Wednesday, April 17, 2019
AG craft to exonerate Trump. I am not happy.
In the 4 page personal assessment by Barr (click here) he opens the letter with "...a confidential report....." Why is it only confidential? I would expect it to be classified. I think Barr chooses his words for specific reasons. The word confidential feeds into the later statement that there are personal reportings about Trump that is not interesting, but, simply "personal." Personal issues are not classified, they are confidential.
Barr both in his four page letter and his testimony structures his language to dummy down the fact there are real concerns. He deliberately distracts from the brevity of the Special Council report. His testimony to Congress uses the same strategy. Yes, strategy. I think Barr uses a strategy on behalf of Trump.
He also states the letter is not a legislated requirement, but, his own decision to provide reassurance to the public. "I believe it is in the public interest to describe the report and summarize..." He clearly is preparing a political document. His own authorship of a letter is never required by law.
This Special Council investigation was less than 2 years in existence, but, if reported accurately by Barr (which is always questionable) produced 2800 subpoenas. Nice round number, but, incredible to realize the depth of the investigation and the vitality of the Mueller team to unearth information that would result in that number of legal documents to support the investigation.
The number 2800 is obviously not an exact number and reflects the estimation that Barr used to conduct his four page letter. However, in breaking down the number, kindly realize that is 127 subpoenas a month and approximately 6 per day with a 20 day work month.
The volume of this work was considerable and included requests to 13 foreign countries. Indeed this is not a confidential report, it is a classified report. Once again Robert Mueller rises above the fray to exemplary work and a magnificent example of excellence to inspire any FBI agent.
The Mueller Special Council will provide a model to the intelligence community whom continue to fight off foreign influence in our elections. That in and of itself is also noteworthy. The elections of 2016 and the Russian invasion into that election; which has been verified by this report; is well over three years ago at the start. Yet, there is little to no legislation that inhibits such broad-reaching attacks. The use of social media is extensive in this invasion and yet today we are still asking the Tech Sector to "pretty please" do something.
Realizing the US Congress has yet to pass effective legislation to monitor, prevent and capture foreign invasion into our elections with cyber attacks and information manipulations as well as any actions of foreign agents is alarming and every American should be concerned.
I believe Barr flat out lies on the second page of the four page letter. In the second paragraph he states, "...The Special Council investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in efforts to influence the 2016 campaign for U.S. presidential election...."
In the picture of Flynn and Putin, what the heck is the general doing with his ear? An earbud for an interpreter? If there was an interpreter, who knows what Flynn actually heard and agreed to. The interpreter would not be a US certified interpreter.
At any rate, there is just no denying Retired General Flynn was one of the most surprising members of the Trump campaign and administration, so willing to be a part of talks with Russia. It only reaffirms Trump's demands to establish a relationship with Russia through Putin. There is no way Barr can state there was no relationship between the campaign and Russia. Even public information dictates otherwise.
...Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn: (click here) Flynn was a campaign adviser to Trump and then briefly his national security adviser. In November 2017 Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his discussions with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Flynn and Kislyak had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia for election meddling.
On the same day Flynn was sworn in, news reports said he was under investigation by agencies looking into Russian officials’ contact with close Trump associates. Flynn denied to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Sally Yates, then-acting attorney general, told White House counsel Don McGahn that intercepts contradicted Flynn’s account of his Dec. 29, 2016, conversation with Kislyak.
Flynn resigned after 24 days in his role. He later entered a plea agreement with Mueller. A federal judge in December 2018 delayed Flynn’s sentencing....
There is another thing about Flynn that I can't resolve for myself. Regardless of his state of employ by Trump, did he have anything to do with the highly classified material presented to Russia in the Oval Office?
If not, who did? Trump is not that smart. That information, a matter of national security, is not protected by Executive Privilege in dealing with an enemy of the USA.
Barr is lying. There is no denying it. He does not deserve the trust of the American people. Russia, Trump and the Republicans probably love Barr, but, there is no reason to trust him.
But, to continue.
The following statement that is supposed to be a quote, "(T)he (what is the deal with the parenthesis? If this is a direct quote it obviously was removed from a greater text that didn't carry the word "The"). Cut and paste, I guess.
"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
I am going to state that again.
"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
To begin there was definitely election interference activities established as conducted by Russa. That statement is definitive in it's conclusion there was election interference by Russia. The word "establish" also raises a red flag. There is nothing definitive by law that was established as indictable. But, the word establish leaves open the idea that the Special Council could not dismiss involvement. In other words, Mueller was not guaranteed a conviction so he did not charge anyone with a crime. That is all that says.
We know the campaign staff was involved with the Russians and met with them. That involvement was not cyber related.
Part of what Robert Mueller was faced with was protecting the institution of THE VOTE and whether a campaign conclusively interfered with THE VOTE. While the Russians definitely interfered with THE VOTE through cyber attacks and information manipulation, the Trump campaign did not have a role in that aspect of the election interference.
Barr does later on page 2 explain there were two aspects to the Russian investigation conducted by the Special Council. When Barr makes the above statement he does not specify his understanding is that BOTH aspects were out of the question by the Special Council investigation.
The meeting is probably a little murkier and Paul Manafort decided not to answer questions truthfully. He probably is scared silly of Russia.
The IRA (Internet Research Agency) is a Russian based operation to effect elections and in this case USA elections. Of course, the Trump campaign did not work with the IRA. There was an "ask" by Trump via television to find emails that are supposed to have been on Hillary Clinton's home server. That "ask" immediately triggered the IRA to look for emails, the most obvious stop was the DCCC and the Clinton Campaign. Whether Trump knew there was an IRA and whether Putin would activate it at his asking was not determined, according to Barr. By most public media the only internet connection was one that existed between the Trump Company and a Russian bank while there were USA sanctions.
The Barr Letter states, "...the Russian government's effort to conduct computer hacking operations...." Barr completely steers away from any personal contact between the Trump campaign, Trump and meetings and or contact facilitated by people like Flynn or Manafort as a back channel. In other words, second hand information provided by others (including family) that had direct contact with a Russian and/or a Russian agent.
If all Barr addresses are computer affiliated activity, then he is definitely covering up the truth about the Trump Campaign. We know for a fact there were members of his family and his campaign that had direct contact with the Russians. YET, Barr limits his review to computer activity by the Russians in his report to Congress and then Congress' distribution to the public. Barr is completely eliminated, at least up to page 2, the FACT there was contact with the Russians by the Trump affiliates and quite possibly Trump himself.
Barr is still not providing any reason to trust his idea of a summary. It is grossly errored.
The Special Council found direct contact between the Clinton Campaign, the DCCC and Wikileaks facilitated by the IRA. Barr states that Russians have charges against them, but, while stating the Russians had provided information to Wikileaks, he does not state Wikileaks is implicated in any charges. Either both are involved, which the Special Council states, and both are implicated in charges or Barr is omitting information directly linked to Trump's friends.
I believe Trump's friend is Roger Stone. Granted the trial is ongoing, but, he was indicted by the Special Council. Roger Stone's involvement is a direct link to Trump and I don't believe for one minute Stone never bragged to Trump about his success with the Russians and Wikileaks.
One thing I realize is that these relationships with Trump are not a sterile issue. He does not live in a bubble, even in the White House OR MARALOGO. He moves freely among these people and speaks in code to them.
Page 3
Obstruction of Justice
"...addresses...most of which have been the subject of public reporting..."
Oh, then there was no need for the Speical Council. Journalists were profoundly worried about the country. That may hold up as an argument considering the Pulitzer's presented to some really great journalism. That statement about the subject of public reporting completely contradicts Trump's "Fake News" nonsense.
What happened to the 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents and an innumerate number of staff with varying degrees of background and expertise? Nothing was noted, investigated or written by these folks? Obstruction is completely left up to cameras, journalists and pictures? I sincerely doubt that.
Barr makes the Special Council sound torn about whether there was or wasn't a crime. Really? The department standards Barr so lovingly clings to is that there is no indictments of a sitting president. Barr uses his skills in creative writing to apply that department standard as a tool to evaluate the decision making of the Special Council. Here again, Barr is the author and not the Special Council which might explain the Special Council members objecting to this four page letter as a misrepresentation of their work. That is all obvious. Barr is pandering to anticipation by the public for the answers of a 22 month investigation regarding the security of the elections of the USA and all Barr offers is indecision. Doesn't that fit into the election dialogue of the Republican Supreme Leader?
THE ONLY REASON any indictment of Trump is left to the AG is that the DOJ does not indict a sitting president. It has nothing to do with indecision or lack of evidence. The FACTS are suppose to go to the Congress who then decides if impeachment is a vital answer to the issue. AND, the idea that Trump is exonerated is nonsense. The DOJ CAN indict a sitting president BUT cannot ACT ON THAT INDICTMENT while the president is still in office. So, the entire idea of indecision is horse hockey. The Grand Jury can indict a sitting president, but, it cannot be acted on until out of office WHICH IS WHY the Congress receives unredacted facts with supporting evidence to determine if any criminal activity rises to impeachment.
In making this determination (Barr conflates the two ideas of conspiracy and obstruction into one statement.) we noted that the Special Council recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in any underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction.
Where does one begin with an AG that is engaged in creative writing and intended confusion. No one expects Russia and Trump or any of Trump's cohorts would have supervised the cyber election interference. Trump or his cohorts have proven to be not very smart, but, willing to breach the limits of law. We know that the Trump Company engaged in breaches of law in communicating with Russia and its banks during sanctions. We know the Trump Company was engaged in courting Russia regarding a Trump Tower in Moscow. We know the Trump Charities were disbanded because of violations of the public trust. For Barr to try to get away with exonerating Trump, he would have to confuse and blur issues and simply construct a letter that would provide Trump and the RNC with plenty of reasons to raise money.
Never once does he state THE FACTS surrounding the confusion about obstruction and specifically why such facts were simply dismissed. Never once does he treat Congress with brevity and in confidence supplying real reasons for his letter. He simply writes about peripheral confusion. This was a letter to Congress. He treats them as if they don't understand legal terms, concepts, ethics or decision making. He sure as heck never trusts Congress with any facts.
I don't see Barr as a competent practitioner of the law, so much as a partisan hack that did nothing but exert control. Page 4 of the letter is nothing but stating sections of law that exerts control. Never does he provide Congress with reasons to believe the review is even reflective of the actual Special Council report. Barr is not a competent practitioner of the law and certainly not a partner to Congress to even offer a review.
Sorry, I have been busy and this is the first time I had some time to review the letter. I did want to do this before the Thursday deadline. I think the Congress and subsequently, the public are being HANDLED to benefit a political outcome and not entrusted with the best sovereign state of being for the USA.
Barr's letter is an insult to the work of the Special Council and I apologize to all of them for all the good work they have performed. The results to date are admirable.
end
PS: I will review his Congressional testimony. Now, that was a piece of work if I ever saw one.
Barr both in his four page letter and his testimony structures his language to dummy down the fact there are real concerns. He deliberately distracts from the brevity of the Special Council report. His testimony to Congress uses the same strategy. Yes, strategy. I think Barr uses a strategy on behalf of Trump.
He also states the letter is not a legislated requirement, but, his own decision to provide reassurance to the public. "I believe it is in the public interest to describe the report and summarize..." He clearly is preparing a political document. His own authorship of a letter is never required by law.
This Special Council investigation was less than 2 years in existence, but, if reported accurately by Barr (which is always questionable) produced 2800 subpoenas. Nice round number, but, incredible to realize the depth of the investigation and the vitality of the Mueller team to unearth information that would result in that number of legal documents to support the investigation.
The number 2800 is obviously not an exact number and reflects the estimation that Barr used to conduct his four page letter. However, in breaking down the number, kindly realize that is 127 subpoenas a month and approximately 6 per day with a 20 day work month.
The volume of this work was considerable and included requests to 13 foreign countries. Indeed this is not a confidential report, it is a classified report. Once again Robert Mueller rises above the fray to exemplary work and a magnificent example of excellence to inspire any FBI agent.
The Mueller Special Council will provide a model to the intelligence community whom continue to fight off foreign influence in our elections. That in and of itself is also noteworthy. The elections of 2016 and the Russian invasion into that election; which has been verified by this report; is well over three years ago at the start. Yet, there is little to no legislation that inhibits such broad-reaching attacks. The use of social media is extensive in this invasion and yet today we are still asking the Tech Sector to "pretty please" do something.
Realizing the US Congress has yet to pass effective legislation to monitor, prevent and capture foreign invasion into our elections with cyber attacks and information manipulations as well as any actions of foreign agents is alarming and every American should be concerned.
I believe Barr flat out lies on the second page of the four page letter. In the second paragraph he states, "...The Special Council investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in efforts to influence the 2016 campaign for U.S. presidential election...."
In the picture of Flynn and Putin, what the heck is the general doing with his ear? An earbud for an interpreter? If there was an interpreter, who knows what Flynn actually heard and agreed to. The interpreter would not be a US certified interpreter.
At any rate, there is just no denying Retired General Flynn was one of the most surprising members of the Trump campaign and administration, so willing to be a part of talks with Russia. It only reaffirms Trump's demands to establish a relationship with Russia through Putin. There is no way Barr can state there was no relationship between the campaign and Russia. Even public information dictates otherwise.
On the same day Flynn was sworn in, news reports said he was under investigation by agencies looking into Russian officials’ contact with close Trump associates. Flynn denied to the FBI that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Sally Yates, then-acting attorney general, told White House counsel Don McGahn that intercepts contradicted Flynn’s account of his Dec. 29, 2016, conversation with Kislyak.
Flynn resigned after 24 days in his role. He later entered a plea agreement with Mueller. A federal judge in December 2018 delayed Flynn’s sentencing....
If not, who did? Trump is not that smart. That information, a matter of national security, is not protected by Executive Privilege in dealing with an enemy of the USA.
Barr is lying. There is no denying it. He does not deserve the trust of the American people. Russia, Trump and the Republicans probably love Barr, but, there is no reason to trust him.
But, to continue.
The following statement that is supposed to be a quote, "(T)he (what is the deal with the parenthesis? If this is a direct quote it obviously was removed from a greater text that didn't carry the word "The"). Cut and paste, I guess.
"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
I am going to state that again.
"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."
To begin there was definitely election interference activities established as conducted by Russa. That statement is definitive in it's conclusion there was election interference by Russia. The word "establish" also raises a red flag. There is nothing definitive by law that was established as indictable. But, the word establish leaves open the idea that the Special Council could not dismiss involvement. In other words, Mueller was not guaranteed a conviction so he did not charge anyone with a crime. That is all that says.
We know the campaign staff was involved with the Russians and met with them. That involvement was not cyber related.
Part of what Robert Mueller was faced with was protecting the institution of THE VOTE and whether a campaign conclusively interfered with THE VOTE. While the Russians definitely interfered with THE VOTE through cyber attacks and information manipulation, the Trump campaign did not have a role in that aspect of the election interference.
Barr does later on page 2 explain there were two aspects to the Russian investigation conducted by the Special Council. When Barr makes the above statement he does not specify his understanding is that BOTH aspects were out of the question by the Special Council investigation.
The meeting is probably a little murkier and Paul Manafort decided not to answer questions truthfully. He probably is scared silly of Russia.
The IRA (Internet Research Agency) is a Russian based operation to effect elections and in this case USA elections. Of course, the Trump campaign did not work with the IRA. There was an "ask" by Trump via television to find emails that are supposed to have been on Hillary Clinton's home server. That "ask" immediately triggered the IRA to look for emails, the most obvious stop was the DCCC and the Clinton Campaign. Whether Trump knew there was an IRA and whether Putin would activate it at his asking was not determined, according to Barr. By most public media the only internet connection was one that existed between the Trump Company and a Russian bank while there were USA sanctions.
The Barr Letter states, "...the Russian government's effort to conduct computer hacking operations...." Barr completely steers away from any personal contact between the Trump campaign, Trump and meetings and or contact facilitated by people like Flynn or Manafort as a back channel. In other words, second hand information provided by others (including family) that had direct contact with a Russian and/or a Russian agent.
If all Barr addresses are computer affiliated activity, then he is definitely covering up the truth about the Trump Campaign. We know for a fact there were members of his family and his campaign that had direct contact with the Russians. YET, Barr limits his review to computer activity by the Russians in his report to Congress and then Congress' distribution to the public. Barr is completely eliminated, at least up to page 2, the FACT there was contact with the Russians by the Trump affiliates and quite possibly Trump himself.
Barr is still not providing any reason to trust his idea of a summary. It is grossly errored.
The Special Council found direct contact between the Clinton Campaign, the DCCC and Wikileaks facilitated by the IRA. Barr states that Russians have charges against them, but, while stating the Russians had provided information to Wikileaks, he does not state Wikileaks is implicated in any charges. Either both are involved, which the Special Council states, and both are implicated in charges or Barr is omitting information directly linked to Trump's friends.
I believe Trump's friend is Roger Stone. Granted the trial is ongoing, but, he was indicted by the Special Council. Roger Stone's involvement is a direct link to Trump and I don't believe for one minute Stone never bragged to Trump about his success with the Russians and Wikileaks.
One thing I realize is that these relationships with Trump are not a sterile issue. He does not live in a bubble, even in the White House OR MARALOGO. He moves freely among these people and speaks in code to them.
Page 3
Obstruction of Justice
"...addresses...most of which have been the subject of public reporting..."
Oh, then there was no need for the Speical Council. Journalists were profoundly worried about the country. That may hold up as an argument considering the Pulitzer's presented to some really great journalism. That statement about the subject of public reporting completely contradicts Trump's "Fake News" nonsense.
What happened to the 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents and an innumerate number of staff with varying degrees of background and expertise? Nothing was noted, investigated or written by these folks? Obstruction is completely left up to cameras, journalists and pictures? I sincerely doubt that.
Barr makes the Special Council sound torn about whether there was or wasn't a crime. Really? The department standards Barr so lovingly clings to is that there is no indictments of a sitting president. Barr uses his skills in creative writing to apply that department standard as a tool to evaluate the decision making of the Special Council. Here again, Barr is the author and not the Special Council which might explain the Special Council members objecting to this four page letter as a misrepresentation of their work. That is all obvious. Barr is pandering to anticipation by the public for the answers of a 22 month investigation regarding the security of the elections of the USA and all Barr offers is indecision. Doesn't that fit into the election dialogue of the Republican Supreme Leader?
THE ONLY REASON any indictment of Trump is left to the AG is that the DOJ does not indict a sitting president. It has nothing to do with indecision or lack of evidence. The FACTS are suppose to go to the Congress who then decides if impeachment is a vital answer to the issue. AND, the idea that Trump is exonerated is nonsense. The DOJ CAN indict a sitting president BUT cannot ACT ON THAT INDICTMENT while the president is still in office. So, the entire idea of indecision is horse hockey. The Grand Jury can indict a sitting president, but, it cannot be acted on until out of office WHICH IS WHY the Congress receives unredacted facts with supporting evidence to determine if any criminal activity rises to impeachment.
In making this determination (Barr conflates the two ideas of conspiracy and obstruction into one statement.) we noted that the Special Council recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in any underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction.
Where does one begin with an AG that is engaged in creative writing and intended confusion. No one expects Russia and Trump or any of Trump's cohorts would have supervised the cyber election interference. Trump or his cohorts have proven to be not very smart, but, willing to breach the limits of law. We know that the Trump Company engaged in breaches of law in communicating with Russia and its banks during sanctions. We know the Trump Company was engaged in courting Russia regarding a Trump Tower in Moscow. We know the Trump Charities were disbanded because of violations of the public trust. For Barr to try to get away with exonerating Trump, he would have to confuse and blur issues and simply construct a letter that would provide Trump and the RNC with plenty of reasons to raise money.
Never once does he state THE FACTS surrounding the confusion about obstruction and specifically why such facts were simply dismissed. Never once does he treat Congress with brevity and in confidence supplying real reasons for his letter. He simply writes about peripheral confusion. This was a letter to Congress. He treats them as if they don't understand legal terms, concepts, ethics or decision making. He sure as heck never trusts Congress with any facts.
I don't see Barr as a competent practitioner of the law, so much as a partisan hack that did nothing but exert control. Page 4 of the letter is nothing but stating sections of law that exerts control. Never does he provide Congress with reasons to believe the review is even reflective of the actual Special Council report. Barr is not a competent practitioner of the law and certainly not a partner to Congress to even offer a review.
Sorry, I have been busy and this is the first time I had some time to review the letter. I did want to do this before the Thursday deadline. I think the Congress and subsequently, the public are being HANDLED to benefit a political outcome and not entrusted with the best sovereign state of being for the USA.
Barr's letter is an insult to the work of the Special Council and I apologize to all of them for all the good work they have performed. The results to date are admirable.
end
PS: I will review his Congressional testimony. Now, that was a piece of work if I ever saw one.
I think most everyone expected Mark Zuckerberg to run for president in 2020. There is a substitute and he is backed by the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey.
The presidential hopeful is Andrew Yang. So much for small donors as an ideal to campaign financing.
Yang is the techy candidate many people want in the White House. He is a non-profit entrepreneur, however, his campaign is not self-funded. He has fewer donors than most of the Democratic field, but, those few are often techy execs who want the White House to control government and it's effects on the tech world.
The presidential hopeful is Andrew Yang. So much for small donors as an ideal to campaign financing.
Yang is the techy candidate many people want in the White House. He is a non-profit entrepreneur, however, his campaign is not self-funded. He has fewer donors than most of the Democratic field, but, those few are often techy execs who want the White House to control government and it's effects on the tech world.
The Attorney General is a partisan hack. What is the sense in lying about the Special Council report if a US Attorney District can expose the lies?
Trump screwed up. He stated he would send asylum seekers to the cities. Barr is satisfying right wing extremist voters. Just that simple. There is no real basis for this except the headlines.
We already know the asylum seekers have a legitimate standing for their plea for protection. This is egregious and lacks a humanitarian basis. This idea Barr has to protect the politics of Trump is anti-American and a violation of human rights. This is more of the inhumanity of the child separation tactic.
This administration is doing very little to unit families that were destroyed in their plea for asylum. The difference between Trump policies and the reasons they left their original countries is certain death at the hand of drug cartels. Otherwise, the inhumanity is the same and from my window on the world is illegal under USA asylum laws.
As a matter of fact, I believe the press is missing the point with this AG. With "W" the damage to the DOJ was easy to see. He fired US Attorneys. Barr isn't interested in firing them, just sitting on their necks and manipulating the outcomes of their work. I would think that is especially true in the Southern District of New York.
Barr and Guiliani, a tag team made in hell. One lies and the other swears to it.
April 16, 2019
By Ted Hesson
In a move (click here) that could keep tens of thousands of asylum seekers locked up, the Justice Department said Tuesday that it will deny a large class of undocumented immigrants a bond hearing to argue for their release.
The opinion, by Attorney General William Barr, adheres to the Trump administration’s stance that migrants caught at the border should be detained whenever possible, even when they’ve petitioned for asylum....
We already know the asylum seekers have a legitimate standing for their plea for protection. This is egregious and lacks a humanitarian basis. This idea Barr has to protect the politics of Trump is anti-American and a violation of human rights. This is more of the inhumanity of the child separation tactic.
This administration is doing very little to unit families that were destroyed in their plea for asylum. The difference between Trump policies and the reasons they left their original countries is certain death at the hand of drug cartels. Otherwise, the inhumanity is the same and from my window on the world is illegal under USA asylum laws.
As a matter of fact, I believe the press is missing the point with this AG. With "W" the damage to the DOJ was easy to see. He fired US Attorneys. Barr isn't interested in firing them, just sitting on their necks and manipulating the outcomes of their work. I would think that is especially true in the Southern District of New York.
Barr and Guiliani, a tag team made in hell. One lies and the other swears to it.
April 16, 2019
By Ted Hesson
In a move (click here) that could keep tens of thousands of asylum seekers locked up, the Justice Department said Tuesday that it will deny a large class of undocumented immigrants a bond hearing to argue for their release.
The opinion, by Attorney General William Barr, adheres to the Trump administration’s stance that migrants caught at the border should be detained whenever possible, even when they’ve petitioned for asylum....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)