TURLEY TESTIFIES IN BARR CONFIRMATION HEARING

This morning I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the confirmation hearing for William Barr for United States Attorney General. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building.

Here is my written testimony for the hearing which was in far better shape due to the editing of my co-counsel Thomas Huff and my assistant Seth Tate:

52 thoughts on “TURLEY TESTIFIES IN BARR CONFIRMATION HEARING”

  1. At the end of the day, Mr Turley doesn’t add positivity to our discourse. You’ve become a tool of the criminal GOP. Stop it Jonathan. Haven’t you done enough by way of your prized student, Kelly Anne Conway? Do your country a favor and stop. Retire. Hike national park trails with your kids. go away.

    That would be a first step in making our country great again.

    you helped give us Kelly Anne Conway. For real. That’s not anything to be proud of. Shame on you!

    Seriously. SHAME ON YOU TURLEY.

  2. Day after day sticking your neck out for Trump or anybody that Trump wants in his administration is to say the least a career ending move or at least, a job with “FOX NEWS”

  3. I’ve watched as you have become increasingly biased and partisan in your viewpoint, and with this testimony I think it’s time for us to part ways, Mr. Turley. I wish you well.

    1. Judging just by the comments/ complaints about JT’s leanings, he is too pro-Trump.
      He is also, and simultaneously, too anti-Trump, too pro-Mueller, too anti-Mueller, too liberal, too conservative, too pro-Obama, too anti-Obama, etc., etc.
      I, personally, think he’s pretty objective and fair-minded— except when he writes something that I disagree with.😉😄

  4. i guess the question is, will there ever be anybody nominated as AG by either party that does not have Deep State kosher seal of approval like Barr?

  5. In yesterday’s hearings Barr gave conflicting views on marijuana legalization. From what I read, it was hard to tell if Barr would be a step forward or not. In any event, the public is in no mood to step back from legalization.

      1. Congress also has the power to schedule and/ or reschedule a drug’s classification ( 1 through 5).
        I don’t know if they’ve ever exercised that authority; it looks like they just punt to the DEA, and go along with whatever the DEA says.

        1. Yeah, a simple ‘re-class’. It shouldn’t be hard at all. But then County Sheriffs in backwater regions would lose their Asset Forfeiture streams.

          1. It pains me to say this, but I have an area of agreement with PH.
            Given that California has, by far, the largest number of members of Congress, we’ve all been expecting to see CA. lead the way, overriding the interests of the backwater states like Mississippi and Idaho.

  6. Will Barr investigate Obama who wanted to “…know everything we are doing?”

    Will Barr investigate Obama’s massive “unmasking” operation?

    Will Barr investigate Obama’s historic abuse of power?
    _____________________________________________________________

    Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, “We’ll stop it.”

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “POTUS wants to know everything we are doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “The texts mean what the texts say.”

    “Both Strzok and Page indicated that the request from then-President Barack Obama to be informed about an investigation centered on Russian interference, where “we” referred broadly to the intelligence community (i.e. “Obama holdovers,” “deep state,” etc.).”

    – WaPo

  7. Do you ever write anything that sounds intelligent? No? Didn’t think so. Are you drunk or on drugs?

    1. excellent article thank you

      one of the references here a dissent worth reading

      https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/215/986/608021/

      KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

      [W]e conclude that the second shot violated the Constitution. We recommend that the circumstances surrounding the second shot be reviewed by the appropriate component of the Department of Justice for prosecutive merit.

      U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility1 .

      Besieged by a platoon of FBI agents with high-powered rifles, two armored vehicles and a helicopter, the suspects at Ruby Ridge posed no immediate danger. There was no chance they could escape and take hostages. There was plenty of time to call out a warning, and there were many occasions to give the suspects a chance to surrender. Instead, FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi shot and killed Mrs. Weaver.

      A Senate Committee, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and a prior panel of this court all have concluded the shooting was patentlyunconstitutional. See Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1203 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Smith v. Harris, 522 U.S. 1115 (1998). Because the majority’s contrary ruling creates a square intracircuit conflict and throws a monkey wrench into our law governing the proper use of deadly force, I strongly dissent.

      * The facts here are largely not in dispute.2 Six Deputy U.S. Marshals, dressed in camouflage gear and armed to the teeth, came onto the Weaver property in the dead of night, without announcing their presence or wearing visible identification. They got into a shootout which left one deputy and the Weavers’ son dead. More than thirty hours later, FBI agents surrounded the Weaver cabin, which was located in the middle of the forest, far from any bystanders; they overflew the area by helicopter several times. The FBI agents did not announce their presence nor did they give the occupants an opportunity to surrender. Instead, the agents remained concealed and watched the cabin through the scopes of their rifles. Those in the cabin first learned of the FBI’s presence when Horiuchi opened fire.

      Horiuchi fired two shots. The first was arguably justified by what he claims was a menacing gesture from Mr. Weaver in the direction of the helicopter. How Horiuchi could tell the man was threatening the helicopter is a bit of a mystery, since Horiuchi admitted that he had no clue where the helicopter was.3 But Idaho is not prosecuting Horiuchi for that shot. Rather, it is the second shot–fired some twenty seconds later–that is the basis of the state’s prosecution. When Horiuchi was taking aim for this shot, the three people who had ventured outside the cabin were running headlong toward it. They were facing the cabin and away from the helicopter. They were not aiming their weapons. They were making no menacing gestures. Running for their lives, they threatened no one. As the Department of Justice investigators observed: ” [E]ven giving deference to Horiuchi’s judgment, we do not find that the second shot was based on a reasonable fear of an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others.” DOJ Report, note 1 supra, at Section IV.F.3.c.(3) (internal quotation marks omitted)4 . Yet, Horiuchi calmly took aim andshot to kill. That he aimed at Harris, thinking it was Mr. Weaver, but actually killed Mrs. Weaver does not help Horiuchi. His confusion as to the target only proves he was reckless in pulling the trigger.

      What justification can there be for shooting a man who is completely surrounded by heavily armed law enforcement agents? The sum and substance of the majority’s reasoning is as follows: “Had [Horiuchi] hesitated for even a few seconds or called out a warning . . . Harris could have fled into the cabin, taking up a defensive, armed position.” Maj. Op. at 994 (emphasis added). See also id. at 994 (“he was running to a place where he could rearm, regroup, and take up a defensive position”); id. at 994 (“Once inside [the cabin] Harris could take up a defensive position where he could shoot out, but the officers could not shoot in without the danger of harming a child.”).

      Since when does taking up a defensive position justify the use of deadly force? Taking a defensive position may have kept the suspects from being apprehended right away, but it would have posed no immediate threat to the officers. Missing from the majority’s justification for the shooting is any indication that, once inside the cabin, Harris would pose an immediate threat to life and limb. Absent a threat, the FBI agents were not entitled to kill; rather, they should have employed one of the many other measures at their disposal, such as:

      -Announcing themselves and demanding a surrender

      -Commencing negotiations

      -Waiting until the inhabitants ran out of food

      -Shutting off water and electrical service to the cabin

      -Sending in an armored personnel carrier to knock down various out-buildings and impress the inhabitants with the futility of resisting

      Once the trigger is pulled and life is taken, all these options are foreclosed; the chance for a bloodless resolution is lost. Allowing the suspects to take a defensive position gives them time to think, to consider, to weigh their options, to calculate the risks to themselves and their children. It can lead to a peaceful surrender, as it did eight days later. It is therefore immensely troubling that the majority today holds–for the first time anywhere–that law enforcement agents may kill someone simply to keep him from taking up a defensive position. This conclusion runs contrary to a long line of deadly force cases, all of which hold that only an immediate threat to life and limb will justify an intentional killing by law enforcement agents. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (review of officer’s use of force requires “attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including . . . whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985) (“Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”); see also Harris, 126 F.3d at 1201 (Police “may not shoot to kill unless, at a minimum, the suspect presents an immediate threat to the officer or others, or is fleeing and his escape will result in a serious threat of injury to persons.”).

      Horiuchi claims he was entitled to kill Harris to prevent him from shooting at the helicopter from inside the cabin. But killing Harris was not even remotely necessary to ensure the safety of the helicopter. To begin with, while Horiuchi may haveheard the helicopter’s engine,5 he did not see it or know where it was;6 he had no reason to believe that it was hovering within range of small arms fire from the cabin. Quite the contrary: During a reconnaissance mission earlier that day, he had observed the helicopter pilot taking precautions. According to Horiuchi, the helicopter “popped over the hill low and then came back over.” Horiuchi Testimony, note 3 supra, at 191 (June 4, 1993).7 The helicopter had also flown several other missions over the area without incident.

      Moreover, Horiuchi was in radio contact with the FBI command center and could have called out a warning.8 In the time it would have taken the three to run into the cabin, take positions at the windows and commence shooting, Horiuchi could have warned the helicopter to move out of range. While an officer need not exhaust remote alternatives before resorting to deadly force, see Forrett v. Richardson, 112 F.3d 416, 420 (9th Cir. 1997), his failure to employ an obvious non-deadly alternative can make his use of deadly force unreasonable. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 884 F.2d 1316, 1317-18 (9th Cir. 1989) (inquiry into reasonable non-deadly alternatives is important to establishing that deadly force was necessary to prevent escape).

      But put all else aside and consider only Horiuchi’s admission that he made no separatedecision whether to take the second shot: “I had already made that determination after that first shot, so if I saw him again [,] I was going to shoot at that individual again.” Horiuchi Testimony, note 3 supra, at 107 (June 3, 1993). Horiuchi’s testimony, which the majority overlooks, is crucial in light of Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 887 (9th Cir. 1992), where we held that the justification for the use of deadly force, once established, does not continue indefinitely. If circumstances change and the threatened danger abates, deadly force may cease to be reasonable. As the DOJ investigators observed, “the circumstances which justified the first shot were significantly changed by the time the second shot was taken. There had been no return of fire or further threatening action, there had been no surrender announcement, and most significantly, the targets were retreating into the cabin.” DOJ Report, note 1 supra, at Section IV.F.4. The majority creates a direct conflict with Hopkins by holding that law enforcement officers are entitled to gun down a suspect even after he no longer poses an immediate danger to anyone.

      There is another big problem with Horiuchi’s second shot: He was aiming at the wrong target. The individual he claims to have observed holding a long gun and looking menacingly in the direction of the helicopter was Weaver, not Harris. Horiuchi then observed three people–two of them similarly dressed males–running toward the cabin. In his testimony, Horiuchi admits he could not tell the two men apart; in fact, he shot the wrong one.9 Any suspicion Horiuchi had that Weaver might shoot at the helicopter could not be attributed to Harris simply because he was nearby and dressed alike. The matter would be different if Horiuchi had reasonably believed he was in the grips of a firefight. See Clifton v. Cox, 549 F.2d 722, 729 (9th Cir. 1977). But Horiuchi makes no such claim, and by adopting its “defensive position” rationale, the majority recognizes that this was not a fire fight. While we will not lightly second-guess decisions made by law enforcement officers in the heat of battle, this was not the heat of battle and caution was therefore appropriate.10 A menacing gesture by one of the individuals outside the cabin did not give Horiuchi the right to gun all of them down in cold blood.

      I also find it highly significant that Horiuchi, alone among the agents surrounding the cabin, considered the danger serious enough to open fire. Even after Horiuchi’s first shot rang out, Harris and the Weavers were not peppered by bullets from the other sharpshooters hidden in the hills above the cabin. As the DOJ Reportobserved, “Many of the sniper/ observers saw three people running to the cabin after the first shot. None reported any action that could immediately be interpreted as threatening to the helicopter or the sniper/ observers.” DOJ Report, note 1 supra, at Section IV.F.3.c.(3). If Horiuchi was justified in shooting, all the other FBI sharpshooters must have been derelict in holding their fire.

      Finally, I return to the immovable fact that the occupants of the cabin were given no opportunity to surrender before deadly force was unleashed against them. Giving a warning and opportunity to surrender is not just an aspirational goal; it is a required step before deadly force may be used. It is true that we have qualified this requirement with such phrases as “where feasible,” see, e.g., Forrett, 112 F.3d at 420, but this does not mean warnings can be dispensed with whenever they would be inconvenient. A warning and an opportunity to surrender must always be given before deadly force is used, unless doing so would materially increase the danger to law enforcement personnel or bystanders. This contemplates a narrow class of cases, such as where the suspect has opened fire, pulled a gun, or credibly threatened vulnerable targets.

      It is conceivable that Horiuchi was entitled to take his first shot without giving a warning,11 but thereafter neither Harris nor Mr. Weaver nor anyone else connected with the cabin was shooting or even aiming weapons at any vulnerable targets. To become a threat again, as Horiuchi supposedly feared, they would have had to enter the cabin, take their places at a window and start shooting. This interval gave Horiuchi plenty of time to shout out a surrender demand12 .

      Nor was this the only interval when a warning could–and should–have been given. FBI agents had staked out the Weaver cabin since earlier that morning, while the shooting took place in late afternoon. Obviously, those involved in the operation had ample time to give the necessary warning before deploying agents with shoot-on-sight orders13 . Even after Horiuchi andhis team had taken their places around the cabin, approximately half an hour passed during which the Hostage Rescue Team members could have called out a warning and given those in the cabin a chance to surrender. It was wholly unreasonable for Horiuchi to open fire, knowing that the civilians at whom he was aiming were unaware of the danger and had no chance to surrender rather than die. Accord Harris, 126 F.3d at 1203. That all the other sharpshooters held their fire tells us all we need to know on this score.

    1. wow thanks

      “Barr was the godfather of the NSA’s bulk data collection program
      While serving in the George H.W. Bush administration, Barr helped develop what became a “blueprint” for the National Security Agency’s mass phone surveillance program. In 1992, he and his then-deputy Robert Mueller authorized the Drug Enforcement Administration to begin amassing phone call data in bulk, ordering telephone companies to secretly hand over the records of all phone calls from the U.S. to countries — which eventually grew to be well over 100 nations — where the government believed drug traffickers were operating.

      As USA Today reported when the DEA program came to light, it “was the government’s first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime.”

      The DEA program ultimately became a model for the NSA’s phone records collection program under the Patriot Act of 2001, which the agency used to collect the domestic call records of tens of millions of Americans. The NSA program, exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, was found to be illegal by a federal appeals court, and in 2015 Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to partially reform it. Barr, unsurprisingly, was an ardent supporter of the Patriot Act when it was enacted. In fact, he said the law didn’t go far enough.

      Congress should question Barr about whether he will be a roadblock to still-needed surveillance reforms and whether he believes the government has the power to resurrect or expand warrantless spying programs.

      Barr worked to make it easier for Verizon and other companies to hand over massive amounts of sensitive customer data to the government
      In the George W. Bush era, during which Barr served as executive vice president and general counsel at Verizon, the telecom giant participated in a massive, warrantless surveillance program known as Stellar Wind. Under Barr’s watch, Verizon allowed the NSA to intercept the contents of Americans’ phone calls and emails and to vacuum up in bulk the metadata associated with Americans’ phone calls and internet activities.

      This surveillance was prohibited by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which Congress passed to regulate government surveillance practices and prevent abuses. The Justice Department eventually concluded in 2004 that portions of the program were illegal. Exact dates of Verizon’s involvement are not known, though documents suggest they participated at least as early as 2007. Other portions proved to be a forerunner of the NSA’s Upstream surveillance program, which the government continues to use today to unlawfully search Americans’ emails and internet communications without a warrant.

      As Verizon’s general counsel, Barr later lobbied Congress to give telecom companies retroactive and future immunity from private lawsuits for participating in illegal surveillance programs, which would make sure that companies like Verizon would never be held accountable for helping the government violate Americans’ privacy.

      Barr himself has held the legal position that Americans do not have a Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in data held by third parties — a view that the Supreme Court declined to adopt in last year’s pro-privacy ruling about cellphone location tracking by police.

      Senators should question Barr on whether he still holds the position that individual’s do not have a Fourth Amendment-protected interest in information held by third parties. In addition, they should question whether he will support actions that widen the surveillance dragnet, as his history at Verizon suggests that he will have few qualms about conscripting other private companies — including tech giants like Facebook and Google — into handing over private user information to the government.”

      PERHAPS MR TRUMP WITHDRAW THIS NOMINEE WHO APPEARS TO BE A DEEP STATE GOON LIKE MEULLER

  8. Professor, who are you talking about? Barr is not fit for any public job. Haven’t you checked his record. Being nominated by the Trump is disqualifying in and off itself. Then there is working for the Bushes. Surely you don’t think he will tell the truth even under oath. Like all the Trump nominees he will lie and dodge yes and no questions, already has. His record speaks for itself, aside from wanting to shut down the Muller investigation and believing a president can’t be indicted.

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/william-barr-has-long-history-abusing-civil-rights-and-liberties-name

    https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-statement-william-barr-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing/?track=DE19A20&utm_source=1901barralert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fy19actionalerts

    LDF’sbrief on Barr’s civil rights record.

    When Attorney General nominee William Barr goes before the Senate during today’s confirmation hearing, the Senate must determine whether Barr is prepared to abandon outdated viewson criminal justice and restore enforcement of our federal civil rights laws.

    During his prior service at the Justice Department, Barr wrote “The Case for More Incarceration” — a document that legitimzed mass prison constuction, harsh sentencing and over-policing of African American communities. This documentlaid the groundwork for our nation’s mass incarceration crisis. We need to hear today from William Barr that he has abandoned the outdated and racially charged views outlined in his 1992 policy document.

    Here’s what else we know about William Barr:

    1.He’s a long-time proponent offailed “tough on crime” strategies. He praised Sessions’ 2017 prosecutions memorandum that directed federal prosecutors to charge and pursue offenses that carried mandatory minimum sentences.
    2.He orchestrated an immigration policy that detained12,000 Haitian asylum seekers at Guantanamo Bay.
    3.He’s a proponent of revenue-generating lawenforcement practices like asset forfeiture, for profit prisons, and more.
    4.He’s critical of patternor practice investigations that lead to consent decrees. You can read more about Barr in our op-ed here.

    Barr has stated publicly that he does
    not believe in LGBT civil rights protections,
    claiming they condone conduct
    that is immoral — a position
    that he has not changed in the thirty years since he served as Attorney General in the George H.W. Bush administration in 1991. •

    Barr praised Jeff Sessions for withdrawing
    protections for transgender kids in school and in access to medical care.

    Barr supported an HIV prison
    camp that was set up for HIV-positive
    Haitian Asylees, who were held indefinitely in squalid conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

    Barr fought to keep an HIV
    travel ban.

    1. And I thought all he really cared about was curtailing people’s private bedroom behavior and ramping up negative propaganda against a harmless plant with it’s trivial “high” when ingested.

    2. It’s hard to understand why JT has cast his lot with Barr and Trump, when it goes south, and it will what can he say then?

      1. One of the more interesting features of these comment sections is the presence of seers/ prophets.
        They don’t seem to tire of being wrong, and there is little risk that they’ll be called out when their predictions blow up in their face.
        In most cases, the stupid predictions have long since faded into the background by the time they fail to materialize, so these “false prophets” get a pass, because nobody really tracks their dumb forecasts.
        On the other hand, they only have to be right occasionally, or rarely, to cash in on a prediction.
        They can selectively dig up, mine the comments section, for one of their predictions that happened to be right.
        That might be one-in-ten, or one-in-a-hundred, but it it’s the same principle.
        It’s like the idiot commentator for MSNBC who stated that Trump work resign in two weeks.
        That was the subject of a column here several months ago.
        That fool ( his name is Dwork, or Duork, or Dork, or something like that) probably just continued to go on his merry way without any actual negative consequences or accountability for making that idiotic prediction.
        On the other hand, on the off–off chance that he might be right, he could coast on that for the rest of his career.
        It’s a bit like playing the lottery, and if he loses, maybe he’s out $2 bucks.
        But if that infinitesimal chance of selecting the right numbers, or he gets the right quickpick ticket, he’s set.

    1. From the linked article above:

      “In all three cover-ups, Barr sacrificed the interests of transparency and accountability to the political needs of Langley and the White House.

      “Can President Trump count on the same if Barr is confirmed? Yes, he almost certainly can.”

  9. Barr seems like the best person we can get for the job in “these worst of times”. But, part of the worst of times comes about because of the New York Times. All the news that is itShay to print. But I do not blame the media for the election of Trump. The voters knew who and what he was and they chose him. Hillary chose not to campaign in Michigan and other up north states and they voted for Trump. When we have another 9-11 then more folks will think that we need a border fence, wall, and border resources. Many Americans appreciate the foreign guy who does the landscaping and picks the berries at the nearby berry farm. We don’t have Chuck Berry any more. I am not berry glad to have all the fake news.

    1. You do know, do you not, that NONE of the 9/11 attackers came over the southern border? They flew into American airports. A border fence or wall would not have prevented that attack. Only way to stop that, would have been to close American air space to incoming airliners.

      Or is building a southern border wall just a “feel good” exercise, unconnected with terrorism issues? While we’re at it, maybe we should build a northern wall, to keep the Canadians out. And a wall along our shores, to keep the seals and walruses out….

      1. You do know that in purely factual terms Mexican illegal immigrants which have hopped the border since 2001 have committed more crimes than the aggregate of what happened on 2001 right? I doubt the figure that Trump gave is accurage but if you tossed together rapes and assaults in with murders i bet it would be by a longshot.

        in some respects 9/11 was an outlier anyways. You don’t make policy based on one outlier do you? it’s like saying don’t lock your doors because somebody tricked their way in through the front door once and did worse than all the other burglaries in the neighborhood. that makes no sense.

        1. The 1993 WTC bombing could have succeeded in producing far more casualties, and achieved its objective of toppling one or both of the twin towers, had the truck bombs contained more explosives and/ or had the placement of the explosives been somewhat different.
          So extensive measures were taken to prevent another truck bombing, since that’s what DID happen in 1993.
          Looking in the rear view mirror and focusing on preventing a repeat of the LAST attack means that the plotters will look at new ways to circumvent whatever safeguards are put in place.
          8 1/2 years later, on 9-11, we were well-prepared to prevent another truck bombing of the WTC.
          And I suppose anyone in “the system” who brought up, and was looking for, an attack by planes could be told ” you do know, do you not, that” the 1993 WTC bombing was done with a truck bombing, and that NONE of the plotters used an airplane in the attack.
          So by that reasoning, because the 9-11 terrorists entered via airports, we can discount the possibility that they’ll cross at a border, enter by rail, or by ship.
          This point is in addition to the points that you made, Mr. Kurtz, about the impact of M-13 and similar gangs, the drug pipelines, etc. on a number of communities.
          It’s nearly impossible for those in the public to know with any precision how many of those types of gang members are citizens, how many crossed legally or illegally, etc.
          The crime reports you see published in many communties almost never mentioned the citizenship or immigration status of those arrested/tried/ sentenced.
          As to the earlier point Jay S. made (about building a northern wall, too, to keep Canadians out) I now support that after reading many of Isaac’s comments.😉☺😀

      2. there is interdiction of boats on the Great Lakes bringing in migrants from Canada. If there isn’t much of it then there should be more because it damn sure happens. that is a lot easier than wandering through the forest in the middle of nowhere.

        i wonder what the cost is to hop a private boat in Windsor and get dropped off onshore in Detroit? Just gossip but I heard five thousand once.

        https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/national-illegal-border-crossing-us-from-canada-1.4863636

        I also heard Belle Isle is a lot more locked down than it used to be before the bankruptcy. Gee wonder why!

          1. there’s a park in Seattle / Vancouver that straddles the border. I wonder does it have a fence along the border? maybe it should!

            1. That must be one big park..
              Seattle is 100? miles or so from Vancouver.😉
              You might be thinking of Blaine, WA.

        1. San Juan Islands Route is a lot cheaper most boaters don’t even bother when the sign says pick up this phone to report your entry.

        2. I think “the 20th hijacker”, Mousesouie?, was apprehended when he attempted to cross, or immediately after crossing, the Canadian border (into Minnesota, I think).
          The intel community “wasn’t sure” if they had a right to inspect his laptop, etc., for information; information which could have giving us a heads-up on the 9-11 attack.
          In this case, it wasn’t a failure of border security; it was dithering officials “unsure” of Mousesouie’s “rights”.
          The so-called “LAX Bomber” crossed from Canada….I think at Blaine, North of Seattle.
          A sharp-eyed border patrol officer stopped and held him; I guess she was willing to risk accusations of “profiling”.
          Had he been waved through, there would gave been nothing between the border and L.A. to stop him.

      3. I’m more inclined to anything that will help keep the socialists out especially those that lied taking their Oath of Office or citizenship allegiance pledge. Then we can use the space for legitimate immigrants.

  10. I found Neil Kinkopf’s testimony more compelling than Mr. Turley’s. Mr. Kinkopf was direct and succinct. Mr. Turley tended to ramble.

  11. A Senate staffer called these hearings Kabuki theater.

    An insult to the Japanese drama form, at least more comprehensible than No theater.

Leave a Reply