'Concerning': Legal expert warns court just swept facts under the rug to help Trump

The federal appeals court panel that just allowed President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Oregon, essentially disregarded the plain facts the lower court found, criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson told CNN on Monday.

"It's concerning," said Jackson. "The reason it's concerning is because [the district judge] had a hearing. And at that hearing, there were facts, right? Hearing is about facts and evidence with respect to whether or not the deployment was lawful. And lawful deployment means, if you're going to allege, as the president certainly has the authority to send troops if federal properties are at issue to enforce constitutional rights, etcetera. So, yes, you have the authority, but they have to be facts that would substantiate your ability to send the troops."

The judge, herself a Trump appointee, found there were no such facts, Jackson noted.

"The judge concluded that factually, the assessment was that the Trump administration's facts were not comporting with the reality. In fact, I will quote her, she said, 'untethered from reality.'"

This new three-judge panel dominated by other Trump appointees, Jackson continued, "says that the district court should not substitute its judgment as to the president and that the president is afforded and should be afforded great deference, and the only way the president could be overruled is if he's patently wrong. Well, I think the district court judge, in having a hearing, made that assessment that the president was patently wrong with regard to a rebellion or anything else."

This case will have implications that spread beyond Portland, Jackson added.

"Remember that this National Guard issue is notlimited there. It's all overwhere the president isseemingly sending them. So theissue then becomes, does itembolden the administrationthen to send troops everywhereand anywhere? Because remember,you have to, according to thisappellate ruling, afford greatdeference to the president. Andunless the president's patentlywrong, the court can'tsubstitute its judgment. Butagain, the court wasn't substituting, in my view, its judgment. It was giving a conclusion after having a hearing with regard to what was happening. So it's concerning, I would say."

- YouTubeyoutu.be