Roberts

that the order had caused minimal disruption, but again Brinkema disagreed on the facts. Just one of many examples she cited in her opinion: In 2015, 465 foreign students from the seven banned countries enrolled in Virginia schools. Barring such students in the future would cost more than $20 million in lost tuition and fees.

Another argument advanced by the White House is that the order contained no direct reference to Muslims, and thus did not impose any discrimination based on religion. Again, Brinkema went to the record, citing statements by Trump during the campaign

that he wanted “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Those statements, said the judge, indicated his true intent, no matter what the order said. “Just as the Supreme Court has held that ‘the world is not made brand new every morning,’ a person is not made brand new simply by taking the oath of office,” she wrote.

Finally, the judge rejected Trump’s assertion that federal law gives him unfettered power over immigration questions. “Maximum power does not mean absolute power,” she lectured.

The lesson from both cases is clear and compelling. Professional fact-finders -- lawyers, judges, journalists, academics, researchers,

scientists, intelligence officers -- cannot be deterred or intimidated.

Nor should they fall prey to the president’s strategy of dangling shiny objects in front of the press to distract them from the real story. He prompted media coverage of Ivanka Trump’s fashion products while his national security adviser was lying about his talks with the Russians and possibly breaking the law.

No matter how many tweets and tantrums emanate from the president, no matter how many “alternative facts” he presents, no matter how many leakers he denounces, the truth still matters. And we have to keep telling it.

Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by email at stevecokie@gmail.com.