Page 66 of 67

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:43 pm
by paperburn1
Dude light up , that's just funny as F&ck.. no comment on the validity of the wall.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:34 am
by choff
I wonder if pieces of the Great Wall of China and Hadrian's Wall get stolen for souvenirs.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:25 am
by paperburn1
While the country has worked to preserve the UNESCO site for decades, protection measures have not been as successful as they would like. Nearly one third of the Ming dynasty-era (1368–1644) wall has disappeared, and officials blame environmental causes and human damage. China’s Great Wall Society has said local people who live near the wall regularly steal bricks from it to use in buildings or to sell. State-run media also reported that some villagers took bricks featuring historic engravings to sell to tourists for 30 yuan ($4.50) = Time mag

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:52 am
by hanelyp
williatw wrote:
paperburn1 wrote:Build a wall, steal a wall, who would have thunk it ... 45695/?t=2
:lol: :lol:

And...that's an argument for not building a wall? Or one for building a wall along with more border guards/troops to reinforce it and help keep it secure? If a bank gets robbed in spite of having security/safe/etc. no one would suggest getting rid of or reducing said security because it failed. Would be more of an argument for more such not less. On a related topic although probably premature at this point to say but any comments about the laying of the (likely) egg that Mueller's report is shaping up to be?
I figure the Wall would be well complemented by more immigration judges to process asylum applications so the applicants don't have to be routinely be released to disappear inside the US. Fixing the asylum rules would also help.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:45 pm
by paperburn1
a legal right to citizenship for all children born in a country's territory, regardless of parentage. Birthright citizenship should in my own opinion be for naturalized citizen and legal residents(green card , HB1 ect)
and not for dreamers, illegal immigrants.
A closer look at the list shows Countries that offer birthright citizenship are located almost exclusively in the Western Hemisphere. No country in Europe or East Asia, for example, has a similar citizenship policy.
full disclosure my wife is a legal immigrant and after spending many years going though the proper channels and hoops I find it annoying and wrong someone gets citizenship by NOT following the rules and dropping trouser and spitting out a citizen putting forth the ability to become one themselves even though they broke the law getting here ..

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:58 pm
by williatw
hanelyp wrote:I figure the Wall would be well complemented by more immigration judges to process asylum applications so the applicants don't have to be routinely be released to disappear inside the US. Fixing the asylum rules would also help.
Agreed. Any comments about the farcical implosion of the liberal media/democrats following the apparently bust of the "Russian collusion" allegations of the now defunct Mueller investigation? I hope the Dems do subpoena Mueller (and for good measure Rod Rosenstein and maybe Andrew Weissman). Or failing that Lindsey Graham does.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:18 am
by williatw
Ohio Could Become the Next State to Hand Its Electoral Votes Over to California and New York


Ohio could decide to hand its votes in presidential elections over to the Democratic Party if a proposed ballot measure passes in November. If approved, the proposed constitutional amendment would award Ohio's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. The language of the ballot measure would enshrine the following in the state's constitution.

"It is the expressed will of the People that every vote for President be valued equally and that the candidate who wins the most votes nationally becomes President. Therefore, the General Assembly shall within sixty days of the adoption of this amendment take all necessary legislative action so that the winner of the national popular vote is elected President."

In other words, Ohio would let states like California and New York essentially have veto power over the will of the state's voters in presidential elections — diluting the influence of rural and conservative voters in favor of the coastal elites in populous states that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Supporters, of course, would never frame it that way, but that is in essence what would happen if the national popular vote were used to decide how Ohio's electoral votes are allocated. It's a sneaky way to subvert the Electoral College without the messy work of amending the U.S. Constitution. ... -new-york/

As a native Ohioan I hope this nonsense doesn't pass and if it somehow does is thrown out by the courts. As far as I am concerned the electoral college is functioning the way it was intended to function; to act as a blunt to the influence of the more populous states like NY and Calif.; can't wait to have to listen to the distorting/fear-mongering adds they will put out to try to dupe us into voting for it in November. NY and especially Calif. have too much influence on national elections/issues as is, they don't need more IMHO. Off year elections are sometimes kind of funny; there tends to be low voter turn-out. Good and bad in that; young more likely to support radical change voters tend to sit out off-year elections, while older voters more resistant to change tend to vote disproportionately in them. So hopefully it won't pass.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:45 pm
by Ivy Matt
If we do ditch the electoral college, we should also change the name of the United States of America.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:00 am
by williatw
The Top 5 Investigations Obstructed by the Obama Administration

By Matt Margolis April 4, 2019

President Barack Obama announces he will nominate U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, right, to be the next Attorney General, Saturday, Nov. 8, 2014 (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
With Democrats and the media licking their wounds over the Mueller Report not finding Russian collusion, they’ve been refocusing their energy on claims of obstruction of justice, even accusing Trump Attorney General William Barr of "protecting" Trump. Which is both amusing and hypocritical considering how they tolerated obstruction of justice by the Obama administration and sometimes assisted in that obstruction.

If Robert Mueller couldn’t conclude that Trump obstructed his investigation, then it’s quite clear there wasn’t any. Having written extensively about Obama-era corruption, I felt it was necessary to remind everyone that not only was the Obama administration plagued by multiple scandals but that obstructing investigations was standard operating procedure. For Democrats, Trump calling the Mueller an investigation a witch hunt is an impeachable offense, but Obama refusing to cooperate with investigations was much ado about nothing.

Despite many abuses of power during the Obama years, not once did Attorney General Eric Holder or Attorney General Loretta Lynch ever appoint a special counsel to investigate them. Instead, they’d occasionally launch their own investigations, which always exonerated them, or, when the Republican-controlled House launched their own investigations, the Obama administration refused to cooperate and obstructed their investigations.

In August 2014, 47 of 73 inspectors general wrote an open letter to Congress informing them that the Obama administration of obstructing investigations by not giving them full access to the information they need to investigate properly. Such a letter was unprecedented, and the systemic corruption and obstruction the inspectors general would have been considered an impeachable defense for almost any other president. Emboldened by the lack of outrage (thanks to lack of media attention to the scandal) emboldened the Obama administration to impose new restrictions on the investigative powers of inspectors general. Imagine President Trump trying to get away with that today?

Obstruction of justice was integral to the entire operation of the Obama administration. Whenever a scandal erupted, the kneejerk reaction by Obama and his cronies was to cover-up and obstruct. Below are the top five examples of investigations obstructed by the Obama administration.

5. The investigation of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation

You may remember images and video from Election Day 2008, with members of the New Black Panther Party standing outside a Philadelphia polling place wearing military garb making racial remarks and discouraging people from voting. A voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers began weeks before Obama took office. It was an open-and-shut case, and the New Black Panthers didn’t even show up in court to defend themselves, assuring the government’s victory in the case. Then in May 2009, the case was inexplicably dropped by Attorney General Eric Holder. When the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigated, the Obama administration refused to respond to requests from the commission and Congress. Federal attorneys were instructed not to cooperate with the investigation and then-Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez (the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee) lied under oath about who was involved in the decision to drop the case.

4. The investigation of the illegal firing of Inspector General Walpin

In 2009, Barack Obama inexplicably fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who had been investigating the misuse of federal grant money for AmeriCorps by Sacramento mayor and former NBA basketball star Kevin Johnson. Johnson took $850,000 of that money for his own nonprofit organization, where he used it to pay for political activity. During his investigation, Walpin discovered a cover-up of sexual abuse allegations made by three underage students against Johnson who were offered some of this grant money as hush money. As a result, Walpin recommended criminal charges against Johnson. But Johnson was an Obama ally and donor, and Obama wasn’t about to have him held accountable for his crimes, so Obama demanded Walpin’s resignation, which Walpin refused to give, and so Walpin was fired. However, the firing violated federal law—a law that Obama co-sponsored as a U.S. senator, no less. An investigation by Congress into the illegal firing was met with stonewalling by the Obama White House, and the withholding of documents. The Obama White House also deliberately misled Congress about the reasons for the firing.

3. The investigation of Fast & Furious

What happens when you send two thousand firearms across the border, lose hundreds of them, and then a border agent is killed with one of those guns? You lie, stonewall, and obstruct the investigation. At least, that’s what the Obama administration did. Attorney General Eric Holder falsely claimed to have no knowledge of the operation, and Obama personally obstructed the investigation by claiming executive privilege over documents requested by Congress. The obstruction by the Obama administration was so egregious that Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, in a bipartisan vote, for refusing to cooperate with their investigation.

2. The investigation of the Iran ransom payments

A few short months after Obama had completed negotiations for the Iran Nuclear Deal, resulting in the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of billions in Iranian assets, the Obama administration made a shady payment to Iran in the amount of $400 million. The payment was made with foreign currency and done under the cover of night, and done in coordination with the release of four hostages, and completely in secret. Not even Congress knew about the payments or the hostage exchange. When the story broke, Obama repeatedly denied the payment was a ransom. An investigation began, and, of course, it was met with obstruction by the Obama administration. Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to answer questions from Congress about the payments. Details of the deal weren’t classified, but the Obama administration hid key documents at a secure site to make access difficult. If the payments were on the level, there would be no reason to obstruct an investigation.

1. The investigation of Benghazi and the Hillary Clinton email scandal

The lies and the cover-up that followed the terrorist attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, less than two months before the presidential election, were extraordinary. Misleading the American people to protect Obama before the election was bad enough, but the cover-up of those lies was truly the coup de grâce of Obama administration obstruction.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report on the attack said the following about the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi investigation:

Important questions remain unanswered as a direct result of the Obama administration’s failure to provide the Committee with access to necessary documents and witnesses. We have also learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has developed significant information about the attacks and the suspected attackers that is not being shared with Congress, even where doing so would not in any way impact an ongoing investigation.

Senate Democrats also assisted in that obstruction. According to then-Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy, the committee’s investigation was “repeatedly stonewalled by the Obama administration, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, and Committee Democrats.” According to Gowdy, Democrats on the committee “affirmatively delayed the identification of witnesses and the production of unquestionably relevant documents. Committee Democrats have not lifted a finger to help the Select Committee speed up its investigation and release a report.”

As the investigation continued, Hillary Clinton’s emails were subpoenaed, which resulted in the uncovering of her private email server. The thousands of requested emails were deleted, hard drives and phones destroyed, in what can only be described as obstruction of justice. Oh, but it gets worse because Obama wanted Hillary to succeed him to enshrine his legacy and his administration did everything they could to protect her. She wasn’t put under oath when she was questioned by the FBI, and an exoneration letter was drafted before the investigation had been concluded. There were essentially two cover-ups going on at the same time: the Benghazi cover-up and the private email server cover-up, which required epic obstruction and stonewalling in order for Hillary and Obama to survive. Former FBI director James Comey even testified under oath that he was pressured by Attorney General Loretta Lynch not to call the investigation into Hillary Clinton an “investigation,” but a “matter” in order to match the language being used by the Clinton campaign.

Obama himself was guilty of obstruction for publicly defending Hillary Clinton, according to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. “President Obama’s statement that he thought she shouldn’t be charged because she didn’t intend to violate the law is the real Clinton obstruction because that is a statement by him that ‘this is the way I want that investigation to come out.’” ... istration/

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:03 am
by williatw
No, Joe Scarborough, Spying On Trump Wasn’t Done ‘By The Book’

By Mollie Hemingway

Joe Scarborough would have you believe that these actions are completely typical and normal, that informants are placed against campaigns all the time. If that's true, who else are they doing it against?

While at least four spy secret surveillance warrants were approved, a congressional investigation by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence described the verification effort before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) not as “by the book” but so inadequate it resembled a concerted effort to conceal information from the court:
•A salacious and unverified dossier formed an essential part of the application to secure a warrant against a Trump campaign affiliate named Carter Page. This application failed to reveal that the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.
•The application presented a Yahoo News article as corroboration for the dossier, when in fact it was sourced to the dossier’s author Christopher Steele.
•The wife of a high-ranking Justice Department official also worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign effort, and her husband Bruce Ohr funneled her research into the Department of Justice. Although he admitted that Steele “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” this and the Ohrs’ relationship with the Clinton campaign was concealed from the secret court that grants surveillance warrants.
•The dossier was “only minimally corroborated” and unverified, according to FBI officials.
Presumably some of the spying on the Trump campaign was done “by the book,” but that doesn’t include using false information as pretext to spy on Americans, attempting to extort elected officials through bogus investigations, refusing to charge ideological allies who committed crimes, lying to Congress, refusing to respond to congressional document requests, using intelligence and law enforcement as “insurance policies” against political enemies, widespread unmasking of political opponents and dissemination of their information, using foreign spies to produce evidence not permissible in court, circular introduction of “evidence” to government agents that is reintroduced through media leaks, and various other actions taken by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. ... -the-book/

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 11:26 am
by williatw
"I could Smell The Trump support"
Senator Hawley called out the entire Russia Investigation saying it's due to outright hatred for Trump voters.

Lindsey Graham seems to be definitely growing a pair as well; I eagerly await the inspector general report on FISA warrant abuses sometime this month or the next.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Sat May 04, 2019 12:39 pm
by williatw
williatw wrote:I eagerly await the inspector general report on FISA warrant abuses sometime this month or the next.

AG Barr Expects Justice Department IG to Complete Its FISA Investigation Soon

Attorney General William Barr
Attorney General William Barr said on Tuesday he expects the Justice Department inspector general to complete his report on alleged FISA abuse "in probably May or June."

The DOJ OIG is examining whether the Justice Department and FBI complied with legal requirements, policies and procedures in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court relating to Carter Page, a Trump campaign volunteer.
"So hopefully we'll have some answers from Inspector-General Horowitz on the issue of FISA warrants. More generally, I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016." "The Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russia investigation," Barr said. "I expect that will be complete in probably May or June, I am told". ... ay-or-june

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 9:29 pm
by williatw
Smooth Sailing Ahead for Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks on May 14, 2019, in Hackberry, Louisiana.

The full proportions of the debacle that awaits the Democrats next fall is starting to penetrate their complacent disdain and revulsion toward President Trump. Rank-and-file Democrats are so ecstatic at the arrival of a known candidate whose views on principal policy issues cannot be invoked by Republicans to frighten children into eating their breakfast cereal that they have accorded Joe Biden a levitation in the polls. Biden is a shopworn, moth-eaten, malapropistic journeyman about whom, when asked to assess him as a potential president, former bipartisan defense secretary and CIA director Robert Gates took four seconds to emit: “I don’t know.”
Beneath the initial success of the Biden campaign, the Democrats are sharply divided between those who are still trying to place their bets on the presidential unsuitability of the incumbent, those who seek a radical démarche to the left and over the political cliff, and those trying to get back to essentially the old slightly-left-of-center coalition of Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. President Clinton, and even, with a stretch, Mrs. Clinton, were also in that tradition, but the ominous approaching clouds of investigative curiosity about the Clinton Foundation and the malodorous ethics of the 2016 Clinton campaign have caused the Clintons’ party to stampede from under them.
Even Barack Obama, who was cozily settling into a good 30 years as a respected ex-president, is already in the crosshairs of the investigation, conducted against the Clinton campaign, of illegal espionage on the Trump campaign through fraudulently obtained FISA warrants and planted agents and sting operations. The rabidly Trumpophobic texting between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveals that “the White House” was closely monitoring the investigation of the Trump campaign, which raises the question of the involvement of the former president in illegal surveillance. Obama’s name is still bandied about with respect by most of the Democratic candidates, especially Biden (“Barack and I . . .”), and he is still better esteemed by most Americans than the other ex-presidents. But apart from the admirable and necessary shattering of the bar of color, his entire legacy has been discredited: the mad obsession with unproved climate alarmism, the foolhardy Iranian nuclear treaty, and the Obamacare shambles.
Apart from working out where the party is and what it seeks, the Democrats are going to have to come to grips with three facts that, combined, should make this president insuperable in 2020.

The first is that he will have the comparative moral high ground once the investigation of the Clinton campaign gets going. The Democrats and their media choristers have grown hoarse and risible with their endless screeching and whining about the president’s character. He lost money in the 1980s, as everyone knew, though most of it was non-cash items of the type that accrues in property development (where depreciation, a non-cash loss, is heavy). The egregious Don Lemon’s opener on CNN (“The president of the United States is a fraud and a con-man”) didn’t fly. He’s still the wealthiest person in the history of the presidency, the only serious businessman to hold that office, and his comeback from his financial difficulties was a triumph: Napoleon at the Beresina, not the (rightly) forgotten bankruptcies of the elderly Thomas Jefferson or the young Harry Truman.

The second important fact to consider in the electoral equation is that this president is a fierce combatant. He is not in the Ford-Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain-Romney school of gentlemanly Republican presidential candidates who could win only with a cunning manager such as Lee Atwater (G. H. W. Bush in 1988) or Karl Rove (G. W. Bush). In a brilliant column in RealClearPolitics on Monday, Frank Miele recounted the extent to which Trump is employing the playbook of Saul Alinsky, supreme tactician of the Democratic Left, in attacking the Democrats. Mr. Miele credits Trump with the use of Alinsky’s Rules 3, 4, 8, 9, and 13: “Go outside the expertise of the enemy,” “Make the enemy live up to its own . . . rules,” “Keep the pressure on,” “The threat is more terrifying than” reality, and “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Miele cited as illustrative the threat to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, something that caused the New York Times’ Tom Friedman to agree that there was a crisis at the border and the liberal vocalist Cher to tweet asking that such people not be sent to Los Angeles. Miele cited Trump’s attacks on the media as maintaining the pressure, and as examples of picking the target, he mentioned his denigrations of “Low energy Jeb Bush,” “Crooked Hillary,” John McCain, CNN, NATO, illegal immigrants, Congress, Democrats, Michael Cohen, Robert Mueller, Robert Corker, James Comey, Kim Jong-Un (“Rocket Man”), and George “Mr. Kellyanne Conway.” He could also have mentioned Senator “Pocahontas” Warren.
The last fact that the Democrats have not begun to deal with in the effort to unseat the president is his extraordinary success. The economic performance is phenomenal, and the pathetic attempts of President Obama to claim credit for the economic recovery, like his fatuities about “the magic wand,” will be mocked with vicious hilarity. The success of this president in proclaiming a border emergency and doing something about it will be noted. So will Speaker Pelosi’s claims that Trump’s tax bill was a “disaster” of “doggy-do” and that immigration is “a fake crisis” and a border “wall is immoral.” The president is almost sure to win the tussle with North Korea because he has privately made it clear that if Kim resumes progress toward a deployable nuclear ICBM, the three-carrier U.S. task force offshore will eliminate all of North Korea’s nuclear facilities and decalibrate the artillery targeted on Seoul.
And in the trade dispute with China, where even the Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer sides with the president, the U.S. cannot lose. China’s tremendous economic progress is based on debt-financed infrastructure, dumping cheap goods abroad, especially in the United States, and requiring industrial-intelligence disclosure from sophisticated foreign companies that seek access to Chinese markets. Everyone agrees that China cheats and ignores World Trade Organization rulings, and practically every trading nation in the world applauds the U.S. president’s stance in this dispute. Eighty percent of the U.S. GDP is domestic commerce, and with a year to reorient itself, it could practically end all imports. China is a debt-ridden house of cards built on what is still a 40 percent command economy, rotten with official corruption in a country with few natural resources and 300 million people who still live as their ancestors did a thousand years ago.
Barring something completely unforeseeable, this president will have a stronger argument for reelection next year than any president since Richard Nixon in 1972 after his extraordinarily successful first term, if not Franklin D. Roosevelt’s double reelections in 1936 and 1944. ... id/916103/

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:43 am
by williatw
Want the truth? Put your money on Bill Barr, not Jerry Nadler
An anonymous, but wise, Wyoming rancher recently summarized special counsel Robert Mueller's report in clear middle-America language: "We know that old boy didn't actually steal any horses, but he's obviously guilty of trying to avoid being hanged for it."
Barr, through his chief investigator John Durham, will want to zoom in on the following questions pertinent to the early stages of government activities against the Trump campaign:

•Were members of the Trump campaign, as U.S. citizens, improperly targeted by confidential human sources of either the FBI or CIA prior to an official investigation initiation? Which agency "owned" these sources, or were they jointly operated? Early indicators of potential misuse are troubling.

•Did the interaction of these sources with Trump campaign members actually help create the predication that Comey's team relied on to justify the initiation of its counterintelligence investigation? In other words, did the government enable its own investigation?
•Was the Comey investigation conducted in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines that protect against law enforcement overreach into the lives of U.S. citizens? Remember, this was not an FBI investigation; it was an isolated, compartmented investigation by Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former agent Peter Strzok - individuals not perceived as steeped in the dense requirements of the intelligence sections of the guidelines. The possibility of error and sloppy disregard is high. Durham should demand all volumes of the FBI case file, unredacted. He should require all communications among the Comey team and those they had with the CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and White House.
•Was the use of a government employee acting in an undercover role against a Trump campaign member (George Papadopoulos) within policy and properly approved? For which agency did this employee work? This is an intensively sensitive investigative technique that usually requires several layers of review and approval because of entrapment concerns.

The answers to these and other questions will go a long way toward determining the truth of the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. That is why we are seeing the principals involved - Comey, McCabe, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper - clamoring ahead of time to set a diverting narrative focused on the "badness" of the president. Their nervousness is easy to spot. ... ssion=true

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:44 am
by williatw
Trump vows mass immigration arrests, removals of ‘millions of illegal aliens’ starting next week

ImageIn this file photo from 2015, a man is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles. New raids could target a large number of immigrants in major cities
President Trump said in a tweet Monday night that U.S. immigration agents are planning to make mass arrests starting “next week,” an apparent reference to a plan in preparation for months that aims to round up thousands of migrant parents and children in a blitz operation across major U.S. cities.

“Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States,” Trump wrote, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “They will be removed as fast as they come in.” ... 8c2b1a281d

Sounds like someone wants to get reelected; nice way to launch your 2020 re-election campaign. Eliciting a predictable response from the Dems (Pelosi):
“The president’s new threat of a mass deportation dragnet is an act of utter malice and bigotry, designed solely to inject fear in our communities,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. ... t-1690069/