There are more indications that Trump's central argument to the 9th Circuit and other federal courts when the DOJ tried to uphold his January 27 Muslim travel ban was bogus, in bad faith, and (to use one of Trump's favorite words when he doesn't like an election result) amounted to little more that an attempt to "rig" America's visa and entry system against all Muslim immigrants, not just those from seven named countries, and against refugees from every part of the world.

According to POLITICO (which was among the many news media banned from a February 24 White House press conference because of opposition to Trump), the AP is now reporting that the DHS has drafted a memo (admittedly "incomplete" in its words) refuting Trump's claims that citizens of the seven, (close to 99 percent Muslim) countries pose a special threat of terrorism in the US.

In the words of the POLITICO report:

"A draft [DHS] document obtained by the Associated Press concluded that citizenship is an 'unlikely indicator' of terrorism threats to the US and that few people from the countries that Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the US since Syria's civil war started in 2011."

Go to the above link for the full POLITICO story.

What is the Constitutional remedy when a United States president, allegedly, misrepresents to or acts in bad faith in a federal court about something as vital as America's national security, an issue which Trump's DOJ claimed in front of the 9th Circuit and other federal courts was the sole and essential basis for the travel ban order?

Does not a certain word beginning with the letter "I" come to mind?

Roger Algase
Attoerney at Law