court of appeals with a huge ruling supporting trump city policies and an upset in new york. here to discuss byron york of the washington examiner. you got peter strok s testimony. their oath theination wide injunction that one district court judge was able to place on trump sanctuary city pol. jeff session di, no, narrow that scope. interesting it came today because in the big travel ban decision today. justice thomas brought up the point. exact low. ly we cannot have judges issues injunctions causing a national emergency. laura: one liberal left iist judge can shut down a presidential elective.
the travel ban was unconstitutional. they derided trump as racist for attempting to prohibit travel from hot spots that obama targeted too. the left refuses to acknowledge basic facts it is national security threats and posed by immigration. we can t vet these people. no system is in place. the court today weighed in, want ruling that the president has the authority to regulate immigration, but that the ban didn t contain any religious or anti-muslim bias. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrats and politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong. laura: the left was stunned that the supreme court sided with trump on the travel ban.
there s no inaccuracy in the statement. the president weighed in, as any father would based on the limited informatiohe can you clarify the degree to which the president weighed in? he certainly didn t dictate but he weighed in, offered sutis like any father would do. he certainly didn t dictate. of course the white house press secretary was asked about that discrepancy today. here s what she said. this is a letter from the outside counsel, i direct you to them to answer that question. interesting. joining us is eric swalwell a democrat from california who sits on the house intelligence committee. congressman, good to see you again. you too, al li. it seemed implausible at the time because whoever you thought dictated the letter, it wasn t true, you know more about this than most americans but we knew the conversation wasn t about adoptions we know that the magnitsky act is the biggest thorn in vladimir putin s side
the white house went into crisis mode, and the president and visers huddling on air force one to craft some sort of explanation. what emerged, you ll remember, was a statement purportedly fro don jr. saying the meeting had been primarily about russian adoptions and making no mention eal go of gettdirt hrylinton. trump s lawyer insisted that don jr. on his own had written that misleading statement. the white house later said dad might have helped out, but that the statement was largely don jr. s work. i do want to be clear the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not iss the statement. it came from donald trump jr. the president weighed in, as any father would, based on the limited information that he had. he certainly didn t dictate, but, you know, he like i said, he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do. like any father would do in a wildly incriminating e-mail surfaces about his son s activity. even don jr. himself tried to cov
statement. the president weighed in, as any father would based on the limited information he had. can you clarify degree to which the president weighed in? he certainly didn t dictate but he weighed in, offered suggestions like any father would do. he certainly didn t dictat e the white house press secretary was asked about that discrepancy today. here s what she said. this is a letter from the outside counsel, i direct you to them to answer that question. interesting. joining us is eric swalwell a democrat from california who sits on the house intelligence committee. congressman, good to see you again. you too, al li. it seemed implausible at the time because whoever you thought dictated the letter, it wasn t true, you know more about this than most americans but we knew the conversation wasn t about adoptions we know that the magnitsky act is the biggest