extinction, can’t be solely blamed on them, because our failure will have to do with developing intelligence, that created all the complexities that will get the best of humanity, as many can see, and some started feeling it already.

Now, on Trump “Make Great Again” isn’t an statement about issues, but, by an opportunist personality, meaning, scramble for power at any cost…………So are these immigrants.



nmewn's picture

I think you're off your meds again Escrava.

What you are trying to describe in your disjointed comparison of capitalism and communism is self-interest. Capitalism fully recognizes both sides of the equation (the greed and the charity in all people) while communism attempts to conceal it (the individual self-interest) from the masses, holding it apart, as something only to be enjoyed by politburo members and "the selected faithful few"...the useful idiots.

And no, I don't expect you to understand what I just said ;-) 

Escrava Isaura's picture

Capitalism fully recognizes the greed and the charity in all people while communism is only to be enjoyed by politburo members and "the selected faithful few".

I don't expect you to understand what I just said

I understand every word but, the facts are the facts.

Capitalism and communism are both top-down tyrannical structures. Their goals are to maximize one’s labor, meaning, if they could get away with slaves, not paying for labor, they would.

The main difference between both is that, communism is super-capitalism, because it owns the means of production and the issuance of money.

In capitalism, if one step outside the propaganda, it’s two main structure powers, government and the owner of the money and/or production share the responsibilities of running the country. However, the money in capitalism is privately owned, meaning, everyone else, including the government, go figure, work for the people with the capital: Bankers.  

See, no meds are necessary to see the obvious, again, if one bothers to look at instead of reading the propaganda.



Colonel's picture

Ummm no. There is so much confusion/mixing of terms and concepts in your reply. So you are saying North Korea and South Korea have the same economic and political systems!? Then why are there such stark differences? Which country would you rather live in? The example you gave of "capitalism" is called banksterism which invariably leads to a police state/communism but its not capitalism.

Helix6's picture

"A DHS that's ever so keen to frisk honest and innocent Americans but is now happier to allow any potential criminal fcuker to come in???"

Uhhh.... I thought these people had obtained visas, the specific purpose of which is to screen out undesirables.  So basicically what you're saying is just plain bullshit.

ThuleNord's picture

Yeah, because these 3rd world countries have the capability to maintain any criminal records whatsoever.

TheRideNeverEnds's picture

Well apparently they have the capability to train better engineers and doctors in Sudan than we do here or else why would it be so necessary to let them into our country? Rather than traveling to Somalia for that life saving heart surgery we can just bring those doctors here.

fleur de lis's picture

Trump has a Deep State rebellion on his hands.

A coup is brewing.

They had to have been communicating with each other prior to organizing push back.

They know that there will be a reckoning so they prepared for that with plan B,C,D, etc.

They have financial backers to fund .gov hideouts and bank accounts.

There is a huge money game that is funding the the rioters, agitators, "walkers," demonstrators, and even the violent psychotics who hurl incendiaries and destroy property.

The bulk of them are unemployed, antisocial losers who instinctively gravitate toward chaos and join in any kind of unrest and make it worse.

So someone has to pay for their transportation, lodging, and even health bills.

And they get paid.

Do they declare their earnings to the IRS?

This is a perfect opportunity for the IRS to redeem itself -- find the pay stubs or records and ask why they have not been accounted for as required.

They all communicate -- who pays their cell and wifi bills?

The easiest thing would be to cut them off electronically unless the paymaster is found.




IndyPat's picture

The easiest thing to address all that you listed is RICO

jeff montanye's picture

you bring up a good point. 

imo trump should attempt to pass no laws.  he should use obama's, bush's, clinton's, and wilson's laws to defeat those laws and the forces behind them.

Disc Jockey's picture

That is not only inspired but completely doable. Great idea. The schadenfreude would be orgasmic.

Helix6's picture

"They all communicate -- who pays their cell and wifi bills?"

If you want to figure out who the paymaster is, just ask yourself who stands to benefit the most from peaceful protests turning violent.  The peaceful protesters?  I don't think so.  More likely those whom they're protesting against.  So I just don't think we're going to see any strenuous efforts to find the paymaster.

jcaz's picture

"Peaceful protesters"-

Look, snowflake-  the ONLY reason these protests haven't been more violent is because the douchebags doing the protesting physically are unable to back up their mouths-  they're been talking PLENTY of violence,  or maybe you just haven't been listening...

This ain't a fucking sit-in at your college dorm cafeteria anymore......

Psssst-  we already know WHO the paymasters are- try to keep up.....

Helix6's picture

You mean you know it's Kellyanne Conway?  I thought she covered her tracks better than that!

jeff montanye's picture

i'm sorry, i'm easy. betty boop.  tinkerbell.  kellyanne conway.  do screen the smothers brothers boop for president.

give her the role she begged for and won through the campaign.  she is trump's better (political) half.  what a second term she would make.  what a perspective on the women's march.

Mammon's picture

What planet do you live on?  Fucking ZHers, man ...

phoolish's picture

<<They all communicate -- who pays their cell and wifi bills?>>



You do.  It's called the Owebomber phone - for them it is free.

Lanka's picture

DHS was bastardized and corrupted over the last 8 years to be loyal to Obama, to counter a patriotic, though depleted, armed forces.  The DHS needs to be culled of the incompetent PC/SJWs.

techpriest's picture

It was bastardized and corrupted from day 1.

mc225's picture

yeah, dhs was nothing anyone ever needed... well, most people didn't need it. 

JRobby's picture

The rushing through of the bill that created the DHS was a total Deep State / Neocon wet dream and took away a huge chunk of rights provided for by The US Constitution. 

The way it was rushed through and the "secret spending" provisions to pay "contractors" without public disclosure because it would "compromise national security " SCREAMS that 911 was an "inside job".

Thousands of people should be in prison forever or executed because of 911.

crazzziecanuck's picture

The easiest way to get rid of DHS and any "problematic" refugees is to STOP BOMBING THESE COUNTRIES IN THE FIRST PLACE.  It's not a complete solution, but we would no longer see floods of people fleeing their homes.

I'm disappointed with Trump on this issue and his legal pursuit for his "ban."

TheReplacement's picture

There is an easy fix for this.  So what if immigration is allowed from those countries?  If a person cannot be properly vetted they don't get let in - apply it to all countries. Of course, we are talking about DC making decisions so probably won't happen.


Helix6's picture

Actually, there's an easier fix yet.  The US honors visas that have already been issued.  The 90-day freeze is on the issuance of new visas, giving the time needed to review and, if needed, to strengthen the vetting process.  Suspicious persons, as always, are scrutinized when they enter the country and denied entry if there is cause for concern.  No protests.  No legal wranglings.  Everybody's happy.

The fact that this very sensible course was not taken, but instead a course of action was taken that was guaranteed to provoke controversy, antagonisms, legal wrangling, and hard feelings amongst all affected makes me wonder what the real intent was.

jeff montanye's picture

helix, you and the replacement make me wonder too.  who is running this show?  imo trump should be sure all statements are vetted as well as all immigrants.

and as the new immigrants are slowly and carefully vetted, they can become, if treated humanely and reasonably, part of the solution and not part of the problem.  they are now inside and that is a something worth protecting.

lucitanian's picture


The people arriving have visas from US embassies issued against stringent background checks, like any other nationalities arriving in the US, so the government has a very good idea who they are.

And as far as your generalization on millions of people who live in the 7 designated countries as "crotch gropers", only reflects your prejudice, xenophobia, and racism, not to mention ignorance and immaturity. Yes, it's fashionable on this site to show hate towards all Muslims, but you have to realize that it only makes you look pretty ignorant and maladjusted to show contempt for 1/3 of the worlds population because of their belief in God in their manner. 

Helix6's picture

Yep.  It's long past time for a purge -- America's own Night of the Long Knives.  Some fucking judge ruling against der Fuhrer's orders just because they're illegal!  Trump takes note of that kind of disloyalty.

J S Bach's picture

One would think that with the vaunted title of "Department Of Homeland Security", this agency - above ALL OTHERS - would be the one to adamently follow Trump's executive order to halt potentially suspicious peoples from entering our country.  Orwell couldn't have written a more bizarre script.

Helix6's picture

Gee, it's such a pity that the DHS actually believes in following the law.  What a bunch of morons!  Don't they know that Trump's edicts ARE the law?

Not to worry though.  They're on notice now.  Der Fuhrer does not take kindly to disloyalty.  They will live to rue their rash actions.

jeff montanye's picture

don't give up so easily.  trump's edicts are the law only if you believe it to be true.

h. d. thoreau and m. l. king, among others, suggested that laws are made to be broken and to be obeyed.

it's a decision a citizen makes very carefully.

but, really, who takes kindly to disoyalty?

yogibear's picture

Libtards come out of woodwork. Like roaches.

They had 8 years to fuck up Americans and flood the country with H1Bs.

Cloud9.5's picture

The independence of the judiciary must be maintained even if the sitting judges rule against popular opinion and common sense.  What Trump needs to do is open up Obama's documents look at his forged  birth certificate and look at his social security number.  Then once it is established that Obama is a foreign national, he needs to be impeached.  Then all of his appointments become null and void.

OregonGrown's picture

That is the problem with the system.  Since when does one judge think he has more power than a sitting president?  

When one radical judge can overturn the will of an entire DOJ as well our president's orders.... we all have problems!  It creates confusion!  

In my most humble and layman way of thinking, I could see our supreme court (9 judges) being that balance of an elected president and having authority to overrule a sitting presidents executive orders, but not just one LONE WOLF radical judge who's misinterprets or flat out refuses to follow the EO/law!  


* A judge is only suppose to FOLLOW the law, not make em up to fit his agenda!  He does not write the law, he just interpets it.... THAT BEING SAID, when a president makes an EO that is clear and concise.... THAT IS THE LAW!   PERIOD!   .....and he better follow it, or risk being strung up by the balls, for treason!  


lucitanian's picture

You're wrong.

If an EO is interpreted to be contrary to the constitution in any way it can and must be overridden by the judiciary, and can be argued as far as the Supreme Court. This EO was not damaging you, this time. When the next one does, you may be very grateful for the separation of powers and the protection of your constitution. Time will tell.

OregonGrown's picture

Ummm..... you're wrong!  

Question, Why do we need federal judges to decipher this shit anyway? Reading section 212f of the INA seems so self expanitory that even this pot smoking marijuana dispensary owner can understand and figure it out just fine ;)  and if i can figure it out easily enough, it makes me think what the motivations or intentions are of this activist judge!  

Which brings me back to my original point above, IF an EO is going to be judiciously challenged, then the challenge should go directly to the supreme court justices, not ONE rogue judge with and agenda!  

.....and dont think for one second that POS oblahblah didnt write 1 or 2 EO that has/will effect me and everyone else, negatively!  ITS ALREADY HAPPENED!  

By the way, I copied the pertinent section below along with a link from left leaning below for you to educate yourself with.




The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

"(f) 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 restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."