While Trump is whining up a storm on Twitter about how Judge James Robart has made it so anyone can get into the U.S. by halting his Muslim ban, there s a conversation between Robart and Dept. of Justice attorney Michelle Bennett floating around that explains a lot about how Robart sees it.Robart asked Bennett the following pointed question, which everyone with any sense has been asking since Trump threw the world into chaos last week: How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals from those seven countries since 9/11? Bennett replied: Your Honor, I don t have that information. I m from the civil division if that helps get me off the hook. What a thing for a lawyer to say   it almost sounds like Bennett felt a little silly defending Trump s Muslim ban in court. She may have felt even sillier after Robart said: Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, 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. Bennett argued that the rationale behind the order was to protect the U.S. from potential terrorists. Many people think that makes some sense, but neither Trump nor his administration ever weighed that against the possible impact of such a ban. Had any terrorists actually come from any of those countries, and attacked us, then the ban might have some merit.As it stands, though, it exempts countries that actually do have a history of exporting terrorism.Robart responded to Bennett s statement about protecting the U.S. with this: 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. The Muslim ban is currently based on the fiction that these countries pose a clear and present threat. They don t. The  threat  that Trump sees is vague and rooted in paranoia, not fact. Yet Trump is all over Twitter claiming that now  bad people  can just indiscriminately pour into the country as though U.S. Customs and Border Protection was only able to do its job with the ban in effect.He claims to have instructed DHS to very carefully look at people coming into the country, because DHS and CBP apparently weren t doing that. Chances are he did no such thing, or he made them roll their eyes. He ll take credit if nothing happens, and he ll blame Robart if something does.While the Trump administration is certain that they ll win this case and the ban will be reinstated, others aren t so sure. Some think this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, and if it has to, it has to. The harm the ban causes actually outweighs the dangers of not having it in place.Below is a video of the Feb. 3 hearing, and the relevant portion begins at the 38:00 mark:Featured image via screen capture from embedded video