HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RandomAccess » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri May 12, 2017, 09:00 PM
Number of posts: 5,210

Journal Archives

What Sen. Franken would ask Kavenaugh if he could

I don't think he'd mind me posting the entire thing. It's on his Facebook page via his tweet:


When Judge Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators will have an opportunity to examine his record, his judicial philosophy, and his qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions I’d love to see him answer.

1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. I’d like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think it’s proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?

He’ll say no, of course.

2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?

3. And would you agree that it’s important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?

This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, I’d turn to an issue that’s received a bit of attention—but not nearly enough.

4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldn’t you agree?

5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.” Did I quote you correctly?

This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it “a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nation’s highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the country’s most important legal and factual claims.”

It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.

6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?

If he says that he doesn’t, I’d skip down to Question 22. But, if he won’t take it back, I’d want to pin him down.

7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?

8. So, today, you are telling the American people—under oath—that it is your determination that “[n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

9. And that determination—it wouldn’t be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?

10. And it’s not based on any personal bias, is it?

11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?

12. Was it a “full and fair” understanding of the facts?

Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, I’d skip down to Question 22. But if not, I’d continue with…

13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?

14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?

Of course he doesn’t.

15. Of course you don’t. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the facts—isn’t that right?

16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.

17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?

18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?

19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selection—whereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?

20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion that—and I’ll quote it again—“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?

Then I’d try to sum it up.

22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?

23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination”?

By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, I’d ask where it came from.

24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?

25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?

I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and I’m sure they’re workshopping answers at this very moment.

But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. It’s just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesn’t care that it’s false. And if you’re sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?

More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.

In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They don’t make law, they interpret it. They don’t create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.

The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholar—but he wouldn’t have been on that list if he weren’t committed to the right-wing cause.

That’s why it’s critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course that’s what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what he’s there to do.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.

Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independence—and what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing—even if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.


Delicious little bit of court gossip on Trump's visit to the Queen

Royal scoop: Prince William and Prince Charles refused to meet Donald Trump, writes the Times. Their absence "was a snub," a courtier said. "They simply refused to attend. It's a very, very unusual thing for the Queen to be there on her own."


Today's FAX to MoC -- Trump must not meet with Putin

Stripped of all the fancy formatting -- bold, different fonts, different sizes, red in places, centered in places:

He's signaling that he's going to anyway. So
If he does, he MUST have other Americans in the meeting as well.

President Trump was briefed by Mr. Rosenstein earlier this week on the 12 indictments filed against Russian military officers (GRU) today.
Not only did Trump not have a single word of condemnation for what Russia did or the hackers, as outlined in today’s indictments, or a word of congratulations for the amazing detailed work of the FBI, he insists on continuing to call the Mueller investigation a Witch Hunt. IT. IS. NOT. And the indictment itself is ample proof of that.

No Other Americans Allowed into Trump’s Putin Meeting
Trump, CNN reports, plans to meet with Putin one on one, with no advisers or staff.
“Without official note-takers or other witnesses,” CNN notes, “one-on-one meetings lack any official record, making it difficult afterward to determine whether agreements have been reached.”

Trump might cancel military exercises if Putin asks https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/12/politics/trump-nato-military-exercises/index.html
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump capped off his dramatic appearance at the annual NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, on Thursday by teasing another controversial possibility, saying he would not rule out ceasing NATO military exercises in the Baltic States if Russian leader Vladimir Putin requested it during their upcoming meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

Kay Bailey Hutchison: “Russia is trying to flip Turkey. They’re trying to flip many of our allies. They want to destabilize the strongest defense alliance in the history of the world.”
— U.S. ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison, in an interview on Fox News.
https://politicalwire.com/2018/07/08/quote-of-the-day-1974/ Isakson, Perdue, Woodall

Russian TV boasts about electing Trump ahead of summit with Putin
. . . The analyst went on to say Americans viewed the alleged hacking as “aggression against the country” and believed the Russian government “caused some trouble there.”
“What trouble did we cause?” he asked. “We just elected Trump, that’s all.”

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: Russia is Attempting to Influence US Midterms
Russia is attempting to influence the midterm elections in the United States in November as well as divide the transatlantic alliance, US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned at a meeting co-hosted by the Atlantic Council in Normandy, France, on June 8. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/director-of-national-intelligence-dan-coats-russia-is-attempting-to-influence-us-midterms-divide-transatlantic-alliance

When will you realize Trump is a Russian asset -– wittingly or un- -- and take appropriate steps to protect the United States from becoming
a Russian satellite?

NOT HELPFUL: Six Republican Senators Visit Moscow
on U.S. Independence Day
Richard Shelby-AL Jerry Moran-KS Steve Daines-MT
Ron Johnson-WI John Kennedy-LA John Thune-SD
John Hoeven-ND

Nice bleepin’ optics and symbolism ya got there, GOP! Given Trump’s clear allegiance to Putin and disregard for democratic institutions, the law and the Constitution, I found their trip actually painful -- a betrayal. Are you ALL beholden to Russia? As if that’s not bad enough, they can’t even get their stories straight and come back minimizing and dismissing Russia’s attack on the U.S. elections:

Also not helpful: GOP Senators Tell
Contradictory Stories About Moscow Trip
A top Republican senator shocked his colleagues when he suggested, after returning from a trip to Moscow with fellow GOP lawmakers, that U.S. sanctions targeting Russia were not working and the Kremlin’s election interference was really no big deal.

Seth Abramson on the Indictment -- REALLY interesting

(THREAD) BREAKING NEWS: This thread is a *live reading* of the new Mueller indictments against 12 Russians connected to Russian intelligence (the GRU) for hacking into the DNC, DCCC, and Clinton campaign. I hope you'll follow along and share with any others who may be interested.

1/ The indictment names 12 names, some of which we may have come across before in the Russian investigation. All will now be researched by major media and independent digital journalists to see if they intersect with the Steele dossier or anyone connected to the Trump campaign.

2/ Count 1 is Conspiracy to Commit An Offense Against the US and lists the defendants and mentions *unindicted co-conspirators*, which of course leaves open the possibility that some of these were American—and connected to the Trump campaign—though the indictment does not say so.

3/ It says some of the unindicted co-conspirators are "known" to the grand jury and some are "unknown," so that suggests there are others who could be indicted or will be indicted for this conspiracy and, again, we do not know their nationalities yet.

4/ Trump will falsely say these indictments have nothing to do with him. Per usual, he's wrong—it's that we don't *know* if the grand jury has found those connections yet. They may well have. But we know his phrase "rigged witch hunt" is henceforth GRU propaganda—and he knows it.

5/ The fact that GRU began planning to release intel it netted from "monitoring" Democratic computers/employees in April 2016—at the conclusion of which month Trump publicly offered a "good deal" to Russia on sanctions at the Mayflower Hotel—means the effort started long before.

6/ The indictments confirm "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0" were GRU front operations, meaning top Trump aide Roger Stone was in communication with Russian intelligence (and praised them) during the presidential campaign. One wonders if Stone is one of the unindicted co-conspirators.

7/ The indictments confirm "Organization 1"—which is clearly WikiLeaks—acted as an agent of GRU, which means that Donald Trump Jr. was in contact with Russian agents (besides those at Trump Tower) during the presidential election and (like Stone) praised/encouraged their efforts.

8/ The indictments imply *both* the named conspirators *and* the unindicted co-conspirators "made false statements about [the] identities" of DCLeaks/Guccifer. Many will miss that if Stone/Don Jr. are found to have known these entities were GRU, they *are* the co-conspirators.

9/ Many of us—but yes, me quite loudly—have been saying that Trump Jr., Trump Sr., Stone, and others could be found to have "aided and abetted" the Russian conspiracy by deliberately "making false statements about the identities" of the criminals in public after they knew better.

10/ POTUS is actually in this respect in *more* danger than others—as his private briefings confirmed for him the Russians were involved in cyberattacking America as *late* as August 2016. Yet he continued misidentifying the attackers after that—which I've said could be criminal.

11/ The indictments lay out a command-and-control structure by which different GRU generals were in control of different facets of the attack on America—i.e., the attack was laid out, in all respects, as a military operation, which makes sense as it was a modern-warfare invasion.

12/ This detailed description of the command-and-control structure—establishing a military-style operation—will be critical in the coming months, as we learn that Trump campaign staff or even Trump himself were aware of this effort before, during or after the main Russian attack.

13/ I *cannot* stress this enough: every time Trump uses the phrase "rigged witch hunt" going forward he is knowingly misidentifying the perpetrators of a military-style cyber-invasion of America by Putin's Russia—in order to knowingly aid and abet Russian crimes against America.

14/ Moreover, there is evidence from Rosenstein that Trump was informed of these indictments *before today* and *nevertheless* used the phrase "rigged witch hunt" in an official presidential declaration to tens of millions of Americans (as the WH confirms his Twitter feed to be).

15/ It is fine for us to keep debating if Trump coordinated with Russia—by aiding and abetting by any of various means before, during or after the Russian attack on America—while in-campaign, but from this day on, any more "witch hunt" talk is OPEN AND PUBLIC AIDING AND ABETTING.

16/ The indictments underscore this fact by noting that part of the Russians' criminal conspiracy was "making false statements" about the identities of perpetrators. Aiding and Abetting statutes don't require Trump to know crimes were committed—only a "high likelihood" they were.

17/ Trump had in August '16—and has now—a "high likelihood" knowledge of who those who attacked America were/are, yet he has *continued* to attempt to taint the U.S. jury pool in public statements to tens of millions of people in an attempt to ensure these men don't meet justice.

18/ The indictments list many of the fake names these Russian military officers used in their spear-fishing efforts. This is a good place to note (again) that this many Russian military officers could never engage in a coordinated campaign of this sort without Putin's knowledge.

19/ What this means is Trump is about to meet with the mastermind of Russia's attack on us and has called that meeting "easy"—already offering up *concessions* to that mastermind without asking anything in return. He's also made preparations to have much of their talk be secret.

20/ Trump is having this secret chat with the mastermind of the Russian conspiracy against the U.S.—which conspiracy is now confirmed in public filings by DOJ—at a time when either he or agents of his or both may well be the unindicted co-conspirators in the Mueller indictments.

21/ If, in the opinion of Mueller's grand jury, any acts Trump and/or his agents have previously taken have aided or abetted the Russian conspiracy, the secrecy of the meeting coming up in Helsinki may well mark it as an "act in furtherance" of the conspiracy Trump is a party to.

22/ But this is speculation—we don't know, but will eventually learn, what role the grand jury thinks Trump and/or his associates did/didn't play in helping the Kremlin cover up this conspiracy or receive unilateral financial benefits (like an end to sanctions) in payment for it.

23/ The indictment makes clear the *latest* the attack started was March '16—right as it was clear Trump would be the nominee, and as new Trump hire and direct/indirect Putin agent Manafort began hiring the men (Page and Papadopoulos) who'd act as intermediaries with the Kremlin.

24/ No investigator would find it random that Trump's pro-Putin Campaign Manager started hiring Trump-Russia intermediaries right as the Kremlin was launching the cyberattack whose fruits it'd try to give to the Trump campaign as part of talks with those very same intermediaries.

25/ One of the spearphishing emails was sent to Clinton's campaign just 4 days after—in what looks like a planned encounter—Kremlin agent Joseph Mifusd met Trump agent George Papadopoulos in Italy as part of a campaign trip Trump had (based on what we know) sent Papadopoulos on.

26/ The day the Russians stole 50,000 emails from Clinton's Campaign Chairman was the day Trump announced George Papadopoulos as a member of his national security team. 10 days later Papadopoulos would—face to face with Trump at the TIHDC—tell Trump he was a Kremlin intermediary.

27/ So by the time Papadopoulos told Trump—in person—that he'd been cleared to negotiate Trump-Russia meetings by a Kremlin agent (Mifsud), the Russians already had the emails that Mifsud would discuss with Papadopoulos just a few days later. All these events are aligned in time.

28/ But understand this, too: per the indictments, the Russians began the main thrust of their attack *within two weeks* of pro-Putin foreign agent Paul Manafort coming aboard the campaign of Donald Trump. Criminal investigators *do not believe* in time-coincidences of this sort.

29/ Timeline: Manafort hired; Papadopoulos hired; Russian attack starts; Russia gets Clinton dirt; Russia opens negotiations via Papadopoulos (Papadopoulos tells Trump this); Trump offers Russia a "good deal" on sanctions at the Mayflower (with Kislyak in the front row as a VIP).

30/ The indictment says the second major Russian attack on Clinton occurred less than a week after Papadopoulos told Trump he was acting as a Russian intermediary and—per accounts of those at the meeting—Trump was engaged and interested. It appears that after the second attack...
31/ ...Trump made Papadopoulos part of the editing team of his Mayflower speec
h, at which he said he'd be good to Russia if Russia was good to "us" and offered Russia a "good deal" on sanctions. He had Richard Burt—an anti-sanctions Russian-pipeline advocate—co-write the speech.

32/ What I'm saying is that the timeline laid out in the indictments strongly suggests at least some of the unindicted co-conspirators are American.

33/ Now here comes a bombshell.

34/ The Kremlin DIRECTLY RESPONDED to Trump's public call to try to get Clinton's "missing" emails WITHIN HOURS of him making the request—WITHIN HOURS. Either Trump was coordinating OR he KNEW he had sufficient pull with the Russians that his words could have this sort of effect.

35/ How would Trump know he had this pull with the Kremlin? Because by this time EIGHT OR MORE of his top aides had had DIRECT contact with the Russians, during which contacts it was made CLEAR how much Russia wanted to help Trump's campaign. He knew what he was doing on July 27.

36/ But here's what really matters here: Mueller is firing across Trump's bow. He knows, we know, the *world* knows what Trump did on July 27—so to use the phrase "after hours" and "for the first time" would *seem* to be Mueller beginning to draw a direct Trump-Russia connection.

37/ And Mueller *also* notes that a *second* new, massive attack on Clinton *directly* followed Trump asking Russia for help. This is astounding news—and the major media better pick up on it immediately, because you can be certain Trump's criminal defense team will. And Congress.

38/ (IMPORTANT) Rosenstein said Trump *knew before today* that this was coming. What are the chances Trump's *stooges in Congress* also knew this was coming—and that the way they conducted themselves with Strzok yesterday was an attempt to blunt the blow from today's indictments?

39/ I'm not going to run through every aspect of the Russian op—this "talking indictment" offers a large number of details, which indictments do not always—except to say that the *earliest* recorded attack appears to have been on the very *day* that Papadopoulos met Mifsud. Wow.

40/ I have been saying for a year now that the two key events in the 2016 Trump-Russia story are the March 31, 2016 "TIHDC meeting" of Trump's NatSec team and the Mayflower Hotel speech on April 27, 2016. It now appears the BULK of the Russian op happened between those two dates.

41/ Per the indictments the four major Russian pushes were these:

1. Right after Manafort's hire;
2. Between the TIHDC/Mayflower events;
3. Right around the June Trump Tower meeting;
4. Right after Trump publicly begs Russia for assistance.

The time-coincidences are astounding.
42/ *Please* remember what happened on March 31, 2016: Papadopoulos told Trump he was a Kremlin intermediary and Trump was *OK with it*. The 21 days after that contain the *bulk* of Russia's attack on the United States to assist Trump in winning the presidency. Not a coincidence.

43/ Many won't recognize April 19, 2016 as key beyond what we just learned—that's when the Kremlin created "DC Leaks." If I'm not mistaken, it's also the day that Paul Manafort took over the Trump campaign officially from Corey Lewandowski. These days are lining up in scary ways.

The original thread https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1017807929045635072

My Fax to my MoC tonight:

re this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210852613

I thought it was a good idea to send them something positive for a change. Tomorrow, back to something more pointed, either the new SCOTUS nominee or the Immigration atrocities, probably.

All centered, very bold, large text:

For Your YES vote today on the
Resolution affirming the U.S.’s
Article 5 Commitment to NATO.

Not only am I pleased that the Senate has affirmed that
this continues to be the United State’s position,
but I’m thrilled that the Senate took back some of its power and took a step toward fulfilling its Constitutional responsibility – in this case, standing up to President Trump’s overreaches and misdeeds and, let’s be honest, ignorance.

MORE, please.

ETA: I seem to always forget this -- join in the fun. Here are my favorite easy ways to contact MoC:

Call 24/7: 202-224-3121
Free Faxes (can incl up to 3 pages attached) to Senators: https://faxzero.com/fax_senate.php
Free Faxes (ditto) to Congress: https://faxzero.com/fax_congress.php
TEXT your faxes: Text RESIST to 50409
Write your MoC - DEMOCRACY.IO https://democracy.io/#/

AFL-CIO says: Tell your senators to REJECT KAVANAUGH

From my email:

Working people expect the Supreme Court to be the most fair and independent branch of government in America, yet recent decisions have protected the privileged and powerful at the expense of working people.

Decisions by the Court, often by the narrowest of margins, have a dramatic impact on our lives as we recently saw in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 and reinforce the importance of choosing who sits on the Court. We simply cannot have another Justice on the Court who sides with corporations over America’s working families.

Call 844-899-9913 today and tell your Senator to OPPOSE Kavanaugh.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a dangerous track record of protecting the privileges of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of working people. The AFL-CIO thoroughly reviewed the record of Judge Kavanaugh on cases of importance to working families and we oppose his nomination.

Judge Kavanaugh routinely rules against working families, regularly rejects employees’ right to receive employer-provided health care, too often sides with employers in denying employees relief from discrimination in the workplace and promotes overturning well-established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Call 844-899-9913 today and tell your Senator to OPPOSE Kavanaugh.
Any Supreme Court nominee must be fair, independent and committed to protecting the rights, freedoms and legal safeguards that protect every one of us. Judge Kavanaugh does not meet this standard.The Senate should reject this nomination and demand a nominee who will protect the rights of working people and uphold our constitutional values of liberty, equality and justice for all.

Our fight for better wages and benefits and a voice on the job won’t be slowed by any court or politician. The rich and powerful won’t dictate the American story. We will pave our own path, populate the halls of power with allies of working people and secure a brighter economic future.

Please used the attached flyer to get the words out to your members, friends and family.

INDIVISIBLE: The 2-Step Strategy to Win the Supreme Court Fight

This makes sense.


Are YOU a member??? It's a great organization, and there's at least 1 Indivisible group in every Congressional district. Let's get going.
Posted by RandomAccess | Sun Jul 8, 2018, 10:09 PM (5 replies)

My letter to my MoC tonight

Missing some of the formatting (like center) -- feel free to borrow if you find anything useful. And oh - civility be damned. This isn't a drill, it's the real thing.

AND, ETA: should've included this info from the get-go

Call 24/7: 202-224-3121
Free Faxes (can incl up to 3 pages attached) to Senators: https://faxzero.com/fax_senate.php
Free Faxes (ditto) to Congress: https://faxzero.com/fax_congress.php
TEXT your faxes: Text RESIST to 50409
Write your MoC - DEMOCRACY.IO https://democracy.io/#/

Human Rights violations and atrocities are STILL being committed against asylum-seeking families – and their children – at the border. Some of the people involved belong at the Hague.

There Was Never A Plan to Reunite Them
Records linking children to their parents have disappeared, and in some cases have been destroyed, according to two officials of the Department of Homeland Security, leaving the authorities struggling to identify connections between family members.
. . . In hundreds of cases, Customs agents deleted the initial records in which parents and children were listed together as a family with a “family identification number,” according to two officials at the Department of Homeland Security, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the process. As a result, the parents and children appeared in federal computers to have no connection to one another. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/us/migrant-children-chaos-family-separation.html

Someone recently said: “Trump does not have ‘policies.’ He has investment strategies.” And they often involve his buddies.

These kids were sent straight to “adoption centers,” and at a premium rate:
Bethany Christian Services, an adoption center with financial ties to [Education Secretary] Betsy DeVos, has taken 81 immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. Most have had no contact with their families. They’re charging $700 per child per night. This isn’t foster care, this is state-sponsored kidnapping.

The two largest private corrections corporations, GEO Group and CoreCivic, each gave $250,000 to Trump's inaugural festivities.

Where Are the Infants - And the Girls?
Those 2 questions have never been satisfactorily answered. WHY ARE THEY NOT TELLING US? What has happened to these innocent children?

WHY is the Republican caucus not demanding answers? Why are you allowing this total lack of transparency, to include having members of Congress refused entry to any of the facilities housing the children? Why the lies and obfuscations in general? It’s been totally outrageous.


If you are not PERSONALLY raising hell in
whatever committees you’re in
or to those in relevant committees
AND to the President,


We need answers and transparency, we need the President to stop these
brutally harmful and illegal practices, and we need the children re-united

What are you personally doing about it?
Posted by RandomAccess | Sun Jul 8, 2018, 08:38 PM (7 replies)

Have we ever had ANY answer on where are the babies, and the girls??

'Cause I missed it if we did.

If not, why have we stopped demanding those answers?

Trump isn't the cause of what's happened to America

Really powerful, accurate analysis and PRACTICAL advice from Robert Reich on how to prevent more Trumps in the future.

Posted by RandomAccess | Sat Jul 7, 2018, 09:41 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »