Over two years later, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas finally held a private meeting with the Border Patrol agents that he threw under the bus after they were falsely accused of whipping Haitain migrants near Del Rio, Texas.
There was reportedly no apology from Mayorkas.
We have discussed how Mayorkas was warned that the allegations were false, but still denounced them.
Mayorkas failed to protect the agents even after the President promised that they would be punished before any investigation. Mayorkas joined the chorus of critics in condemning the agents as an example of “systemic racism” in the government.
The media went into a frenzy despite a videotape showing that the story was clearly false.
A photographer captured the scene, which showed agents using bridle reins to guide their skittish horses. The entire videotape clearly shows the agents using the reins on their mounts, not on the migrants. Not only did the photographer quickly deny seeing any officers whip migrants, the videotape clearly refuted that allegation. However, for many in politics and the media it did not matter because it played into a racial-justice claim of the “whipping (of) Haitian asylum seekers.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) condemned “the inappropriate use of what appear to be whips by Border Patrol officers on horseback to intimidate migrants.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decried “images of inhumane treatment of Haitian migrants by Border Patrol — including the use of whips.” Vice President Kamala Harris emoted on “The View” about how the brutality “invoked images of some of the worst moments of our history, where that kind of behavior has been used against the Indigenous people of our country, it has been used against African Americans during times of slavery.” Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) described the incident as “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and “white supremacist behavior.”
President Biden rushed to express his own revulsion and rage, too: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”
At the time, some of us objected that the president had, once again, declared the guilt of accused persons without evidence or investigation. The possible innocence of these officers simply did not matter to the president or to many in the press.
Now, with the passage of time, some of us had hoped that Mayorkas would apologize to the agents even if President Biden has refused to do so.
He didn’t. The agents after all were just props used by the media and politicians. They do not have families or careers that need to be considered. They whipped migrants on the water’s edge because the media and politicians needed them to be whipping migrants.
Yet, Mayorkas wanted to convey his love for the agents in finally meeting with the men that he previously portrayed as Bull Connors on horseback.
“The wicked accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the ways of justice.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.
“For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints. They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off.”
“You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.”
Mayorkas is a calloused individual, but he does not act alone. He is incapable. He is following marching orders. The objective of this administration (those who are actually calling the shots) is to destabilize and divide the United States. If this reaches critical mass, then a totalitarian system will be foisted on the citizens accompanied by promises to make the crime go away and to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life, so long as they are obedient.
No, Mayorkas does not act alone.
I do not understand this movie quote. Even if you love someone, we are human and are bound to foul up in some way, thus necessitating an apology for the transgression. Apologizing when you should is a way to demonstrate love and respect. Prideful, self-centered, and/or disrespectful people do not apologize to those they’ve wronged.
Border Patrol agents in this instance were victims of the victimhood crowd.
Jonathan: ….And there is more on the Trumpster.
First, Capitol police officers previously filed a civil suit against DJT over the injuries they received during the J 6 insurrection. DJY claimed he was immune, as President, from a civil lawsuit. The Circuit ruled against him and he appealed to the DC Court of Appeals. In an unanimous opinion, including a DJT appointed judge, the Court of Appeals just ruled DJT was acting “in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate” on J 6 and not immune. This is a huge decision because DJT is making the same argument in his motion to dismiss Jack Smith’s case before Judge Chutkan in DC. I would expect Chutkan will dismiss DJT motion based on the decision of her bosses on the Court of Appeals. More bad news for the Trumpster.
Second, a former employee at DJT’s New Jersey golf club filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to nullify a settlement she entered after she complained about sexual harassment by a supervisor at the club. What’s that about? According to media reports, the worker, Alice Bianco, went to work at the golf club in 2021 when she was only 21. She alleges she was forced to have sex with her supervisor and then was retaliated against for rejecting his advances.
In her lawsuit Bianco claims Alina Habba ( yes, the same Alina Habba who has represented DJT in other litigation–including the E Jean Carroll second defamation suit and the NY civil fraud case) reached out to Bianco and told her she “had heard” ( Habba was a member of the Bedminster club) about Bianco complaints and wanted to “help her”. At the time Bianco was represented by counsel. So Habba tried to get Bianco to drop her attorney by sending Bianco negative posts about the attorney. It worked. Bianco dropped her attorney. Habba told Bianco “you don’t need to go public with this” and “I can protect you”.
That’s when Habba really went to work. She got Bianco to sign an NDA in exchange for a settlement Bianco described as a “paltry sum”. Habba also falsely told Bianco the settlement would be tax free. The NDA provided that if Bianco sued the settlement money must be returned and pay a $1,000-a-day fine. NDA’s like this are illegal in New Jersey–as Habba knew well because she practices in the state. In her lawsuit Bianco is seeking to nullify the settlement agreement, the NDA and she wants Habba sanctioned by the state’s attorney ethics office.
Habba is the worst of the worst among DJT’s lawyers. But DJT likes her because Habba “loves Trump” and he calls her “a beauty” on TV when she is defending him. But Habba’s “beauty” won’t help much in the case before Judge Engoron or the second defamation by E Jean Carroll. DJT is going to lose his real estate empire and have to pay Carroll a lot, a really lot more in damages. All thanks to the monumental screw ups by Habba in handling that litigation.
But I guess DJT enjoys a “beauty”, like Habba, fawning over him. Reinforces his fragile and pathetic narcissistic ego. So you are right–“Love is never having to say you’re sorry”.
You constantly cite alleged bad news for Trump – and yet nothing ever comes of it.
I have no problems with the CP officers suing those responsible for Harm for causing that
harm.
But there are four serious problems with the case – neither of which is immunity.
The first is that despite claim to the countrary – there have been few real verifiable claims of actual harm.
And you can not win damages without actual harm.
Lawsuits are routinely thrown out without evidence of real harm. But not only do you have to prove real harm.
But you generally can recover only real harm, plus legal fees plus reasonable punative damages – if the harm is knowing.
We already have lots of evidence that several CP officers have LIED about allegations of harm
One has testified multipe times to being injured on J6 and yet there is video of him at the end of the day that both proves he was not injured as he says. and that he has lied under oath on several other matters.
How well do you think that officer is going to do in court ?
A wise judge is not going to allow him to testify and purjere himself further.
Next you need a causal connection. You will NEVER win a case where your claimed cause is first amendment protected speech or activity.
Smith also has this problem, and it is likely that DOJ is eventually going to have much of their J6 prosecutions curtailed on 1st amendment grounds. You would litterally need to prove incitement to riot. And you will not succeed. You may get DC juries and judges to do so. You will not get the Supreme court to do so. Do you honestly think that the Supreme court – which has allowed Nazi’s to march through the towns of Holocaust survivors, or the KKK to walk right up to (and possibly over) the edge of inciting violence is going to buy an argument that would reverse centuries of 1st amendment law ?
Next you have the FACT that these officers are covered by Workers Comp. They signed away their right to sue over workplace injuries in response to the guarantee that workplace injuries are covered. There is plenty of law on this. Have fun getting arround it.
Next you have the fact that Many people – including the CP are responsible for what happened on J6.
The CP fired tear gass at themselves and then twice into the crowd and THAT is what started the violence.
Related is the FACT that the courts are unbelievably reluctant to impose 3rd party liability. Belive me I know far more than you about that.
4 decades ago my wife was raped in an abandoned building on a sunday. The police who checked the building 5 days a week once an hour – did not check at all on Sunday – but they were immune. The building owner – who had been cited by police several times for failing to seal the building, was also protected from liability – because as a matter of law – we do not hold third parties responsible for the criminal acts of others, even when the third parties actions made the crime possible.
These are just 4 reasons that the CP are not going to win.
But have fun – brng another lawsuit that makes Trump into a marytr.
You do understand that each Trump lawsuit and indictment has increased the number of people supporting Trump by about 2% ?
You so understand that polls before the eleciton in 2020 had Trump down about 4pts. And since then – mostly int he past year – Trump has gained 6-10pts depending on the poll and the state ?
Your efforts to go after Trump have failed.
“I have no problems with the CP officers suing those responsible for Harm for causing that
harm. ”
How about we sue the CP for launching tear gas (we can skip onto themselves which they did 1st) into a clam crowd them peppering them with non lethal rounds (that penetrate cheeks, though) and CAUSING A HUGE DISTURBANCE AND RIOTOUS BEHAVIOR.
No, just take the unwarranted abuse ? And we have the videos so now the CP are guilty, PERIOD.
Yes, you SUCK as an attorney. (not like you claimed you are one but hey a good jab well deserved)
No wonder the repubs lose too much. Suck that dirty criminal boot !
The CP would be protected by immunity from such a lawsuit.
Just as Trump is actually protected despite stupid decisions by the courts.
I oppose Qualified immunity – which is a construct of the courts, not the constitution – though I think in the case of the CP absolute immunity – constitutional immunity would likely apply – just as Trump is claiming.
Qualified immunity is broader than absolute immunity. But Qualified immunity can be overcome by clear prior court decisions finding the conduct an unconstitutional violation of someones rights.
Quaified immunity applies to conduct on the job.
While absolute immunity applies only to conduct that is part of the job.
The CP was clearly negligent, but that alone is not sufficient to overcome an immunity claim.
In DC Smith is refusing to identify who within government is participating in Trump’s prosecution. That deprives Trump the ability to subpeana them.
This is a game that was played with the J6 defendants before – They lost locally – as expected. Theose cases have not made it through to the supreme court yet.
Trying to play the same game with Trump is stupid.
Regardless – the Smith cases and the Willis Case and the Bragg case are already DOA.
Svelaz refered me to the Federalist debate on the 14th amendment. While he greatly missrepresented the debate, it was still a very worthwhile listen.
The very best part was towards the beginging when the Federal Judge arguing that the 14th amendment noted as an aside that there are two HUGE non-constitutional factors that will guarantee that the 14th amendment attack fails. The first is that Judges HATE to make difficult decisions when they can avoid doing so. There is a beautiful example of how that works in the 1776 Musical, though I do not know if the story is true. Basically Franklin plays Dickenson into delaying Pensylvania’s vote on independce until last. The rule of the continental congress required the vote to be unanimous. Dickenson knew that he and Franklin would split PA and Guvenor Morris would cast the deciding vote.
Morris had a long long reputation of not sticking his neck out. After Jefferson, Adams and Franklin managed to negotiate with The carolina’s and other states reluctant to sign on, Everything came down to Pennsyvania where Morris surprised Dickenson by voting for independence.
He did not do so because he beleived in idependence. He did so because if he voted FOR he would be just one of about 30 who did. If he voted against he would be remembered forever as the man who killed independence.
Judges do not want to be remembered as being the person who thwarted something where the nation is divided.
Just look at the PPACA decisions – Roberts has contradicted his own prior decisions multiple times to not find PPACA unconstitutional.
Nor would Rowe have ever been reversed by a 5-4 split court.
You will get alot of court rullings between now and the election. Trump will win some and lose others.
He may loose a large number that he should not. But the result will be the prosecutions will be stalled until after the elecition – when they will die.
Even judges that rule against Trump – though maybe not the lower courts, will rule incorrectly – but stall enough to delay the cases.
This problem has become worse for democrats the more popular Trump becomes.
If Biden was winning 60:40 in the polls right now – Trump would have very little chance of making it to the election.
Courts would rule against him – and rapidly, and the GOP would dump him quickly- as democrats should do with Biden now.
None of the above is about the merits.
Democrats were hopeful that the 14th amendment cases would keep Trump off the ballot in a few states and guarantee victory.
But in state after state – even left wing nut judges writing horrible oppinions are STILL stopping short of allowing him to be removed.
While there are good constitutional reasons for what they are doing – many of these judges never gave a schiff about the constitution.
The recent colorado judge – an obama appointee, adopted one of the more extreme federalist posistions – that the 14th amendment specifically does not apply to presidents. I suspect she did that because taking historical responsibility for taking the leading candidate off the ballot was more than she had the balls to do, and the “the 14th amendment does not apply to the president” assertion – just about the weakest of the argumnets against removing Trump, is also the narrowest. It only applies to presidents.
Regardless, my point is not about the law, but about the psychology of courts.
The federal judge arguing that Trump would win, detailed all the constitutional arguments. But he predicted that if the court got to the doors of thespreme court, that Roberts would toss the case with 4 sentences or less saying “This is a political question, and only congress can determine Trump’s eligability”
Which BTW would have TWO effects – it would Force Democrats to have the balls to Challenge Trump in Congress after he wins the electoral college, which would completely trash the J6 narrative that Congresses role is ceremonial.
While Roberts would be absolutely constitutionally correct, More importantly – and fully in character with Roberts – he would NOT be remembered as the man who invalidated Trump’s election. He would throw the ball to democrats and ask them if THEY have the balls to refuse to seat a candidate who wins the electoral college – and likely the popular vote.
So have fun.
I do not know which issues Trump will win and which h will lose, What I do know is the courts are only nominallly at best going to follow the constitution, BUT that unless Trump is losing to Biden by 20 pts – Thye courts are NOT going to stop him from the election.
I would note this is also what they did Post 2020.
Those of you on the left like to claim that Trump lost lots of court decisions on the merits.
Trump lost lots of court decisions because absent catching Joe Biden personally dropping hundreds of thousands of ballots into unattended ballot drop boxes,. Courts were not going to alter the outcome – no matter how egregious it was.
Once they played the stupid game of allowing fraudulent elections – they were NOT going to clean up their mess on the other side.
No Judge was going to rule in a way to flip a presidential election.
Lake is having a similar problem in AZ – she has presented an incredible case against Hobbs. The mess she has exposed is gargantuan.
There is either clear large scale fraud or deliberate indifference to massive election problems KNOWING the problems would alter the results.
Lake loses at the trial court level, sometimes at the apelate level, and the AZ supreme court breathes new life into her case over and over.
But they do not actually reverse the lower courts. The AZ supreme court just keeps giving her additional changes to try to win at the lower level.
But no Trial court is going to remove Hobbs as governor – despite the massive fraud.
And for exactly the same reasons – no court is removing Trump from the ballot. Nor is any court going to convict Trump of anything before the election. The courts will allow this fight to continue through the election. Left wing nuts such as Chucktan may give Smith everything he wants – EXCEPT a rush on the case.
Frank;y Smith himself as the election gets closer is going to be increasingly reluctant to move forward.
Whether you like it or not while the funeral will continue for a long time – the efforts to interfere with the election using the courts are DEAD.
But if you wish to hope against hope – go for it.
But expect the same outcome as the collusion delusion.
I have no idea about your golf course cae – but it does not involve Trump – so it is meaningless.
If this women was actually sexually harrased – she she be compensated. If not she should be excoriated.
This is one of the problems with “me too” – very bad things have happened to may women who have been silenced.
At the same time – people lie. NYC data indicates that 40% of all alleged hate crimes are frauds.
Regardless, this case does not involve Trump.
With respect to Bianco – there is alot of spin in your claims. But little in the way of facts – as usual.
You day the settlement was paltry – you know this HOW ? Bianco agreed to it. People take settlements rather than roll the dice all the time.
You claim a term in the NDA is illegal in NJ – yet we are to beleive you why ?
But lets say that it is. That does not toss the settlement, only the term. ‘
I would note that Trump has WON in court repeatedly over the NDA’s involving him personally – this one does not.
I would also note that you have engaged in Character assassination against Habba – to my knowldge when was NOT a part of the Carol case – that is not her area of law. She was involved in the Weinberg case and did an excellent job on that with a biased court.
Your claim that Habba is a “beauty” rather than a brain is incredibly sexist – and that is really weird in a sexual harrassment case.
You have also claimed that Habba behaved unethically. There is no evidence of that in here prior practice.
She is a highly rated lawyer and I would note that even when she loses in court – she wins on appeal in the Trump cases.
Regardless, are you saying that only ugly women are smart ?
Or is it only female democratic lawyers ?
I do not know the actual facts of this case – Though Trump liek most every wealthy person faces lawsuits like this all the time – and Trump has near universally won.
Even the Carrol case – which only occured because the NY legislature opened a window for Carrol – that has now ensnared Mayor Adams -= be careful what you wish for, Was ultimately a victory for Trump.
A jury found he defamed her, but did not assault her. A very weird decision. But still no victory for the left.
“. . . a civil suit against DJT over the injuries they received during the J 6 insurrection.”
I look forward to the class action lawsuits against the Leftist politicians who aided and abetted the “summer of love” destruction in cities such as Minneapolis, Seattle, NY, Chicago, et al. Should be in the billions.
Yawn.
When will you quit acting like a child?
DM the court erred in allowing this civil lawsuit to proceed, the case law on the immunity of those in government to this type of lawsuit – not just the president is a well established matter of law.
All you are doing is pointing out how lawless the the DC courts are.
If that was your intent – congradulations, you have done so in spades.
Nor is that the only bar to this lawsuit.
The alleged injuries of these officers – there is actual video refuting many of their claims, are covered by workers comp.
The Law precludes those covered by workers comp from suing for covered injuries.
You can argue that is wrong – but it is the state of the law.
All you have done is highlighted another case of judicial arogance and incompetence by the DC courts.
Regardless, courts can rule stupidly all they want – it does not make that true.
As you claim – Bianco was represented by counsel and STILL she agreed to a settlement.
Do you have evidence that someone Threatened Bianco’s life ?
It is irrelevant how Bianco describes the settlement now.
I have no idea whether Bianco was actually harrassed,
I have no idea whether your representation of the facts of this matter are accurate – you rarely get things even close to correct.
But absent evidence that Bianco was subject to force or the threat of force – she made a free choice to settle.
She does not get to reopen her case.
I have participated in numerous settlements. I have been unhappy with most of them.
That is life.
In more than one instance with an excellent case, I settled to avoid a protracted – years long lawsuit that I likely would have prevailed at – albeit at great cost both financially and otherwise while proceeding.
Sometimes you choose just to get on with your life.
Frankly my advice to most people – even those that have a compelling and large case would be to settle quickly for what they can get.
To get beyond the issue and not allow this to take over your life.
Bianco aparently took that advice years ago and has subsequently changed her mind.
I would separately note that in instances of workplace sexual harrassment, absent CLEAR evidence that the problem eminates from the top the liability for the conduct should be exclusively with those committing the conduct.
But I do know that is not the state of the law.
Regardless we should never hold people liable for things they did not do.
You make alot of claims about Habba, as well as NJ law – without actual evidence.
Habba has been a very successful civil lawyer independent of Trump.
Her abilities are extremely well established.
With respect to her alleged conduct here – why are we to beleive you ?
You have lied about so many things.
Why should we presume that Habba knew Bianco was represented ?
Why should we presume that Bianco did not volutnarily agree to talk with Habba – which represented or not she is free to do ?
Why are we to beleive the settlement was illegal under NJ law ?
I would not that even if a specific clause is “illegal” that does nothing to the rest of the settlement.
Most contracts contain clauses that might violate local or state laws.
Sometimes they KNOWING contain those clauses.
Other times they contain clauses that may or may not violate the laws.
Most settlements include enforcement provisions.
There is ALWAYS a penalty for violating a settlement – there MUST be or there would NEVER be a settlement.
Why as an example would the Trump organization Settle with Bianco if the next day or a year later she decides to sue anyway ?
BOTH sides settle – nearly always expecting they could do better in court, in order to avoid the cost and uncertainty of court.
Any settlement that says “I will take you money, and then sue you anyway” is BAD FAITH.
Bianco was free to say no.
I would note – we have NO IDEA what the merits of the case are.
As should be clear from #metoo – there is lots of egregiously bad conduct that never gets punished.
There are also people who come out of the woodwork when they think they can make a buck.
There is no way of knowing whether Bianco is the former or the latter.
But YOU have already decided.
YOu have decided that all allegations against those you dislike are true
and all allegations against those you like are false.
Nut Job E Jean Carrole is in your world telling the truth.
Tara Reade is in your world a liar.
Care to explain why a clear nut job who has accused every man she has known of rape and many she has not – including Trump is telling the Truth While Tara Read is not ?
There are LOTS of allegations of sexual misconduct by Biden, ranging from groping femal Secret Service agents, or their wives or their children to his infamous public fondling and hair sniffing.
There are actually more claims of repulsive conduct by Biden than Trump and the Biden ones are more credible.
But you make your choices based on politics.
Those on the left never engage in misconduct.
The Topic is Mayokas.
I know this is hard for you but EVERYTHING is NOT about Trump.
Dennis,
You are on the wrong side of the curve.
You do not seem to grasp – you and the left have finally lost credibility.
It has been a long slog – and you have gotten away with many many many lies.
But the good news is that credibility once lost is incredibly difficult to get back.
At this point you could produce video of Trump receiving Billions from Putin and people would presume it was fake.
Even if the MSM beat on it daily.
Everyone is tired of your lies – and those of the left.
They are not paying attention.
Democrats are now talking about going nuclear and drafting Michelle Obama. Because they grasp that Biden is toast.
That the odds of turning things arround by November are ZERO, That the “get trump” strategy has backfired.
Democrats can not replace Biden with Newsom – a pasty white man will not reverse the route.
Oprah told democrats to pound sand.
Harris is less popular than Biden.
Michelle is the current great Democrat hope.
The only democrat sufficiently untainted with some hope of bringing back minorities.
And that of course presumes they can figure out how to get her the democratic nomination without
looking corrupt.
I do not think Michelle is running,
Not do I think that her appeal will endure in an actual campaign.
But the talk reveals how desparate democrats are.
No one beleives you any more.
Jonathan: Some on this blog don’t like me discussing the ongoing legal travails of DJT. It’s embarrassing for MAGA supporters. But, hey, someone has to do it because facts and the truth are the best disinfectant for all the lies we see on social media by DJT and his supporters. And, contrary to what some claim, I don’t get paid for my efforts to defend Democracy. When I stood up to be sworn in as a new attorney I pledged to defend and protect the US Constitution. So here we go.
Earlier this week the NY Court of Appeals reimposed Judge Engoron’s gag order on DJT in the civil fraud case. And how did DJT respond? On Wednesday DJT posted an attack on Judge Engoron’s wife, falsely claiming she was “Trump Hating”. DJT also continued to attack Engoron’s chief clerk.
According to the reporting DJT got his info from Laura Loomer, a right-wing conspiracy theorist , who claimed the alleged posts came from Mrs. Engoron’s “X” account. The NY Office of Court Administration issued the following statement: “Justice Engoron’s wife has not sent social media posts regarding the former president. They are not hers”.
So how is Engoron going to respond to DJT’s violation of the gag order and his latest loony posts about the Judge’s wife? I doubt he will take the bait re the attacks on his wife. But DJT’s latest continued attacks on the clerk? That may be a different matter.
Create your own blog, freeloader.
Dennis still stealing bandwidth from the host.
Nobody reads is lies, so he thinks the content will get wide coverage.
Except anyone with a 3 grade education has figured out Dennis is a window licking retard that lies.
Iowan2: How would you know whether I am a “window licking retard that lies”–unless, of course, you actually read my comment. And for that I am grateful. Unfortunately, you apparently never got beyond the 3rd grade so all you can do is hurl personal insults. You are like the 3rd grade bullies I encountered on the school play ground. Did you learn that at school or at home?
Post away, sister, the more you attack him, the stronger he becomes.
I am in no way embarrassed a bunch of liberal asshats are engaged in lawfare against DJT.
In fact, I am embarrassed that seemingly intelligent people are happy with what the dnc/media/brits are doing and have done – but i suppose it keeps them from looking at ukraine/gaza/twitter files/J6 and the rest of the truly repugnant acts committed in their names, but whatever keeps them off the rooftops, I suppose.
Keep on’ keepin on, love seeing those meds working.
When will you grow up?
The gag order is unconstitutional. There is over 2 centuries of law on this. There are multiple supreme court decisions.
The real question is why is it that the left insists on violating legal and judicial norms, standards and constitutional rights that were solidly established more than two centuries ago.
The people who condemned the border patrol agents on horseback just simply ‘hate’ America. Democrat icon Barrack Obama said he was going to, “fundamentally transform” America. When someone says they want to “fundamentally transform” something, they do indeed, ‘hate’ that something.
More republicans who must be expelled immediately are listed below.
___________________________________________________________________________
“Here are the eight House Republicans who voted against Greene’s resolution:”
Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Rep. John Duarte (Calif.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Rep. Cliff Bentz (Ore.)
Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.)
Rep. Mike Turner (Ohio.)
– The Hill