Kamala, Nancy, Chuck Hiding Behind the Flores Dissent Decree?

(CNSNews.com) – Happy to have found an issue that may hurt President Donald Trump politically, Democrats insist there is no need for legislation to fix the badly broken immigration system that allows tens of thousands of people, adults and children alike, to pour into this country illegally, without vetting.

“There’s no need for legislation, there’s no need for anything else,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told a news conference on Tuesday. “You can do it, Mr. President. You started it, you can stop it, plain and simple. So, again, if the president’s ashamed at what’s happening at the border, he can change it.”

Schumer said Trump can “undo this shameful policy immediately…with a flick of the pen.”

“Mr. President, I’ll lend you my pen, any pen,” Schumer said. “You can fix it yourself, so we’re here today to say, Mr. President, you should and you must fix this problem. But if you don’t want to change this cruel policy, at least admit it is your decision.”

A reporter asked Schumer, “Why not just enact a law that stops them from ever from doing this again?”

“Well there are so many obstacles to legislation, and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer said. “(House Speaker Paul) Ryan, the president signing it, attaching it to things that are unacceptable. Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it. It’s an excuse.”

Another reporter asked Schumer if the time might come when “Democrats would be willing to work with the Republicans” on a “narrow” immigration bill:

“Let’s hope we never get to that,” Schumer responded. “Let’s hope the president does the right thing and solves the problem, which he can do. That’s the simple, easiest and most likely way this will happen. How many times has immigration legislation passed in this Congress? How many times? Zero. More here.

Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban ...

*** Now for the Flores Dissent Decree and that pesky 9th Circuit Court.

TWS: During an interview on Friday, Trump stated that a law passed by Democrats was the reason illegal immigrants were being separated from the children they brought across the border.

“The Democrats forced that law upon our nation. I hate it. I hate to see separation of parents and children,” the president told reporters.

This came after Trump told Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in May, “I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough, but those are the bad laws that the Democrats gave us. We have to break up families.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also weighed in on the predicament, citing a need to repeal “the Flores 1997 court decision” in order to stop the separation of families at the border.

What’s the truth?

In April, the Trump administration issued a “zero tolerance” policy at the border, a policy responsible for separating some 2,000 children from the adults they crossed over with. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in May that “if you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law.”

But current law does not mandate family separation at the border — there is simply no federal statute that requires such activity, which is made obvious by the lack of enforcement of this policy prior to April. The Trump administration’s policy was not dictated to it by Congress, past or present, by Republicans or by Democrats. However, current law does not prevent these adults from being separated from the children they brought, either.

Much of the argument comes down to the 1997 Flores settlement to a class-action lawsuit from the 1980s surrounding the “detention and release” of minors taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The settlement demands the release of children to their parents, relatives, etc. without unnecessary delay. If this placement is unavailable — e.g., if the child’s parent is a threat to them or is placed in criminal proceedings, or the supposed parent is only posing as one — the government must put the child in the “least restrictive” accommodations that are appropriate for their needs.

Before the “zero tolerance” policy, illegal immigrants who had crossed the border with children were not often prosecuted but placed in family detention centers (or released) with the order to attend a future court date or await deportation. Now that the adults are being prosecuted and held for their criminal proceedings, the children are subsequently separated and detained in appropriate accommodations outlined by the Flores settlement.

As noted by a fact-check from the New York Times, the Obama administration, during a sharp increase in family migration from South America, utilized family detention centers, which attracted lawsuits claiming “that doing so had breached the Flores settlement by not releasing children swiftly.”

Rich Lowry argues in National Review that if the Flores settlement were reversed there would be no direct need to separate families. “Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply,” he notes, “and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border.” Current law does not demand that parents be separated from their children but makes prosecuting these adults nigh impossible without separation.

As long as the “zero tolerance” policy set forth from the Trump administration is in operation under current law, adults will be separated from the children they bring while crossing the border, either illegally or to seek asylum. It is incorrect to place the blame on a law passed by Democrats, as it is the “zero tolerance” policy from the current administration that began, through prosecution, separating children and adults who illegally crossed the border together.

Former FBI McCabe Sues Government

In September of 2017, a lawsuit was filed to obtain records under FOIA in a request to obtain documents regarding Andrew McCabe’s conflicts of interests.

Then in February of 2018, the Office of Inspector General issued a 39 page report complete with allegations relating to the former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The investigation included evidence of McCabe’s lying and failure to adhere to policies and practices regarding media contacts.

Since that time, McCabe went to crowd-funding to pay for his legal fees as he pursues legal protection as well as a lawsuit against the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Five things to watch: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe ... photo

He has officially sued both. The complaint is found here.

A lawyer for fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is suing the FBI, the Justice Department and its inspector general for refusing to turn over documents related to McCabe’s termination.

McCabe, who worked at the FBI in various roles for more than 20 years, was dismissed only hours before his planned retirement in March, for what the Justice Department called a “lack of candor.”

The firing stripped McCabe and his family of their health care benefits and delayed his ability to collect a federal pension, which he otherwise would have been able to draw on his 50th birthday.

McCabe’s lawyer, David Snyder, maintains in a new lawsuit that the dismissal violated federal law and departed from rules and policies. But he said authorities have refused to turn over materials related to McCabe’s disciplinary process.

“Those requests have been denied by some of the same high-ranking officials who were involved in, or responsible for, the investigation, adjudication, and/or dismissal of Mr. McCabe,” the legal complaint said.

McCabe’s legal team at the Boies Schiller firm has sued to demand the information under the Freedom of Information Act. They’re arguing the documents could help them build a larger case against the Justice Department for wrongful termination and due process violations.

“We don’t create secret law in this country,” Snyder told NPR in an interview.

McCabe has been the subject of political attacks by President Trump and Republican supporters since the 2016 presidential campaign. McCabe’s wife, Jill, ran for the state legislature in Virginia as a Democrat and accepted campaign contributions via then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton loyalist.

Jill McCabe lost her election and the FBI and Justice Department said she and Andrew observed the relevant ethics requirements, but Trump and allies called it an obvious conflict of interest.

Shortly after McCabe’s ouster at the FBI, Trump wrote on Twitter that it was a “great day for democracy.”

Word comes of McCabe’s legal case as the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, prepares to release a massive 500-odd page report on the FBI and Justice Department’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation during the heart of the 2016 election.

McCabe, Comey, and former DoJ leaders including then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been under scrutiny in connection with that report, which is expected to become public on Thursday.

Meanwhile, McCabe’s conduct is also under review for possible criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., which has already interviewed McCabe’s onetime boss, former FBI chief James Comey.

The IG concluded that McCabe misled investigators.

McCabe has denied any intentional wrongdoing. Instead, he said, any lapses in his memory or mistakes in his interviews with the IG and others were mistakes derived from the chaos inside the FBI under siege from President Trump and his allies.

Next Mission is Citizenship Cheaters, Finally

The USCIS is authorized to cancel any Certificate of Citizenship or Naturalization in cases where evidence provided to government documents is proven false.

Just 5 days ago: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) assisted in an investigation that led to U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington sentencing Enite Alindor, also known as Odette Dureland, to five months in federal prison. The 55-year-old woman was sentenced for making false statements in a matter relating to naturalization and citizenship and for procuring naturalization as a U.S. citizen. As part of her sentence, the court also entered an order de-naturalizing her, thus revoking her July 2012 naturalization as a U.S. citizen. A federal jury had found her guilty on March 1, 2018.

According to court documents, Alindor, a citizen of Haiti, applied for asylum with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Miami in 1997. After the INS denied that application, the United States Immigration Court ordered her to be removed from the United States. Shortly thereafter, Alindor presented herself to the INS as Odettte Dureland and filed for asylum protection under that new identity. She concealed the fact that she had previously applied for status in the United States as Enite Alindor, and she concealed the fact that she was under a final order for removal from the United States. USCIS personnel, unaware of the Alindor identity and order of removal, approved Dureland for citizenship in July 2012, and she was naturalized as a U.S. citizen under that name in July 2012.

When Prosecutors Cheat Justice to Protect Aliens ... photo

How about this one from January?

Iyman Faris is set to be released from prison in 2020 after serving 17 years behind bars for terrorism-related charges stemming from a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. By the time he gets out, American authorities hope, he will no longer be able to call the U.S. his home.

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit to try to strip the Pakistan-born Faris of his citizenship, which he obtained in 1999, saying it’s an affront to allow him to continue to be an American citizen.

It’s just the type of case authorities say they expect to pursue more frequently under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“The attorney general and the administration are focused on enforcing all immigration laws, especially when it comes to this pinnacle level of citizenship,” said one Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

AG Sessions is holding true to his mission on immigration.

(AP) — The U.S. government agency that oversees immigration applications is launching an office that will focus on identifying Americans who are suspected of cheating to get their citizenship and seek to strip them of it.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director L. Francis Cissna told The Associated Press in an interview that his agency is hiring several dozen lawyers and immigration officers to review cases of immigrants who were ordered deported and are suspected of using fake identities to later get green cards and citizenship through naturalization.

Cissna said the cases would be referred to the Department of Justice, whose attorneys could then seek to remove the immigrants’ citizenship in civil court proceedings. In some cases, government attorneys could bring criminal charges related to fraud.

Until now, the agency has pursued cases as they arose but not through a coordinated effort, Cissna said. He said he hopes the agency’s new office in Los Angeles will be running by next year but added that investigating and referring cases for prosecution will likely take longer.

“We finally have a process in place to get to the bottom of all these bad cases and start denaturalizing people who should not have been naturalized in the first place,” Cissna said. “What we’re looking at, when you boil it all down, is potentially a few thousand cases.”

He declined to say how much the effort would cost but said it would be covered by the agency’s existing budget, which is funded by immigration application fees.

The push comes as the Trump administration has been cracking down on illegal immigration and taking steps to reduce legal immigration to the U.S.

Immigrants who become U.S. citizens can vote, serve on juries and obtain security clearance. Denaturalization — the process of removing that citizenship — is very rare.

The U.S. government began looking at potentially fraudulent naturalization cases a decade ago when a border officer detected about 200 people had used different identities to get green cards and citizenship after they were previously issued deportation orders.

In September 2016, an internal watchdog reported that 315,000 old fingerprint records for immigrants who had been deported or had criminal convictions had not been uploaded to a Department of Homeland Security database that is used to check immigrants’ identities. The same report found more than 800 immigrants had been ordered deported under one identity but became U.S. citizens under another.

Since then, the government has been uploading these older fingerprint records dating back to the 1990s and investigators have been evaluating cases for denaturalization.

Earlier this year, a judge revoked the citizenship of an Indian-born New Jersey man named Baljinder Singh after federal authorities accused him of using an alias to avoid deportation.

Authorities said Singh used a different name when he arrived in the United States in 1991. He was ordered deported the next year and a month later applied for asylum using the name Baljinder Singh before marrying an American, getting a green card and naturalizing.

Authorities said Singh did not mention his earlier deportation order when he applied for citizenship.

For many years, most U.S. efforts to strip immigrants of their citizenship focused largely on suspected war criminals who lied on their immigration paperwork, most notably former Nazis.

Toward the end of the Obama administration, officials began reviewing cases stemming from the fingerprints probe but prioritized those of naturalized citizens who had obtained security clearances, for example, to work at the Transportation Security Administration, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University law school.

The Trump administration has made these investigations a bigger priority, he said. He said he expects cases will focus on deliberate fraud but some naturalized Americans may feel uneasy with the change.

“It is clearly true that we have entered a new chapter when a much larger number of people could feel vulnerable that their naturalization could be reopened,” Chishti said.

Since 1990, the Department of Justice has filed 305 civil denaturalization cases, according to statistics obtained by an immigration attorney in Kansas who has defended immigrants in these cases.

The attorney, Matthew Hoppock, agrees that deportees who lied to get citizenship should face consequences but worries other immigrants who might have made mistakes on their paperwork could get targeted and might not have the money to fight back in court.

Cissna said there are valid reasons why immigrants might be listed under multiple names, noting many Latin American immigrants have more than one surname. He said the U.S. government is not interested in that kind of minor discrepancy but wants to target people who deliberately changed their identities to dupe officials into granting immigration benefits.

“The people who are going to be targeted by this — they know full well who they are because they were ordered removed under a different identity and they intentionally lied about it when they applied for citizenship later on,” Cissna said. “It may be some time before we get to their case, but we’ll get to them.”

Indictment of Leaker to Media, Wolfe and Watkins Romance

So, many in media were quite upset with the breaking news that the cell phones and messages were seized by the Department of Justice of a journalist. Well, hold on Hannity. There were good reasons, this time.

The New York Times has/had this reporter, Ali Watkins that decided to have a long romantic relationship with James A. Wolfe, a former Senate Intelligence Committee Director of Security. Seems Mr. Wolfe provided Ali Watkins with classified material and information that she exploited and published articles on the same.

Mr. Wolfe was formally indicted on May 2, 2018 and more counts may be added. What is also remarkable is Ali Watkins phones and communications were seized in February of 2018, so much for the New York Times being honest, candid and transparent, right?

The indictment refers to at least 4 reporters. After much cultivating of related stories, those reporters are possibly known as: Reporter #1 Manu Raju at CNN Reporter #1 Ali Watkins at NYT Reporter #3 Marianna Sotomayor NBC Reporter #4 Brian Ross ABC.

Now, this all goes back to Carter Page by the way. And while so many are turning on Trey Gowdy for his position on the FBI inserting moles, informants or spies, let’s go to context shall we?

In 2013, a group of Russian operatives, read spies, were inserted into New York, downtown Manhattan, operating under cover. All of them were part of SVR, known as Russian foreign intelligence. All the while, the FBI was listening to their calls and had bugged the New York office of the SVR. How about those names? Viktor Pododnyy, he worked to recruit Carter Page with some success. Igor Sporyshev, worked covertly as a trade representative and then we have Evgeny Buryakov. He worked under cover at the VEB bank on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan.

The operation included passing off documents at a particular location near a 1960 abstract sculpture at the street level in the foyer. Sporyshev had the job of recruiting Americans willing to become intelligence sources for Russia. One such person was Carter Page. Carter Page is listed in court documents as Male #1. Page has admitted meeting with Russian operatives in 2013. To date, it is unclear if Page did provide any classified material or assistance to any number of Russian operatives as he has not been charged with any counts.

Of note, Evgeny Buryakov was charged and plead guilty in 2016, in Manhattan court with conspiracy and was deported in 2017. In 2015, was charged along with Sporyshev with aiding and abetting Buryakov and also later deported. The United States by the way traded these men and a few others for 4 Russian prisoners.

Russia had dispatched 10 agents to the United States in 2010. That TV show, The Americans was inspired by this whole case.

Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Senator stated the committee has fully cooperated with the FBI/DoJ investigation and it is undetermined yet just how much if any classified material was compromised. Wolfe, the Director of Security for the committee, retired apparently this past March after 29 years in that role.

Back to Ali Watkins, she was so elated with her information at the time she reported for BuzzFeed, she appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show on her story in April 2017.

While all this was going on last December with James Wolfe, lil miss Watkins knew something was up.

Maybe we should ask Senator Feinstein what she was talking about here with Ali:

And the beat goes on eh?

More Slime from The SWAMP

Mitch McConnell cancels Senate’s traditional August recess

In a brief written statement, he said: “Senators should expect to remain in session in August to pass legislation, including appropriations bills, and to make additional progress on the president’s nominees.” More here.

At least that is something right?

All of us are mad, no furious with members of Congress. Imagine when some of those members are more angry than YOU at the system?

Leadership works with lobbyists and then leaks to the media. And then you think you have the whole story. Ah, not at all.

Just a teaser for Episode 3 is below.

The Swamp from Daniel Lippman on Vimeo.

In 2017, Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado wrote a book titled Drain The Swamp. 

It is a great primer and a book that can be read in a day. What does go on behind closed doors in Congress? Yep, you will learn it fast. What about those committee assignments and chairmanships? Yep, they are bought. Have you considered discretionary spending? It is illegal. A large handful of congressional members are in fact on our side. Some are so disgusted they are leaving Congress.

Run out and buy the book: Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You ThinkCongressman Buck is hardly a rebel but there are those colleagues that say he is. BARTELS: Secretary Wayne Williams’ Denver Broncos shirt ... Yes due to the weapon on the wall for which he was investigated a few years ago.

Remember that shooting at the ballfield? Well, as an aside, prior to that these congressional members packed heat. Likely more are doing the same now.

Here are the members of the House Freedom Caucus who say they currently carry, or did as of 2013 (all are Republicans):

  • Alabama Rep. Gary Palmer
  • Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks
  • Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar
  • Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon
  • Arizona Rep. David Schweikert
  • Arizona Rep. Trent Franks
  • Colorado Rep. Ken Buck
  • Florida Rep. Ted Yoho
  • Florida Rep. Bill Posey
  • Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman
  • Louisiana Rep. John Fleming
  • Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan
  • South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan
  • South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney
  • Tennessee Rep. Scott Desjarlais
  • Texas Rep. Randy Weber
  • Virginia Rep. Dave Brat

Brooks said the Second Amendment is the “bedrock” of all other amendments, and the pro gun-control argument that the Second Amendment only applies to a militia-owning firearms is preposterous.

“The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizenry could protect itself from a dictatorial and out-of-control government,” Brooks told TheDCNF.

“It has long been a primary goal of kings, dictators, communists, fascists and the like to disarm the citizenry so that there is minimal risk of opposition to centralized government, dictating to the citizenry that is unarmed and defenseless, and unable to assert their rights,” he said. (some of them have already left congress)

***