of the problems in the original. i said it was likely that plaintiff would find one federal judge to block the travel ban, and you know this get appealed up to the court of appeals, then probably appealed again up to the u.s. supreme court. and they are the ones that are going to determine the fate of this travel ban. arthel: so, keisha, to you, as you know two federal courts, hawaii and maryland, have blocked the travel ban. can those courts volunteer to overturn or evoke their decision. that is seldomly done by a court, unless there is a motion for reconsidering of the ruling, i understand that revised executive order may be considered. but there are a lot of people, i believe these judges that ruled against it still feel it is in violation of the establishment cause of the constitution. arthel: mm-hmm, and chris, you
why he is pleased with the president revised travel ban compared to imaginal one, a federal judge in virginia echoing that praise, and denying a request to block the president s revised orders, where will new judicial voice of support take the president s travel ban, joining me now, keisha, defense attorney and chris, a trial attorney, how does this change the course of newer travel ban? it really does not change the effect of it right now, because there still remains a nationwide freed on the ban but it does give a new. yoa judicial voice. i see this as a predictable place. new travel ban, it fixed a lot
is making decisions about that business, being reported profits and losses is not a problem under the lay, it really isn t. we know what he is tell his charge. keisha knows. come on. we don t know. arthel: he start the out that president took steps, to separate himself from business empire, if there are no legal red flags here, then it does boil down to the optics. it is legal versus optics, but the bottom line is there is no legal obligation, i think he is taking proper and logical steps to create optics where he is not managing a business. i think he should use a blind trust, it is, lows citizens to trust him.
you have to be careful. we, keisha, first, speculation they are not going to put up a wall, that is speculation they will be at dinner table and talk about it however, everyone should understand that president has no obligation to divest himself from this situation, he does not have to do a blie blind trust. arthel: i believe article might have stated that president is getting daily reports on the pluses and gains of his or losses of his business. right, wok thing that a president has to be careful of, there is a prohibition of receiving gifts from the foreign countries and stuff, this to me sets him up. i think that president s use that blind trust they don t want to be in a position where someone could say this company did xyz . the monitoring of profits and losses is not managing a business, managing is a business
arthel: president trump saying he took steps before his inauguration to separate himself from his business empire. but new york times reporting that president is still closely tied to his company, a trust is still under his own social security number. that mr. trump can revoke the authority of his trustees at any time, we bring in defense attorneys, former prosecutors, keisha, so, what about this president trump s personal tech security number still on the trust. legally, he does not have a obligation to separate from his business or assets as president. most do because they don t want the appearance of a conflict of interest.