Congress, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Uncategorized

Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedDerrick_Kahala_WatsonLast night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a
temporary restraining order that prevents the second immigration order of President Donald Trump from going into effect on Thursday.  The 43-page opinion is scathing and relies not only on the statements of President Trump but the recent statements of his chief aide Stephen Miller.  While I respectfully disagree with Judge Watson and view his decision as contrary to the weight of existing case law, the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation.  Political facing saving comments can be case legal damaging comments.  Yet, I still believe that Judge Watson relied too much on campaign statements and television interviews to overcome the facial neutrality of the language of the executive order.

Watson found that there was a “strong likelihood of success” for challengers because “a reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion.”  He strongly dismissed the argument that this is not a religious ban since it did not impact the vast majority of Muslims: “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed.”

As predicted, the Court also relied on the series of delays in the rollout of the second order as evidence that undermined the national security rationale: “Other indicia of pretext asserted by Plaintiffs include the delayed timing of the Executive Order, which detracts from the national security urgency claimed by the Administration.”

Watson used  Trump’s own campaign trail comments and observed that “there is nothing ‘veiled’ about this press release: ‘Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.’” He also cited the ill-considered and highly damaging public comments of Rudolph Giuliani saying that he was told by Trump to find a legal way of doing a Muslim ban.  He even relied on a press release:
The Government appropriately cautions that, in determining purpose, courts should not look into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government decisionmakers and may not undertake a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.” Govt. Opp’n at 40 (citing McCreary, 545 U.S. at 862). The Government need not fear. The remarkable facts at issue here require no such Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 34 of 43 PageID #: 4389 35 impermissible inquiry. For instance, there is nothing “veiled” about this press release: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.[]” SAC ¶ 38, Ex. 6 (Press Release, Donald J. Trump for President, Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration (Dec. 7, 2015), available at https://goo.gl/D3OdJJ)).
He also cited the comments of Stephen Miller from a much criticized public interview.  In the interview, Miller (who reportedly played a major role in the first order) insisted that the second order did little beyond addressing  “mostly minor technical differences.” Of course, the problem with that statement is that the first order was found presumptively unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit.  Due to the poor drafting and poor defense of the first order, the Ninth Circuit ruling was not vacated and is still good precedent. Hawaii is in the Ninth Circuit.  So, if the second order is basically the same, the court could conclude that it was on good ground to assume that the same basis for the Ninth Circuit opinion still exists with regard to the second order.
It is certainly true that the Supreme Court has been has said that courts may not “turn a blind eye to the context in which [a] policy arose.” McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 866 (2005).  However, I do not see how the use of these ill-considered comments can establish that the stated purpose of proper vetting is “secondary to a religious objective.”
As previously discussed, I believe that the odds favor the Administration in prevailing in the long run.  It could face a mix of decisions on the lower courts as it did with the first order. However, this order is a better product and presumably the Justice Department will markedly improve its performance in the defense of the order.  I do not see how a strong likelihood of prevailing could be maintained on existing case law, particularly under the establishment clause.
Notably, the Court (like the Ninth Circuit) does not discuss the President’s sweeping authority under INA Section 1182(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”  Moreover, since the Court rules on the basis of the First Amendment, it does not address the statutory claim that the President cannot discriminate under the INA based on nationality — an argument that I have been critical of in past discussions.
Notably, the decision to go with the establishment claim over the due process claim reduces the weight of the earlier precedent.  The court also give surprisingly little attention of the record on poor vetting procedures in these countries and discussing the basis for the order — a serious flaw in its analysis.  The decision spends more time on the atmospherics of the campaign than actual case analysis.  It is not a particularly strong case and I believe is highly vulnerable on appeal as the Administration moves toward the Supreme Court.
Here is a copy of the opinion.

120 thoughts on “Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order”

  1. Ok. While the 2nd EO is still in limbo, keep an eye on anyone buying pressure cookers, oil & fertilizer or learning how to fly, but not take off or land.

    1. Or keep an eye on the Sikhs and Hindus that have been shot because some white nationalist thinks that they are Muslim.

      1. Not so fast. Put someone form Pakistan & India together & the Kashmir conflict will be a hot topic. At one time, Pakistan & India made nuclear war threats. Estimated death toll, around 20 million dead. There’re at again. No US EO needed.

            1. From the same article:

              “At a time when South Asian, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, and Arab community members are facing hate violence and harassment on nearly a daily basis, we need real leadership from Washington to stem the tide of injustice,” Suman Raghunathan, the group’s executive director, said in a statement. “Waiting nearly a week before commenting on a deadly shooting in Kansas won’t do it. Issuing a second toxic Muslim Ban won’t do it. We need direct action from this administration to forge inclusion, justice, and hope in this quintessential nation of immigrants.”

              Last week, a 39-year-old Sikh man was shot while working on his car in his driveway in Washington state. The gunman reportedly told him to “Go back to your own country” before pulling the trigger, according to the Seattle Times.

              Last month, a man reportedly yelled at two Indian men to “get out of my country” before opening fire at a bar in Kansas. One of those men, 32-year-old Srinivas Kuchibhotla, was killed, while another, 32-year-old Alok Madasani, was injured. A man who tried to intervene, 24-year-old Ian Grillot, was injured.

              1. Boston pressure cooker bomber Tsarnaev figured out he was on video in jail & made a gesture. Try dancing without legs.

                1. Given that your chance of being killed by a terrorist is about 1 in 20 million, you are absolutely correct in giving up all your civil rights and freedom for a little additional security and I do mean little. They can no longer hate us for our freedom if we don’t have any (for our rank stupidity yes, but freedom, not so much).

                  As for me,

                  Benjamin Franklin said it best when he warned that “they who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”. -again from Professor Turley’s article I linked to above)

    2. That’s a great thought. Trump should make an EO that any flying instructor has a mandatory duty to report a student who skips the section on landing and isn’t white and Christian.

      “Make America White Again!”

  2. I like everyone’s faux concern for the constitution and the Presidents ability to issue an order concerning immigration. How about Congress’s ability to declare war? Any concern for the constitution here? The United States recently conducted a raid in Yemen with heavily armed soldiers (one of whom died in the fire fight). What urgent circumstance required the United States to invade a foreign country? Doesn’t the constitution require Congress to declare war?

    1. +1

      This falls on deaf ears with this blog as the overwhelming majority here – including the host by his perpetual silence which at best is acquiescence – don’t believe this country is imperialistic (just opening up new markets and helping the underprivileged abroad with good ol’ American humanitarian aid, you see).

    2. Ah yes, those experts at avoiding political accountability we call “members of Congress.” Declaring war would require them to acknowledge their responsibility for the adverse consequences of going to war: increasing the deficit at the expense of neglecting our domestic needs, dead soldiers, dead civilians, foreigners who become radicalized after we kill their non-combatant family members, etc. Members of Congress have become eunuchs, lacking the b#lls to declare war, because they want to duck political accountability when things go wrong.

      Presidents of all political stripes are willing co-conspirators with our congressional eunuchs because this approach increases their own power and authority. A genuine leader in the White House would insist that Congress do its job. Certainly the voters have failed to hold these eunuchs accountable.

    3. Professor Turley wrote a very through article in 2014 that covered many of the Obama’s transgretions of his Constitutional authority as well as his abuses of civil rights, using Nixon for contrast.

      A Question of Power: The Imperial Presidency

      It’s an exceptional read.

      A snippet (from a list of items Turely was enumerating):

      –War. Nixon’s impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress’ sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. Obama went even further in the Libyan war, declaring that he alone defines what is a “war” for the purposes of triggering the constitutional provisions on declarations of Congress. That position effectively converts the entire provision in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (“Congress shall have power to … declare War”) into a discretionary power of the president.

      Say what one will, Professor Turley correctly points out (implicitly) in that article that Obama, and Congress in its obsequiousness, are directly responsible for President Trump’s ability to launch that attack on Yemen.

      That said, indeed, Professor Turley might well have posted an article about President Trump’s decision to launch the attack, with special emphasis on Congress’ utter failure to exercise their authority, but it’s also true that Trump had barely been in office for a week when he gave the OK for the Yemen attack, it may have been hard to distinguish whether he was carrying out Obama’s last plan or his own or a bit of both.

      In this instance, the ban on Muslims, I am more ambivalent. It’s obvious to everyone it’s a ban on Muslims regardless of where the list came from, (just reading the comments on this blog after the first EO, it was perfectly clear what the intent of the EO was and that many on this site were joyfully enthusiastic for that reason alone, but from a legal pov, I suppose one can make, as Professor Turley does, the point that Trump has managed to sneak around the legal issues that would technically scuttle the EO. Furthermore, Professor Turkey has consistently prefaced his articles on this ban with considerable reservations in terms of content and roll out, but perhaps a little lacking in criticism of the obvious – that it’s patently a ban on Muslims no matter the legalistic fig leafs à la Rudy Giuliani (it seems to me it can be considered a racial act if one lynches a single black person, even a majority black person as in a majority Muslim country, even if one doesn’t lynch every black person in the country or every Muslim country in the world).

      2. Finally, I think Professor Turley is very concerned, (as am I and others like me, hardened Commies just to the right of Dwight D. Eisenhower, aka, a hater), that love him or hate him, Trump is President. What the DNC, high level Democrats, even some Republicans such as McCain and Graham and perhaps more tenuously some in the judiciary are doing is little short of a coup.

      3. “Say what one will, Professor Turley correctly points out (implicitly) in that article that Obama, and Congress in its obsequiousness, are directly responsible for President Trump’s ability to launch that attack on Yemen.”

        So, is it too early to expect Mr. Turley – in the same fashion – to object to Trump sending 400 Marines into Syria and Seals into Yemen?

        Both parties were bought and paid for a long time ago and they’re both are part of the problem, no doubt, but that doesn’t give license to look the other way when it’s Trump’s turn. I sense there’s something more to Mr. Turley’s non-committal position under this new Administration.

        1. I think it fair to say that Professor Turley would be against Obama sending in 400 Marines (I thought it was 900) into Syria without Congressional approval.

          I would indeed be curious to hear his views on Trump doing so as well as Congress making no authorization or objection to him doing so weeks after he took office.

          For this alone, It is very much worth reading his article.

      4. Finally Finally, I am avidly awaiting Trump’s 11 (or 24) dimensional chess move that will eliminate all the supra-constitutional powers that Obama and his shameless cabal of lawyers gave to the Executive branch as well as start investigations into why Congress completely abrogated it’s responsibilities in preserving the separation of powers. Just the highlights in Professor Turley’s list (from the article I link to above):

        –Surveillance
        –War
        –Kill lists
        –Reporters/whistle-blowers
        –Obstruction of Congress

        President Trump has his work cut out for him. Which abuse will he tackle first? Cutting out Mass surveillance from the Patriot act? Bringing Edward Snowden home a hero? Bringing a halt to all the illegal wars we have started in the Middle East? Killing people (including American citizens) with no judicial review? Arresting citizens without right of Habeas Corpus? Making sure that all reporters and whistle blowers have access to FOI to the fullest extent of the law?

        And another snippet from Turley’s article,

        It has long been said that one of the scariest statements is, “Trust us, we’re from the government.” The deep American distrust for such a claim was shared by the framers, who rejected a government based on assurances of the best intentions. Madison famously warned, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” In other words, we have a government that refuses to accept promises of good behavior or motivations from politicians.

        Well, President Trump promised he would clean the swamp so we must Trust him, cause he’s from the gov. now and he says it’s gonna be really really great.

      5. Agreed, Professor Turley has indeed written extensively on killing of U.S. Citizens and invasion of other countries. My comment was geared more towards the many trump supports who think the EO in question is a good and legal thing but ignore the (IMHO) illegal act of invading another country with armed forces. Weather the Yemen raid was planned by Obama or not is irrelevant, Trump was President when the order was given. Trump and Trump alone is responsible.

        IMHO, we have an unhinged President and a military that just loves it that way. We are in for a potentially catastrophic outcome.

        On a side note, many of Trumps supporters were middle and lower middle class people with friends and/or relatives in the military as enlisted (and officer) rank. I am sure that many are cheering the $50 billion + increase in defense spending. But that $50 billion won’t go to soldiers, it will go to surveillance and armaments companies, and much of it will go to high executives as multi $million bonuses.

        Money well spent:( I mean come on, when your friends have 4 houses all over the wold and you only have 3, you need that extra $50 million for a condo in the Swiss alps. What do you expect? ACME Bomb company executive live like a pauper with only 3 horses and 1 private jet?

        2. Agree with all your points and well put! The increase in defense spending is indeed insane, but it pales in comparison to the privatization scheme Trump has in store for infrastructure. Socialism for the rich, a tiny boost to limited workers for a few years, on a scale never even dreamt of before. As Trump would say, “It’s gonna be great! Really Great!!”

          As I mention to Steve, I would like to hear Turley’s view of the Yemen invasion. Steve raises a legitimate point. Even the focus on the very imminent and (to use Professor Turely’s euphemism) troubling efforts of the Dems to topple President Trump could be put aside for a moment to write an article about just how concerning/Obamaesque these sorts of decisions are. But then trying to second guess Turley is tricky indeed so while I would appreciate clarification, I’m loath to come one way or another.

          2. A cheerful point about infrastructure. There is an ongoing effort to remove toll booths from highways and to require drivers to have RFID passes that debit their account directly each time they go through a (now) virtual toll location (booths being gone). I suspect Trump will try and expand greatly on this theme to make sure his cronies that will be buying the highways with tax credits have a the best possible rent extraction mechanism technology – and our tax dollars – can buy. Think about it. They can charge you what ever they want and increase the price when ever they want and you will know nothing about it until you read your bank statement. Once they have us trained and brain washed, they will put these same systems on secondary roads – to pay maintenance – with the same lame deficit excuse (deficit is never a problem when toppling foreign governments illegally at a trillion bucks a pop). This won’t stop expanding.

            And then there are auto driving cars (which we will also rent)…

            Which comes first, horrific dystopia, anthropogenic extinction, or nuclear holocaust? Just trying to cheer everyone up here… 🙂

  3. Judges don’t live in a vacuum. From the NYT article: “In the Maryland case, Judge Chuang, who was also appointed by Mr. Obama, declined to block the entire executive order from going into effect, but ruled that the most important section — banning travel from half a dozen countries — could not be enforced. His decision cited Mr. Trump’s public comments to conclude that there were “strong indications that the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban,” and that Mr. Trump may have intended to violate the constitutional prohibition on religious preferences.”

    Trump has to learn that he is taken at his word. That’s the difference between a reasonable people in a civilized society and his BS, which is encouraged in the capitalist business world of caveat emptor.

    Won’t it be interesting if his Supreme Court nominee agrees with the trial courts’ view?

    1. SG –
      and I wonder how much of a vacuum do *you* live in to write that we ought not worry ourselves about terrorist infiltration (from countries even Obama designated as terrorist areas of concern), but be plenty worried about the idiot in the WH.
      Ahh spoken like a true reasonable person from a civilized society.
      well, taking you at your word, it turns out that you’re more of a BS idiot than the guy in the WH.
      Maybe you need to learn a lesson too?

      1. Jacques, if you want to fall for a self-serving slob of a demagogue, that’s your business. I don’t support him because he’s playing to white male nationalism with a scapegoat (Muslims), and I hold you and your ilk responsible for allowing it..

        Have a great day.

        1. Nicely reasoned reply from a civilized person.

          Was Obama making them a scapegoat for white male nationalism when he passed a law placing these countries on the terrorists concern list?

          Logic is your true enemy sir, not Trump.

  4. “We should be worried, very worried, but not about terrorist infiltration through legal immigration, but about the idiot in the White House.” – SG

    Such is the leftist (JT excluded) take on this issue. To hell with security of the american citizen (“now don’t you be worried about terrorist infiltration”) as long as the leftist political game can move ahead (“be worried about the idiot in the WH”). It’s this kind of thinking that is now the at the root of these courts – they’ve turned political. And *that* is dangerous indeed.

  5. I’m sure some of you have seen this, but it bears spreading.

    This is Bill Clinton (who would have been the First Gentleman of the White House if Hillary had won) talking about illegal immigration in 1995. There were no riots, no property damage, no attacks in its wake. It is clearly us that have changed, and not for the better. The rage, ignorance, and entitlement people carry around is indeed a new phenomena. I blame lots of things (meds to education to social media to over-population etc., etc., that is a separate conversation), but nevertheless, it’s clear: we are going on three generations now that have been absolutely warped bu their parents and by corporate greed. And – hey! While we are at it, the infamous Muslim ‘list’ was created by the last administration, not this one.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4384XQR44yM

    To anyone that wants to cry, ‘fake news’, a great many of us are old enough to have witnessed all of these things with our own eyes, history does not begin A.Y.B. – after your birth – and the kicker is that we were able to discuss these things without melting down into a temper tantrum. Heck, most of us *agreed*, not out of malice but out of understanding the realities.

    I am not in disagreement with you about environmental issues and so on, Jon. I am no fan of Trump. He is tame in comparison to history, though, the ‘Nazi’ moniker is way out of line (young people no longer have grandparents from that time to convey perspective), he just needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and stay on script. Then again, anyone inder the age of 35 these days prefers hyperbole and their echo chamber to factual information they might have to apply their own sense of caring and critical thinking to. Yes, that is the mob mentality, folks. At this point it’s a gang mentality. And it IS new, different from even the 70s. The dems have gone 100% sack of hammers.

  6. The American people will be the beneficiary of the Left’s forced education on U.S. civics. President Trump is in office because Obama and the progressive left awoke the people to the abusive administrative state and their continued obstructionism will further enlighten the people to the principles this nation was founded on.

  7. The executive and the legislature are either going to have to put an end to these power grabs by judges or consign themselves to the role of errand boys. (1) strip judges of the authority to issue injunctions applicable outside their jurisdiction, (2) destroy particular jurisdicitons via statutory law. Judge whosiwhatsit should wake up some morning and discover that his jurisdiction consists of one square yard in the middle of Ala Moana Blvd. (3) strip them of funds for staff; no clerks for you. (4) pay them in potatoes. (5) withdraw the U.S. Marshall Service from their jurisdictions.

    If you ‘respectfully’ disagree, you’re not helping the problem. You’re part of it.

  8. Since the order is in no way defensible legally, why did the judge think he could get away with it? Because he sees it as a step towards Trump’s ultimate defeat. As of now, both the courts and Congress are testing out the limits of defiance of his presidency. Now, both John McCain and Lindsay Graham are enemies, and more to come. The order will be perceived as a defeat for him even if overturned, as is likely. This reinforces the slowly developing view that Trump is a loser. If he can’t reverse that, he’s a goner.

  9. I’ve agreed with JT thus far and remain a little surprised this isn’t settled, not even in light of the second iteration.

    But where is Saudi Arabia in either order, especially with 9/11 being propped around. And dropping Iraq is also suspect, because in the weeks since the first order the country suddenly became fine? Or was that first order just clumsily thrown together (ignorant of our partners in Iraq) simply to demonstrate fantastic tremendousness.

    Americans killed something like 30,000 Americans last year alone. That seems a little more threatening.

  10. So now Judges are deciding that what they think is the intention of the President, is what matters, instead of what actual law says is within his powers?

    We have a serious problem in this country with our Judicial.

    Also this judge is apparently a personal friend of Obama

  11. If any other President but Trump issued this EO, there would be no question about its constitutionality. Unfortunately the Court put politics above principle in limiting the power of the President and Congress to regulate immigration and travel to the US. Let me ask this question: If non US residents and non US citizens have Constitutional protections , what other rights do they have? Also if they have certain rights , do they also have certain obligations to the US which we can regulate? In other words , just how far does the US Constitution and law extend? To the entire world?

    1. Exactly. So now we are going to allow courts to rule based on what President is in the White House? This is ludicrous. I dont care what Trump said. He is acting within his powers. Its not for the judges to address its for COngress.

      1. I agree with the anonymous mouse. Congress passed a lawful statute. The President issued an Order well within the limits of that Order. The Judge is beyond the Pale. Time to impeach the Judge.

  12. One thing is for sure. The hope that Judges would be Constitutional and not swayed by partisan politics has failed

    But this Judge did do something important quite apart from the issue itself. Thanks to him the left wing now OWNS the immigration issue and it’s salient component parts. To answer the question posted by J P Clam. they will get the benefit of the blame in no uncertain terms in the court of the nation with the nation as their jury – from which their is no higher appeal.

  13. The judge issued a political decision nakedly brazen in its justification by use of political rhetoric. Yet one can’t but think that if Obama had proposed the same, it would have been found constitutional because he didn’t make a political statement on ban. In that case the court did not apply law in his reasoning

  14. In two years Trump will be right, this judge and the Ninth Circus will be wrong.

  15. I’m wondering if and when there’s an attack will one of these judges be held responsible?

    1. If there is some sort of attack, which all rational people hope there is not, you can expect the following. Trump and his supporters will blame everyone but Trump & Co. That will happen even if it is apparent that the new Executive Order, now stayed, would have had little or no effect in preventing the attack had the new Order not been stayed.

      The problem for Trump on this one is that the first Order was largely about politics and theater, I’m not saying that “protecting the US” was not an ancillary goal of the first Order. I’m saying that any rational person whose PRIMARY goal was protecting the US would not have done things the way they were done the first time.

      Because the the first order was poorly designed and poorly executed, the first Order had a “hangover” effect on the second Order. Any rational person who was attempting to draft a second Order should have understood that there would be a hangover effect and should have taken that into account in drafting the second Order. Instead, the same folks who botched things the first time around flapped their gums in a way that made it more likely that the hangover effect would adversely affect the second Order.

      This pattern of conduct by Trump & Co. appears to be driven by Trump’s ego and a “my way or the highway” attitude that will, if it continues for a sustained period of time, drive this country into the ground.

      So whose fault would it be? It seems to me that, regardless of whether or not you would think that some “fault” should be assigned to the Judge, the primary culprit would be Trump & Co. since assuming power, they have suffered from more self-inflicted wounds than ten circular firing squads.

      1. Oh, I see, so these judges are NOT operating from politics and NO blame should be placed on them. Hmm thanks for your unbiased opinion.

  16. God’s in black robes.

    Save us from them.

    The Law is clear, the President of the United States has the legal authority to suspend any entry into our County of ANYONE.

  17. It is my understanding that the constitution expressly grants power over immigration to the President, which the Supreme Court ruled on in 1950. If so, how do these lower courts assume the authority to issue TRO against the sitting President?

          1. mikepouraryan – you know the Democrats and Obama are judge shopping wherever they go. They don’t have the intestinal fortitude to take it to a judge who might rule against them.

  18. In his Nashville rally after the decision Trump said, “The new order is just a watered down version of the first. I should have stuck with the first.” That might be an example of speaking publicly about litigation.

    1. Judges are taking Trump’s words literally and seriously. His rantings at his rally last night further hurt his case.

  19. If only The President and Mr. Miller understood your admonition, “.(of ) the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation…..”

  20. Reblogged this on Welcome to My Corner Here on Word Press and commented:
    I am a fan of Professor Turley–I have had some reservations about some of his comments-but one key point he makes is paramount, “…the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation….” if only this White House Understood it.

Comments are closed.