Judge Sullivan Gets It Wrong Again on Trump Asylum Order

0
107

RUSH: “Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Asylum Rules for Domestic and Gang Violence Victims,” and guess who this is? This is our old buddy Judge Emmet Sullivan, the same judge who had no idea what was going on. He didn’t even know the details of the case, the Michael Flynn case, the Flynn plea that was supposed to have been earlier this week. The judge… It was stunning! He was amazingly uninformed about the details, asking, “Seems to me you register as a foreign agent for Turkey. You’re committing treason! Mr. Prosecutor, are you gonna charge him with treason?

“He has not registered as a lobbyist for Turkey after Trump won the election.” He was not. But the judge didn’t know that. The judge thought Flynn had become a secret agent for Turkey after Trump won the election after he’d been named national security adviser and he’s up there demanding asking the prosecutor you gonna charge this guy with treason? Somebody got to the judge over the lunch break and said, “No, no, no. He quit that job. That was long ago.” And the judge had to apologize, but the damage is done.

The Drive-Bys are all out there reporting it. Flynn wanted to plead guilty and end this. It was a fiasco. So now the same judge, “Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled the harsher Justice Department policies ordered by former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions were ‘arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the immigration laws.’ Because ‘it is the will of Congress — not the whims of the Executive — that determines the standard for expedited removal, the Court finds that those policies are unlawful,’ Sullivan wrote in his 107-page decision.”

So what this is about is back in June, Jeff Sessions issued a statement clarifying the fact that domestic or gang violence are not grounds for asylum, meaning if you live in war-torn San Cordoba and your husband is beating you up or a gang is terrorizing your home, that does not make you eligible for asylum. This was a statement that clarified existing United States positions on circumstances where asylum would be granted.

On Wednesday, Judge Sullivan said that what Sessions’ policy was were “arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the immigration laws.” But in my humble estimation, the judge is wrong. In fact, just like his comments during the Flynn sentencing appearance showed that Sullivan hadn’t bothered to read the details of Flynn’s case, this ruling shows that he couldn’t be bothered to look at the actual law. It is spelled out in the federal registry at Section 208.13: “Establishing Asylum Eligibility,” and just because you are suffering domestic violence or a gang is terrorizing your house does not qualify you for asylum.

The left wants it to! The reason why Sessions had to double down on this is because there has been pressure to open up virtually any circumstance any person in the world is facing as qualifying them for asylum in the United States. And Sessions was pointing out “no.” Domestic or gang violence are not grounds for asylum. The judge said you don’t know what he’s talking about, I’ve looked at the law, he doesn’t, and it’s not his decision to make this the law anyway. Congress has to do it. You want to hear the law here?

Let me read the law. Section 208.13: “Establishing Asylum Eligibility — An applicant shall be found to be a refugee on the basis of past persecution if he or she can establish that he or she has suffered persecution in the past in his or her country of nationality or last habitual residence on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion…” Those are the grounds which you can apply for asylum.

Also “he or she is unable or unwilling to return to or avail himself or herself of the protection of that country owing to such persecution.” So it is simply “arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the immigration laws” for Judge Sullivan to claim that being a victim of domestic or gang violence is grounds for asylum when it’s not. Anyway, the point of this is to show the pressure that exists everywhere for allowing anybody who can’t explain English, who doesn’t have much hope for getting a job, in other words, who is going to be dependent on the United States government.

The pressure to get as many of those kinds of people illegally admitted into the country is great. The Democrat Party has devoted itself to this. Sadly, a sizable percentage of the Republican Party in Washington the same. So Judge Sullivan “permanently blocked the government ‘from continuing to apply those policies and from removing plaintiffs who are currently in the United States without first providing credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws,'” meaning anybody that we were not gonna grant asylum to because they didn’t qualify, the judge said you can’t kick ’em out.

You gotta grant ’em asylum.

He “ordered the feds ‘to return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported…” He told the U.S. government to go get these people that you did not allow to claim asylum and go get ’em and bring ’em back so that we can have another asylum hearing. “rovide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.” Folks, this is outrageous. For starters, none of these people were deported. They were turned away at the border. They didn’t get in in the first place.

This judge wants U.S. taxpayers to pay for the airfare and other expenses to go back and find these people and bring them back, so they can apply for asylum again and then slip into the shadows. Classic example of judicial activism running crazy, running amok. Look, I mention all of this. I know much of this may sound like it’s in the weeds, but it’s just designed to point out the pressures from every corner, it seems, to get these people into the country. This is political pressure, and it is being executed in one sense simply because Trump doesn’t want it to happen. “Well, we’re gonna make it happen! Screw Trump and whatever he wants to do.”

The fact that it will be a benefit to the Democrat Party is also important, but it may be No. 2 in this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Willie, who is in Blue Point, New York. Hi, Willie. I’m glad you called, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Yeah. Thank you so much, Rush. Rush, I’m concerned that the deep state could be even deeper than most people think and more sinister than most people think. And going back a ways. I remember in 2012 the Supreme Court decision that John Roberts gave was so weak about the… Because the federal government had the right to tax that they would necessarily be able to use that tax to implement an unconstitutional program.

I mean, it’s almost as if he said that some guy who legally crossed the street to assassinate someone on the other side of the street would be deemed innocent because he had the right to cross the street on the way to assassinating the guy. I mean, it was just an insane verdict to me. Kavanaugh recently sided with the Planned Parenthood. This judge in the Flynn case had a situation where he appeared like he was going to flip out at Mueller and Mueller’s lawyers.

And then he went the direct opposite way. And what I’m thinking, to keep this short, Rush, is that these people could possibly be being called by other people in the deep state saying, “If you come up with this decision, if you give Mueller grief, if you throw the Flynn case out, we know things about you that we will make public.” Do you think that’s possible, Rush?

RUSH: I’m not gonna sit here and say that it’s not possible. Is it likely? As much as threat, intimidation, and leverage are a part of the day-to-day function in Washington, I’d be silly to just, out of hand, disregard it and say that you’ve descended into Kookville. We know the deep state is deep, and we know that it’s wide. And we know that pretty much everybody in Washington is to one degree or another a member. And we know that there are dossiers on people. Whether somebody would make a call to the judge and make a call to John Roberts?

You’re not the first guy to tell me that they think this is possible, that threats are being made to force people to do things a certain way. But I have no way of substantiating anything like that, no way of knowing if it’s true. You know, considering it as a possibility is a… I mean, that’s a big stretch right there. And one of the problems that I have with it per se is that it always exempts people. In other words, Kavanaugh would do the right thing except somebody’s got the guts, and the judge would have done the right thing except somebody got to him and Roberts would never have made Obamacare constitutional unless somebody…

It always tends to exonerate the people that actually are doing things that are questionable. It makes them victims of some sinister scheme of blackmail or what have you. And yet we know that blackmail is alive and well. We know two women tried to blackmail Trump. In fact… Let me find something. I take a break here. I mentioned the Conrad Black piece at National Review and he has just a brilliant piece on Trump and all these Chihuahuas that are yapping at his ankles. I want to get to that and read to you a particular paragraph from it and a couple other things I have here in the stack unrelated to everything we’ve been discussing so far. In the meantime, Willie, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here