The Border & Illegal Aliens, And What We Are Doing About It.

[Bullheaded Texan]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

“We are not going to let this country be invaded!

We will not be stampeded!

We will not capitulate to lawlessness!

This is NOT business as usual.

This is the Trump era!," the Attorney General said.
 

[Bullheaded Texan]

Trump Tears CNN a New One With Epic Response.     

 6/09/18  by: AAN Staff

President Trump excoriated a reporter for asking what he perceived as a loaded question about supposed tensions between his administration and other world leaders over steel and aluminum tariffs.
  Per The Hill:
 President Trump slammed CNN as “fake news” after a reporter with the news organization asked him a question during a press briefing at the Group of Seven (G-7) summit.
 After the reporter asked Trump a question about tensions between him and other leaders at the G-7 summit, the president asked what 'network' he was from.
 “Who are you with, out of curiosity?” Trump asked the reporter, who replied that he was from CNN.
 “I figured,” Trump said. “Fake News CNN. The worst."

 Trump is left the G-7 summit in Quebec early for a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore that looks to be the defining moment in his presidency.

[Bullheaded Texan]

 'Shell Game' Used to Build obuma Center, Fleece Taxpayers?  

 6/16/18  by: AAN Staff

A lawsuit filed Monday claims the City of Chicago colluded with barry obuma in "a short con shell game" to help the former resident construct his postmodern museum and library on the city's South Side. (Fox News)
  Protect Our Parks filed the lawsuit Monday seeking to block construction of the obuma residential Center in historic Jackson Park on Chicago’s South Side, where a young obuma cut his political teeth.
 Established law precludes the Chicago Park District from transferring public parkland in Jackson Park to a private non-governmental entity for its own use, the lawsuit claims.
 "Defendants have chosen to deal with it in a classic Chicago political way, known as a 'short con shell game', a corrupt scheme to deceive and seemingly legitimize an illegal land grab, one that will endure for centuries to come, regardless of future changing public park needs and increasingly consequential environmental conditions,” according to the lawsuit.
 The Chicago Sun-Times also quotes the lawsuit as saying that it is seeking a court order barring construction because it views the land transfer as an “institutional bait and switch.” 

 In reaction to the suit, Mayor Rahm Emanuel – former obuma White House Chief of Staff – reiterated his belief that the obuma residential Center is a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to revitalize the blighted neighborhood and honor the 45th resident's legacy.

 

[Bullheaded Texan]

Iowa Congressman Steve King told reporters Friday that there is a growing movement in the Republican caucus to remove Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).
  Per TheBlaze: 

King told Breitbart News that he had talked to numbers lawmakers who were increasingly dissatisfied with Ryan’s speakership.
 “It’s kind of odd that he has as much power as he has,” Rep. King said on the Patriot Channel. “But I do predict, and it is happening, that that power is diminishing.”
 “I also have got information that there are–I’ll say ‘members’–I say that plurally, with knowledge, that are considering introducing a motion to vacate the chair,” he added. “If they do that, that will throw this place into a tizzy and force the kind of election for a Speaker that may bring out someone who is a lot stronger on this.”
 The most recent discontent came when Ryan propagated the details of an immigration compromise bill that many saw as conceding too many demands of the out-of-power Democrats.

 According to King, the decision to move against Ryan was set in motion out of policy differences and the Speaker's, at least perceived, diminishing influence since he announced his retirement – not personal animus.

[Bullheaded Texan]

Inspector General Destroys DOJ and FBI Credibility.

 

The Justice Department Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s investigation of killary clinton’s scandalous email practices is out, and as I predicted, it has destroyed the credibility of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
  It confirms what we have investigated and revealed for nearly two years. The obuma DOJ/FBI investigation of clinton was rushed, half-baked, rigged, and irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump and pro-clinton bias and actions. It is outrageous to see a politicized FBI and DOJ then so obviously refuse to uphold the rule of law.
 The IG report details repeated DOJ/FBI deference to killary clinton, her aides and their lawyers. Americans should examine the report and judge for themselves whether the over-the-top deference to killary clinton can be explained as anything other than political, especially from agencies that at the same time were actively collaborating with the clinton campaign’s Fusion GPS to spy on and target then-candidate Trump. The IG report details how at least five top FBI agents and lawyers exchanged pro-clinton and anti-Trump communications. The IG shares the concerns of Judicial Watch and millions of Americans that this bias cast a cloud over the credibility of the clinton email and Russia investigations.
  An incredible example of this bias was found in a text message of FBI official Peter Strzok, who promised to “stop Trump” from becoming President. Strzok was both the lead FBI agent on the sham clinton investigation and on the anti-Trump Russia investigation! 
  As we have demonstrated through independent investigations and lawsuits, there is more than enough evidence that clinton knowingly and intentionally mishandled classified information while using a non-government email system to conduct government business.
  Will the Sessions Justice Department now do the right thing and conduct a clinton email investigation properly? Or will it let james comey and Loretta Lynch have the last word on killary clinton’s evident email crimes?
  In the meantime, we will continue our FOIA lawsuits and investigations into the clinton email scandal and the related obuma administration cover-up. 
  We have numerous lawsuits and document productions regarding the issues raised by the IG, including the conduct of Andrew McCabe, the Ccinton-lynch tarmac meeting, the Strzok-Page communications, the FBI investigation into killary clinton, and DOJ collusion with the clinton campaign.
  The IG report is just the beginning. And Judicial Watch will take it from here!
Hearing Set on Motion to Compel Email Testimony from killary clinton 
 Judicial Watch doesn’t wait for IG reports or Congress – we are an independent organization that does its own investigations and lawsuits.

 So, for all the noise about the clinton email investigation, Judicial Watch is the only entity still in court that may get additional testimony from crooked clinton about her email practices.
  A federal court just ordered a hearing for Thursday, October 11, 2018, on a motion to compel testimony about the email practices of former Secretary of State killary clinton. U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order.
 This major development comes in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
 In 2016, killary clinton was required to submit, under oath, written answers to our questions. clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails. Judge Sullivan is considering our motion to compel answers to these questions.
 In her responses sent to the court and us on October 13, 2016, clinton refused to answer three questions and responded that she “does not recall” 20 times concerning her non-government clintonemail.com email system. She preceded her responses by eight “general objections” and two “objections to definitions.” The words “object” or “objection” appear 84 times throughout the 23-page document submitted to the court and Judicial Watch.
 Judge Sullivan will also hear arguments on our motion to compel testimony from former State Department Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat John Bentel (who asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer 87 questions at his deposition) and our motion to unseal the audio/visual recordings of all depositions. We took the testimony of key Clinton aides and State Department senior officials, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, but the videotapes of the depositions are currently under seal.
 It is not surprising that clinton refused to answer key questions about her conduct. Perhaps she thought that we, like obuma’s FBI and Justice Department, would just let it go. We haven’t – and neither have the courts.
 Major Judicial Watch Victory!  The Supreme Court Decides for Clean Elections in Ohio. 
 The Supreme Court issued important decision to uphold efforts by Ohio to maintain accurate voting rolls. It was a big victory for clean elections and, as you’ll see below, Judicial Watch!
 It is also a clear victory for the citizens of Ohio and America who want clean and fair elections. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. The Supreme Court decision should send a signal to other states to take reasonable steps to make sure that voters who died or moved away no longer remain on their voter rolls.
 Leftists opposed to election integrity suffered a big defeat with this decision. Frankly, this and their other assaults on clean election measures suggest the organized left and their politician allies want to be able to steal elections if necessary. This is also a big institutional win for Judicial Watch, because it means that our current settlement agreement with Ohio is valid and enforceable.
 The Supreme Court upheld an Ohio law providing that the State had to send address confirmation notices to all registered voters who had not voted in the previous two years. This ruling has the effect of also upholding a 2014 settlement agreement between us and Ohio, which required Ohio to use that same procedure as part of a regular Supplemental Mailing designed to identify whether registered Ohio voters had moved away – one of many steps intended to fulfill Ohio’s obligations under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) to maintain the integrity of its voter list.
 We filed several amicus briefs supporting Ohio’s efforts at every level of the federal court system as the case progressed from the trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court. The case was on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which held Ohio’s process was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State v. Philip Randolph Institute, e... (No. 16-980)).
 Our amicus brief argued that the Sixth Circuit ruling would adversely affect its settlement agreement with Ohio were it allowed to stand. We also pointed out that failing to respond to an address confirmation notice does not mean that a registration is removed from the voter rolls. It merely triggers another waiting period, which can last up to four more years, during which the registrant still has the right to vote. In all, it can take up to six years before a registration is cancelled under the process.
 Attorney Robert Popper, the director of our Election Integrity Project, joined with five other former attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in filing an amici curiae brief in the Husted case.
 We previously filed a lawsuit under the NVRA against Indiana, which resulted in the state taking several actions to clean up its voter rolls. Our lawsuits against Ohio and Indiana were the first private lawsuits under the NVRA. We are currently suing Kentucky, California and Los Angeles over their failures to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and we are suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.
 We won this latest Supreme Court battle, but the Judicial Watch fight for election integrity continues across the nation.
 DOJ Must Provide More Details on Podesta-Clinton Communications 
The bureaucrats in The Deep State Swamp know every trick in the book for blocking inquiries into their actions. It is a good thing when the courts see through these sleights of hand. Here’s a good example.
 In an unusual Saturday ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ordered the U.S. Justice Department to provide more information about its search of former top obuma DOJ Official Peter Kadzik’s communications with then-clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, clinton campaign officials, and others.
 The court order, issued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requires the Justice Department to provide additional details by June 15, 2018.
 According to WikiLeaks, on May 19, 2015, Kadzik, using a Gmail account, sent Podesta an email appearing to tip-off clinton’s campaign about the Justice Department’s review of clinton’s emails:

  There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the emails.

 Saturday’s order follows a June 6 hearing in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department on January 15, 2017, for:
All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on either his official Justice Department email account [e-mail] and any non-government employee concerning, regarding, or relating to former Secretary of State killary clinton’s use of non-state.gov email to conduct official government business;

*All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on either his official Justice Department email account or [e-mail] and John Podesta; and

*All email correspondence between Peter Kadzik on either his official Justice Department email account or [e-mail] and any official, officer, or employee of killary rodham clinton’s presidential campaign.
  We argue that the Justice Department has refused to provide sufficient details about the search of Kadzik’s personal email account.
 Judge Friedrich found that the Justice Department’s sworn representations about Kadzik’s search of his records were “incomplete”:
Although the [Justice Department] states that “Mr. Kadzik confirmed that he did not recall ever using his personal Gmail account to send any other similar e-mails to John Podesta, or to anyone else associated with the clinton campaign,” … this statement does not cover the full scope of Judicial Watch’s specific FOIA requests.
 The court ordered the DOJ to submit a supplemental declaration by June 15, 2018, that provides any additional details regarding Kadzik’s representations regarding whether his Gmail account contained agency records or potential agency records.
 The DOJ is to provide details regarding two manual searches that Mr. Kadzik reportedly conducted. Also, the DOJ is to indicate, whether Kadzik opened and reviewed individual e-mails or just reviewed the titles, and which folders Kadzik reviewed when conducting his manual searches.
 We are obviously pleased that the court ordered the Justice Department to provide more details about its search for documents about Obama DOJ-Clinton campaign collusion. Yet it is disappointing that we must continually battle the Sessions Justice Department for basic information on corruption in the obuma Justice Department.
 Unsurprisingly, Kadzik’s conduct related to his communications with the clinton campaign are criticized in this week’s big IG report. And it is once again up to Judicial Watch to continue the accountability efforts on this scandal.
  Until next week …
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton

 

[Bullheaded Texan]

Dirty Donors Could Sink Crooked killary.  

 06/15/18  TTN  by: Donny Bomenabori

In explosive new revelations, Fox News is reporting that killary clinton has been implicated in a multi-million dollar money-laundering scheme. 
Fox News Reports: 

EXCLUSIVE: The murky nature of killary clinton’s former presidential campaign fund continues to rise to the surface.

 Fox News has learned that one of the top donors to the “killary Victory Fund” (HVF) in 2016 was a Los Angeles-based attorney who is alleged to have misused company funds to create his own $22 million real estate portfolio. He has also been considered by Mexifornia to be one of the state's biggest tax cheats, and allegedly has ties to the Kremlin. The donor, Edgar Sargsyan, contributed $250,000 to the 'killary Victory Fund' in 2016, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, and chaired a $100,000-a-couple Clinton fundraiser in Beverly Hills in September 2016. He is also being sued by his former company for allegedly diverting those funds to start his own real estate company.

 The Committee to Defend the President,  alleges that Sargsyan’s former employer, SBK Holding USA — for which he was still working at the time of his HVF donations –- is an investment firm that is affiliated with United Arab Emirates president,  Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan,and its international affiliate has business interests in Russia. Among its dealings was a bid to finance $850 million for a major bridge project to connect Crimea with Russia.

 Last September, SBK’s principal owner, Sezgin Baran Korkmaz, was subpoenaed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who's looking into foreign meddling in the 2016 elections, because of his alleged ties to a Turkish lobbying client of Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser. “The grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving the Foreign Agents Registration Act, among other offenses,” a letter accompanying the subpoena stated, according to ProPublica.

 According to Backer, SBK Holding is a member of the Turkey-U.S. Business Council, which is chaired by Ekimn Alptekin, who hired and paid Flynn, giving him $450,000 for lobbying services shortly before the 2016 election.
 The committee said the filing was spurred by its own analysis of FEC reports, in which it said it found that irregularities:

The HVF either never transferred the money to state chapters and back to the DNC, or did so without the state chapters having actual control. The committee alleged at the time that about $84 million was funneled illegally from the DNC through state party chapters and back into the war chest of the clinton campaign.

 Backer says that the discovery of Sargsyan’s donations shows a flawed nature underlying the HVF.

killary clinton far exceeded the federal limits and had an obligation to return overages in campaign donations, but in fact, she openly defied the law by creating a scam committee that washed millions through state parties to subvert federal contribution limits.

 President Trump recently pardoned Dinesh D'Souza, who served time in prison for doing a fraction of what the killary clinton campaign did, to say nothing about her newfound connection to yet MORE foreign interests. 

 The massive scam has the potential to lead to a prosecution of crooked clinton and her subordinates and is a developing story we continue to follow here at Trump Train News.
~~~~~~

Pressure Mounting Against Crooked Hillary:

 Crooked clinton's massive money-laundering scandal has NOT been  publicized by the national media.

However, recently state level media has been picking up this awful case of abuse of power and influence. 
  According to the New Boston Post:

A federal lawsuit by a pro-Trump politico claims that 33 state Democratic Party committees illegally laundered donations totaling $84 million that ultimately ended up in accounts that directly benefited killary clinton’s 2016 campaign for president.
 Donations that on paper were supposed to benefit state Democratic committees actually ended up in large measure being passed through to the Democratic National Committee, which used it to try to get clinton elected, according to Dan Backer, a lawyer for the Committee to Defend the President.

 One example:  About $2.4 million raised by the 'killary Victory Fund', a joint fund-raising political action committee, went to the Maine Democratic Party “and then almost immediately” to the Democratic National Committee, according to the Bangor Daily News.
 Defenders of the arrangement say it’s not illegal and that state Democratic Party committees benefited by getting to keep a portion of the money raised by the killary Victory Fund.

 Maybe this pressure will force the FEC to act against the crocked clinton organization. The $84 million laundered is nothing to turn a blind eye to. The American people deserve more.

[Bullheaded Texan]

 Senate Dem Touts Voting With Trump 'Over Half the Time' in New Campaign Ad.

 6/15/18  Leah Barkoukis

Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp released a new campaign ad sharing a message she hopes will resonate with North Dakota voters: her willingness to work with President Trump on a number of issues.

 The ad emphasizes how she’s reached across the political aisle since assuming office in 2013.

"When I ran for the Senate six years ago, I said I wouldn't vote the party line, because I don't think either party has all the answers," she says in the new ad titled “Answer.” "That's why I voted over half the time with President Trump. And that made a lot of people in Washington mad, but when I agree with him, I vote with him."

 Heitkamp's latest ad follows a Washington Post interview with her Republican opponent, Rep. Kevin Cramer, who has been frustrated with Trump extolling Heitkamp with complimentary words.

 Heitkamp has supported several of Trump's cabinet nominees, including CIA director Gina Haspel and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. (WFB) Even though Heitkamp has supported a number of Trump-backed initiatives, she voted against some key GOP measures including the tax reform bill—a point that has not been lost on the Trump administration. 

 "Senator Heitkamp voted no on tax cuts, no on repealing and replacing Obamacare, no on cracking down on sanctuary cities, no on repealing the anti-energy methane rule—she voted no on a 20-week abortion ban," Vice President Mike Pence said at a fundraising event in March. "I mean, it's time that North Dakota voted no on Heidi Heitkamp's re-election."

 

[Bullheaded Texan]

 Watch Sarah Huckabee Sanders Pretty Much Call CNN's Jim Acosta A Moron.

 6/15/18  Matt Vespa

The June 14 White House press briefing was filled with drama as CNN’s Jim Acosta and Playboy’s Brian Karem decided to pick fights with Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders over the contentious immigration policy in which children are separated from their parents during immigration enforcement arrests.

 Liberals think this is cruel. In actuality, it’s the enforcement of federal immigration law. It’s against the law to be here illegally—and no, we’re not throwing these kids into cages!

 Acosta decided to become the administration’s favorite punching bag again, though not as brutal as his skirmish with senior adviser Stephen Miller last August:

  During this exchange, Sanders pretty much called Acosta an idiot, noting that he was incapable of understanding even short sentences. 

 Acosta exchange around 6:30, Karem's outburst at 10:02 mark:

ACOSTA: "Can I just ask a second question, completely unrelated, on these children who are being separated from their families as they come across the border?  The Attorney General, earlier today, said that somehow there’s a justification for this in the Bible.  Where does it say in the Bible that it’s moral to take children away from their mothers?" 

SANDERS: "I’m not aware of the Attorney General’s comments or what he would be referencing.  I can’t... ACOSTA: "Is it a moral policy, in your view?"

SANDERS: "I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is, actually, repeated a number of times throughout the Bible.  However, this" —

ACOSTA:  "But where in the Bible does it say" —

SANDERS:  "Hold on, Jim.  If you’ll let me finish."

ACOSTA:  "It’s okay to take children away from their parents?"

SANDERS:  "Again, I’m not going to comment on the Attorney’s specific comments that I haven’t seen."

ACOSTA:   "You just said it’s in the Bible to follow the law.

SANDERS:  "That’s not what I said.  And I know it’s hard for you to understand even short sentences, I guess, but please don’t take my words out of context.  But the separation of" —

KAREM:   "That’s a cheap shot, Sarah.  That’s a cheap shot, Sarah."

SANDERS:  " Illegal alien families are the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats refuse to close.  And these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade. And the President is simply enforcing them."

ACOSTA:  "But how is it moral?  How is it a moral policy to take children away from their parents? Can you imagine" —

SANDERS:  "It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law."

ACOSTA:  "The horror that these children must be going through when they come across the border?"

SANDERS:  "Jim.

ACOSTA:  "They’re with their parents, and then suddenly they’re pulled away from their parents.  Why is the government doing this?"

SANDERS:  "Because it’s the law!  And that’s what the law states."

ACOSTA:    "It’s not.  It doesn’t have to be the law.  You don’t have to do that.  It’s your policy."

SANDERS:  "You’re right, it doesn’t have to be the law. And the President has actually called on Democrats in Congress to fix those loopholes.  The Democrats have failed to come to the table, failed to help this President close these loopholes and fix this problem.  We don’t want this to be a problem.  The President has tried to address it on a number of occasions.  We’ve laid out a proposal.  And Democrats simply refuse to do their job and fix the problem."

 Playboy’s White House correspondent and CNN political analyst Brian Karem, who called what's left of President Trump's base the Nazi Party, also wanted to pick a fight with Sanders, interrupting her and pretty much acting like a total jerk.

 If there was any reason for removing cameras from the press room, here’s an example.

Would reporters act like this if the cameras weren’t on them? Probably not.

Fox News’ Jesse Waters described Karem’s antics as someone who is an “emotional wreck.” 

KAREM:  " Sarah, don’t you have any empathy?"

SANDERS:  "Jill, go ahead."

KAREM: " Come on, Sarah.  You’re a parent.  Don’t you have any empathy for what these people are going through?"

SANDERS:  "Jill."

KAREM: "They have less than you do."

SANDERS:  "Brian.--  Guys, settle down."

KAREM: "Sarah, come on.  Seriously.  Seriously."

SANDERS:  "I’m trying to be serious, but I’m not going to have you yell out of turn."- -Jill, please" —

KAREM:  "But you’re sitting there telling us it’s a law.  And they have — these people have nothing.  They come over here with nothing" —

SANDERS:  "Hey, Brian, I know you want to get some more TV time, but that’s not what this is about."

KAREM:  "It’s not that.  It’s not about that. It’s about you answering a question, Sarah."

SANDERS:  "I want to recognize you.  Go ahead, Jill."

KAREM:  "Honestly, answer the question.  It’s a serious question.  These people have nothing. They come to the border with nothing and you throw children in cages.  You’re a parent.  You’re a parent of young children.  Don’t you have any empathy for what they go through?"

 Well, I needed an avalanche of Advil after that. Waters aptly noted that if a conservative reporter did that to a female press secretary of a Democratic president, the media would be all over it. 

[Bullheaded Texan]

MSNBC Analysts: Trump is Creating ‘Concentration Camps’ for alien C...

 6/15/18  Chris Reeves

On Friday’s “MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle,” former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele and former obuma 2012 deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter compared the Trump Adm’s detention centers for illegal alien children to Nazi concentration camps.

  Steele also ominously warned viewers that their “kids could be next” to be placed in such concentration camps.

The segment in question was caught and transcribed by NewsBusters:

Stephanie CUTTER: "We are, or used to be, America’s greatest democracy. Why can’t we find a solution to this problem without harming children? Without putting them into concentration camps?"

STEELE: "I would say, Stephanie, to that point, it’s not even an interpretation of the law, it is a policy.

Stephanie RUHLE: A new policy.

STEELE: And a policy that has been invoked by the President of the United States and dictated to his attorney general, who goes out and quotes the Bible – by the way, a passage that was used to justify slavery in this country – to justify encamping children. I call this a concentration camp for kids because that’s exactly what it’s turning out to. When you give kids 22 hours of lockup time and two hours of air time, what else can it be? And if this is where this country is going, the American people need to wake up and pay attention. Because your kids could be next.

 Earlier in the day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Joe Scarborough also compared the child detention centers to concentration camps. Apparently based on a public defender’s claim that his illegal alien child clients were being led away from their alleged parents with promises of being given a bath, Scarborough remarked that federal agents were akin to Nazi camp guards leading Jews to “showers” to be gassed to death:

 “I know children are being marched away to showers. -- being told they are just like the Nazis and said that they were taking people to showers and then they never came back.”

 The public defender’s claim, that appears to have informed Scarborough’s comment comes from this report in the Boston Globe:

 A six year old boy from Honduras remembers watching his dad be led away from him in handcuffs, the last time he saw him. His eight year old foster sibling remembers his mom crying and yelling as they were separated.

     *** They should never have been here in the 1st place! ***

 A public defender in McAllen says some aliens are told their kids are going to be taken away briefly to bathe, and then it dawns on them hours later they aren't coming back.

 In reality, the illegal alien detention centers do not resemble Nazi concentration camps at all.

In fact, when reporters from CNN toured one such facility for children located in Texas, instead of finding barbed wire fences or prisoners being worked to death, gassed, or shot in the back of the head, they discovered kids watching soccer, playing video games on big flat-screen TVs, and participating in tai chi classes:

 The massive shelter retains a warehouse vibe -- noisy but highly organized, with scores of staffers leading skeins of boys to various activities. In recreation rooms, some boys watched a soccer match on TV; some took part in a tai chi class; others played pool or foosball. Still others sat in classrooms. Because of the crowding, the boys attend school in six-hour morning or afternoon shifts, five days a week. The bedrooms reporters were shown were antiseptically clean.

 Though they have a variety of scheduled activities to keep them busy, the boys spend almost all their time indoors at the former superstore, aside from one hour a day outside for PE and another hour of free time they can spend on the basketball courts or soccer fields adjacent to the shelter building. Many of the boys stared at the visitors with obvious curiosity, greeting reporters with "Hola" or "Buenas tardes" as they walked by.

 CNN also reported that kids are not kept in the detention center indefinitely. In fact, they usually stay there for only about two months until federal immigration officials either reunite the children with their real parents or other relatives in the United States or deport the kids back to their home countries.

 As an alternative, perhaps Steele, Cutter, et al. would prefer if we go back to putting illegal alien children in cages and having them sleep on the floor?

  But then again, what kind of monster would do such a thing?

[Bullheaded Texan]

Trump: Actually, I Support Both Immigration Bills That Pretty Much Amnesties A Bunch Of Illegal Aliens.

  6/15/18   Matt Vespa

Well, sometimes we all misspeak, and it seems President Trump did so on immigration, much to the chagrin of House conservatives.

   https://youtu.be/VtEdMkdPbjE 

 Earlier today, he said he wouldn’t sign the compromise bill crafted by GOP leadership. 

Now, he said he backs both bills, which is what senior adviser Stephen Miller said this week. There was a discharge petition marinating on the Hill, which if successful, would have triggered a series of immigration votes that did not require going through the GOP leadership.

 Supporters of this push were reportedly a few votes shyof being able to pull this off. So, this compromise was struck and now votes will be held on two bills next week.

 President Trump in fact supports both of the House GOP immigration bills expected to receive votes next week and misspoke earlier Friday when he said that he would oppose a compromise measure between centrists and conservatives, a White House official told The Hill.

 "Yes, we fully support both the Goodlatte bill and the Leadership bill. The President misunderstood the question this morning on Fox News," the source said in an email. "He was commenting on the discharge petition/dreamers bill — not the new package. He would 100% sign either Goodlatte or the other bill."

 Centrists had tried to use a discharge petition to force leadership to move on four different immigration proposals, including one backed by Democrats that protects so-called "Dreamers," beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

 Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the rest of House leadership managed to block that attempt earlier this week, and will instead bring forth a pair of immigration bills, including a more hardline measure from Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

 So, what’s the difference between the bills?

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, spearheads one, the Securing America’s Future Act.

  The other is the compromise Border Security and Immigration Reform Act (BSIRA).

In a document drafted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, both bills provide protections to so-called DREAMers, children who were brought into this country illegally as children but have been afforded protections from deportation thanks to the constitutionally shaky Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program initiated by the Obama White House. 

 Goodlatte’s bill grants three-year legal status (renewable) to current DACA recipients. There is no special carve out for green cards or a pathway to citizenship.

 BSIRA doles out a six-year renewable legal status to 1.8 million illegal aliens. FAIR adds, “At the beginning of the sixth year, green cards will begin to be awarded to amnesty recipients under a new visa program.”

 For legal immigration, Goodlatte’s bill ends chain migration, kills the diversity visa lottery, and boosts immigration for skilled workers, while reducing overall immigration. The compromise bill also ends two chain migration categories, shuffles some of the visas to the employment-based category. 

 On the border wall, Goodlatte’s bill authorizes the $25 billion project, but FAIR added the “money would still need to be appropriated.” The compromise bill full funds the wall. 

 The future of enforcing the law, Goodlatte’s bill has mandatory e-verify, while the compromise does not—and it doesn’t cut off funding to sanctuary cities.

 Goodlatte’s bill ends such funding to cities that defy enforcing federal immigration laws. Kate’s Law is also rolled into the Securing America’s Future Act.

  Below is FAIR’s breakdown of the two bills:

Kate’s law was named after Kate Steinle, who was killed by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in San Francisco in 2015 while walking on a pier with her father. Zarate had been deported five times before and picked San Francisco because he knew no one would be looking to deport him. He accidentally shot Kate with a federal agent’s firearm that was stolen. Zarate said he found the gun wrapped in a T-shirt under a bench. He was charged with second-degree murder, but was found not guilty. Her death has spurred a nationwide debate about the function of sanctuary cities.

The compromise bill will also tacklefamily separation during immigration arrests. Needless to say, this bill probably isn’t what hardliners want on immigration. In fact, for every one good aspect, there are two or three that are pretty bad. And we can all thank the moderate wing of the GOP who decided to ally themselves with Democrats for this push. Yes, twenty-three moderate GOP lawmakers hail from districts with sizable Hispanic populations. It still doesn’t negate the fact that this is a vote that we don’t need right now. For this session, immigration died as soon as the Democrats rejected legalizing 1.8 million illegals in exchange for a border wall. It will just divide the party, which is why Democrats are doing this. And yes, the reception to the compromise bill has been rather lackluster (via The Hill):

 House GOP leaders sent a 293-page immigration bill to their members on Thursday designed to bridge the substantial divide between the centrist reformers and conservative immigration hawks in their conference. 

 Early reactions suggest the bill is unlikely to do so, with members of both the far-right Freedom Caucus and conservative Republican Study Committee telling The Hill they planned to vote "no" on the compromise.

 Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), a Freedom Caucus member and immigration hard-liner facing a competitive reelection battle, described the compromise effort as “hasty political maneuvers pasted together at the last minute.”

 Further reducing the bill’s odds, Heritage Action, an influential conservative group, is urging lawmakers to oppose the package, citing the "Dreamer" benefits.

 The GOP was gaining momentum heading into a critical stage of the 2018 election season, and they risk torpedoing that by giving base voters a reason to stay home. Immigration, jobs, taxes, and gun rights are all on the table this year, the next, and the one after that. It’s in perpetuity.

 

[Bullheaded Texan]

WSJ Columnist: Hey, The ‘No Bias’ Claim In DOJ IG Report Is Not What It Seems.

  6/15/18  Matt Vespa

For the Left and their allies in the media, yeah—yesterday Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horwitz released the long-awaited report on how the FBI/DOJ handled the Clinton email probe. It found that James Comey’s actions were extraordinary and insubordinate, deviating way outside department policy. One could point to his July 5 presser in which he announced no charges would be filed against Mrs. Clinton. That was not his place, though he did indict the Clinton team for terrible judgment when it comes to handling sensitive documents. The reasons for re-opening the probe in October 28, which earned him scorn with Democrats, was later determined to be unpersuasive. It was another way to the Left to torch Comey.  So, what about those allegations of bias that engulfed the FBI? Concerning this email investigation, no evidence was found to determine that it impacted in the investigation in the sense of generating pre-determined outcomes. Yet, that does not mean there wasn’t any bias. It’s worded very carefully and The Wall Street Journal’sKimberley Strassel went on an extended thread on social media to explain. 

“He [referring to IG Horwitz] very carefully says that he found no ‘documentary’ evidence that bias produced ‘specific investigatory decisions.’ That's different,” she said. “It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: ‘Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President.”      

Strassel elaborates further in her column about the report: 

*There’s loretta lynch, who felt it perfectly fine to have a long catch-up with her friend slick willy on a Phoenix tarmac and whom the inspector general slams for an “error in judgment.”  comey’s entire staff was complicit in concealing the contents of the July press conference from Justice officials. We discover that significant FBI “resources” were dedicated in October to spinning FBI “talking points” about the clinton investigation—rather than actually investigating the new Anthony Weiner laptop emails the bureau discovered in September.

 There’s former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who was tipping off the clinton campaign even as he took part in the investigation, and who “failed to strictly adhere to[his recusal” when he finally stepped away. 

 Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe also did not “fully comply with his recusal,” and he’d already been found to have lied to the bureau about a leak to the media.

 Speaking of leaks, Mr. Horowitz needed full attachments and charts to list the entire “volume of communication” between FBI employees and the press.

 The bias is everywhere. It’s in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and those of three other employees who are routinely “hostile” to Candidate Trump.

 It’s in a message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 who writes that although the FBI found clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.”

 To which a second agent replies. “Rog—no one is going to prosecute, even if we find unique classified.

It’s the Justice Department’s decision to cut deals with clinton and her staff and shelter them from a grand jury. And to agree to limitations in searching for and in devices. And in immunity agreements."

 No bias? Please. There was bias, unless you’re with the liberal news media who thinks the only thing that was bad from this report is that Donald Trump is still the president of the United States.

 Meanwhile this same cast of characters who the IG has now found to have made a hash of the clinton investigation and who demonstrate such bias, seamlessly moved to the Trump investigation. And we're supposed to think they got that one right?

 It also contains stunning examples of incompetence. comey explains that he wasn't aware the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? Then they sit on it a month, either cuz it fell through cracks (wow) or were more obsessed w/Trump.

 Combetta refers to Mr. Paul Combetta, a computer specialist who deleted killary clintons emails, which were under a congressional subpoena.  A computer specialist who deleted killary clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.

 Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in  clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.

 According to the F.B.I. documents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story.

 In the days after clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said he realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.

 In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River.

 But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.

 Strassel added that the IG report, in her view, shows a culture that feels the rules do not apply them, noting the failed recusals (cough…McCabe…cough), the lynch/bill meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix, and reporters giving free goodies to staffers.

 Talk about a situation that lends itself to having more leaks than the Iraqi Navy. But hey, the clintons could empathize; they’ve felt the same way for years. 

 And let’s not forget the atrocious exchange between FBI employees, who had a total meltdown over Trump’s 2016 win. “You promised me this wouldn’t happen. YOU PROMISED,” one said, identified as “FBI Employee.”

“Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn’t watch the debates, aren’t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm,” said a lawyer with the bureau. 

 With these examples, it’s hard to fully accept there was no bias as a legitimate point to sell to the American people. Actually, the people DID watch the debates, and the way you know these jokers at the FBI didn’t is because they should have known that clinton-leaning voters were more receptive to Trump’s language on the economy in the third debate. 

 Still, this did not impact the execution of the probe itself into the emails. I’m not so sure that’s going to sit well. Yet, we can probably put the obstruction of justice charge to bed for good. 

 The president has the right to fire the FBI director whenever he wants.

And this IG report shows President Trump had just cause!