If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
You fellows might remember a couple of years ago I mentioned that my sources within the FBI had told me that the laptops of Mills and Samuelson had not been destroyed. Much derision ensued. The IG report that was recently released contains interesting information in that regard. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...aides-laptops/
Keep in mind that any immunity agreement has at its core a statement that the person receiving immunity has told the whole truth and stands ready for further testimony if needed.
You fellows might want to read the stipulation in Flores v Reno during the Clinton administration. That is where this silly 20 day period comes from. If the President were to change that to 75 days by EO, it would be challenged immediately in court. The answer is to pass legislation to extend the 20 day period, but Schumer has already said that he would not support that in the Senate. Typically, the only "solution" that the Dems are in favor of is for the President to behave lawlessly like President Obama and not enforce the law.
You fellows might remember a couple of years ago I mentioned that my sources within the FBI had told me that the laptops of Mills and Samuelson had not been destroyed. Much derision ensued. The IG report that was recently released contains interesting information in that regard. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...aides-laptops/
Keep in mind that any immunity agreement has at its core a statement that the person receiving immunity has told the whole truth and stands ready for further testimony if needed.
You fellows might want to read the stipulation in Flores v Reno during the Clinton administration. That is where this silly 20 day period comes from. If the President were to change that to 75 days by EO, it would be challenged immediately in court. The answer is to pass legislation to extend the 20 day period, but Schumer has already said that he would not support that in the Senate. Typically, the only "solution" that the Dems are in favor of is for the President to behave lawlessly like President Obama and not enforce the law.
Both Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz appear on Fox almost daily and are their go-to legal experts and both have gone on record to say there is absolutely no law requiring the Fed government to prosecute every single illegal immigrant to the fullest extent of the law and therefore separate kids, no matter how young, from their parents, for what is a misdemeanor for 90% of illegal immigrants. None.
On Monday's broadcast of the Fox News Channel's "Special Report," George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley stated, "the administration does not | Clips
I'll post the article again because Kapture clearly didn't look at it...else he would know that the human trafficking justification was developed after the fact. DHS cites the 315% increase but aside from it being dramatically overblown as a threat, the administration was already planning to toughen the separation policy in the early part of 2017, which was long before the rise in trafficking stats was observed.
Both Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz appear on Fox almost daily and are their go-to legal experts and both have gone on record to say there is absolutely no law requiring the Fed government to prosecute every single illegal immigrant to the fullest extent of the law and therefore separate kids, no matter how young, from their parents, for what is a misdemeanor for 90% of illegal immigrants. None.
The 0bama administration was sued for not separating kids and adults. 9th circuit ruled about the Obama-era policy of keeping children together with parents violated the 1997 Flores settlement.
point ii. is important. if they came with their parent and that parent is being prosecuted, they are not available to provide care or physical custody.
Tweet
Comment