Judge James Robart, the federal district judge in Seattle, stated that no one from the seven countries on Trump’s list – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya – has been arrested on terrorism charges since the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on America.
His comment, made in open court on Friday, went unchallenged in the establishment media all weekend and into Monday, while WND reported it was inaccurate and gave a partial list of terror incidents that have been plotted or carried out by Somali and Iraqi immigrants since 9/11.
Where is Politifact? Where is Snopes? Where are all the other media fact checkers to correct the mistaken judge?
“Judge Robart no doubt knows the mainstream media is a propaganda arm for the left’s globalist agenda, and so no one would report the falsity of his statement except ‘discredited’ or ‘right-wing’ news outlets,” said Robert Spencer, an Islam expert who blogs for the David Horowitz Freedom Center at JihadWatch.org.
Finally, on Monday afternoon, the Associated Press came out with a fact-check on Robart’s comment, debunking it as patently false.
“WASHINGTON — The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.”
CNN, the New York Times and the major TV networks were silent on the legitimacy of an exchange Friday in federal court between Robart and Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, who was charged with defending Trump’s executive order.
Robart grilled Bennett, asking if citizens of the seven countries named in the order had been arrested for plots in the U.S. since 9/11. Bennett said she didn’t know.
“The answer to that is none, best I can tell,” Robart said. “You’re here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”
Congress gives the president wide latitude in foreign affairs, which includes granting visas, Bennett reminded the judge.
But the judge answered: “I’m also asked to look and determine if the executive order is rationally based. And rationally based, to some extent, means I have to find it grounded in fact instead of fiction.”
As it turns out, Robart was the one basing his decision on a fiction.