The Right Side of the News

There are at least three sides: your side, our side, and the facts.SOP is to compare the different sides with the facts in order to see which side aligns more closely with the facts.So what do the comparisons show here? It is our side that aligns with the facts, because we formed our side by observing the facts. Your side conflicts with the facts because it was crafted to deny and to lie about the facts. Well, if you were to observe the facts, then you would be able to change your mind.For example, do you still believe that the Mueller report exonerated Trump? You were fooled to believe that because that's the lie that Trump and your right-wing commentators kept telling you. We knew from the start that that was not true, because we actually read what was written both in the report itself and in the portion directly quoted by Barr in his four-page summary misrepresentation of the report. IOW, the facts.

Not gossipy opinion, but rather a true report. Facts are facts.From CBS news: 18-year-old U.S. citizen detained by border officials said conditions were so bad he lost 26 pounds, almost self-deported

quote:

---

Francisco Erwin Galicia, the 18-year-old Dallas-born U.S. citizen detained by border officials, is speaking out about the conditions inside the facility where he was wrongfully held for more than three week. Galicia said conditions were so bad, he considered self-deporting just to get out even though he has a birth certificate proving he's American-born.

​

During the 23 days he was in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Galicia was not allowed to shower, he told The Dallas Morning News, which first reported his story.

​

The teen said he lost 26 pounds during his time in the immigrant detention center, and said officers didn't provide him with enough food. He was crammed into an overcrowded holding area with 60 other men. They slept on the floor with aluminum-foil blankets some even had to sleep in the bathroom area, he said.

​

Some of the men were very sick and were bitten by ticks, but were afraid to ask for a doctor because CBP officers told them their stay would start over if they did, Galicia said.

​

"It was inhumane how they treated us. It got to the point where I was ready to sign a deportation paper just to not be suffering there anymore. I just needed to get out of there," he told the newspaper. "It's one thing to see these conditions on TV and in the news. It's another to go through them."

​

Galicia's brother Marlon, who was born in Mexico and is not a U.S. citizen, decided to agree to deportation after two days in the facility.

​

The brothers were not allowed to make phone calls while being detained. Marlon was deported to Mexico, but Galicia stayed until he was moved into ICE custody, where he was finally allowed to call his mother.

​

His lawyer, Claudia Galan, brought necessary documentation, including his birth certificate, to border officials, but they continued to hold him. She told the newspaper it appears he was detained due to conflicting information on a visa his mother had used for him as a child. Finally, on Tuesday, Galan announced Galicia had been released.

​

Galicia spoke to The Dallas Morning News one day after his release. He said when he and his friends drove up to a CBP checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas, he presented his Texas I.D., Social Security card and a wallet-sized birth certificate. The agents refused to believe he was a citizen and took him into custody.

​

"I told them we had rights and asked to make a phone call. But they told us, 'You don't have rights to anything'," Galicia told the paper.

​

Galicia, his brother and friends were on their way to a soccer scouting event at Ranger College when they were stopped by CBP. He was hoping to earn a scholarship. "We're supposed to graduate from high school next year, and we wanted to do something to secure our education," he said.

​

The teen's plans were derailed when he was wrongfully detained. "Powerless. That's how I felt. How with all this proof that I was giving them could they hold me?" he said.

---

The facts, Faith. The facts. We keep showing them to you and you keep ignoring them.

Bunch of gossipy assertions, not clearly facts.However, I did hear that account of the kid wrongfully detained, I have no reason to doubt that. But your other post was a lot of gossipy opinion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Weird. Of course it exonerated him. Barr's statement made that clear.

Both Barr's summary and Mueller's testimony directly state that the report does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

But that is a really bizarre piece of deceit since his job was to find reason for criminal charges and if those weren't found that was the end of the investigation. They were not found and that is logically the same as exoneration although such a term doesn't belong in the context of such a report at all: there is either reason for criminal charges or there is not and that is that. There was a lot of verbal game playing amounting to deceit going on in that report. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, it did not. It explicitly stated that it did not exonerate Trump. Barr directly quoted from the report where it explicitly stated that it did not exonerate Trump.How do we know this? Because we have read both the report and also Barr's "summary".Why do you still now know this? Because you have not bothered to read either the report nor Barr's "summary" of it, nor even the sections copied directly from the report that we have posted here for you to be able to read. Instead, you have only listened to the lies told by Trump and by his enablers.We are informed by directly examining the facts. You are misinformed by avoiding the facts and listening to the lies.

1. Not having enough evidence to charge is not the same as exoneration
2. Mueller said multiple times in testimony that he was prevented from charging Trump for obstruction of justice because of DoJ policy. Mueller listed 10 instances of obstruction of justice that he was unable to bring charges for because of DoJ policy. There were reasons for criminal charges.

It's possible to read something and not really get it, especially when it was written to manipulate and deceive. Barr's statement of the main points was very clear and there was no doubt on the part of anyone who heard it. It took quite a bit of Leftist manipulation to smear the man and his simple report, and that's what YOU believe.Again such a report can't officially exonerate, it either brings chanrges or it doesn't, and it didn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mueller had already explicitly denied that the DoJ policy had anything whatever to do with the conclusions in the report. Not that he knew much about what was in the report which became clear when he was interviewed but anyway he said that clearly and then contradicted himself later. The report found no cause for criminal charges. If it had they could have made it clear that it had despite whatever reasons they were not going to prosecute, and they didn't. They went to great lengths to invent obstruction of justice out of this and that and it never amounted to obstruction of justice and THAT is why there was no mention of criminal charges. They can impeach him if they like because criminal charges aren't necessary for that but it's not even clear if they are going to try to do that after all.The Mueller Rport was over two years of deceit and attempts to interfere with Trump's Presidency. There was never any cause for it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How about this, which clearly does scare the crap out of you because you can't just lie about it to avoid facing rality:So we've established that Faith is in favor of the horrendous treatment of migrants at the border. The cruelty is the point, and she loves cruelty.
So why does Faith think Obama did bad things? Because he wasn't barbaric enough?Again, from an official US Government report: No, Faith, those photos and the report and the testimony of Border Patrol agents say there are appalling human rights abuses at our border.And you want more.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Remember back in June, when a lawyer for the United States (Sarah Fabian) told a panel of incredulous Ninth Circuit judges that it is safe and sanitary to confine immigrant children in facilities without soap or toothbrushes and to make them sleep on concrete floors under bright lights and with only "space blankets"? And there was no need for hot meals or bathroom access or toothbrushes? And the outcry that followed?Well, the Ninth Circuit opinion is out, and it's a doozy. I especially like the two word reply "not so".

quote:

---

In June 2017, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. In its order (the Order), the court found that the government was violating the Agreement’s express requirements to provide adequate access to appropriate food and water and adequate temperature controls at a reasonable and comfortable range. The court further found that although the Agreement makes no mention of the words ‘soap,’ ‘towels,’ ‘showers,’ ‘dry clothing,’ or ‘toothbrushes,’ . . . these hygiene products fall within the rubric of the Agreement’s language requiring ‘safe and sanitary’ conditions. Certain Border Patrol stations, the district court found, were violating paragraph 12A of the Agreement by failing to provide such sanitary necessities.

​

The district court also determined that although the word ‘sleep’ does not appear in the Agreement, . . . whether Defendants have set up conditions that allow class members to sleep in the [Border Patrol] facilities is relevant to the issue of whether they have acted in a manner that is consistent with ‘the INS’s concern for the particular vulnerability of minors’ as well as the Agreement’s ‘safe and sanitary’ requirement. Citing evidence that many minors in Border Patrol custody are forced to sleep on concrete floors, with no bedding aside from pieces of thin polyester foil, and are subjected to cold temperatures, serious overcrowding, and constant lighting, the district court found that the government was violating the Agreement at certain Border Patrol stations by holding

​

...

​

The government also argues that the phrase safe and sanitary is so vague that either it cannot be enforced, see Oral Argument at 33:57—34:09, Flores v. Barr, No. 17- 56297 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2019), https://www.ca9.uscourts.g ov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000015907, or it leaves the specifics of compliance [with paragraph 12A] up to the government. Not so.

​

The district court’s interpretation of the Agreement is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the language of paragraph 12A, which does provide a standard sufficiently clear to be enforced. The court found, among other things, that minors (1) were not receiving hot, edible, or a sufficient number of meals during a given day, (2) had no adequate access to clean drinking water, (3) experienced unsanitary conditions with respect to the holding cells and bathroom facilities, (4) lacked access to clean bedding, and access to hygiene products (i.e., toothbrushes, soap, towels), and (5) endured sleep deprivation as a result of cold temperatures, overcrowding, lack of proper bedding (i.e., blankets, mats), [and] constant lighting. After so finding, the district court concluded that these conditions fall short of paragraph 12A’s requirement that facilities be safe and sanitary, especially given the particular vulnerability of minors. Those determinations reflect a commonsense understanding of what the quoted language requires. Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleepdeprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety.6 The district court properly construed the Agreement as requiring such conditions rather than allowing the government to decide whether to provide them.

---

("The Agreement" is the Flores agreement.)They're brutalizing those kids to deter more migrants. And not only do they admit they are, they're arguing it's OK. In the United States of America.Faith is all for the barbarity.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The ninth circuit court is well known for its leftist ideology.What can the Border Patrol do if they aren't given the supplies needed?Who is responsible for supplying them? Isn't it Congress? The President can't appropriate the funds.And how many detention centers are there on the border? The one you keep highlighting is probably the bad one, which is of course why you focus on it.There are fifteen detention centers within the US. Any idea what sort of conditions exist at all of them?One really bad one is of course too many.You can stop with the lying accusations any time now. All it does is identify you as a Leftist since that's their modus operandi.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The border patrol's argument wasn't "we don't have the supplies to do that" it was "we're not required to do that". Cruelty is the point.

False. Multiple criminal charges came from the Mueller investigation. False. They couldn't charge the president so they didn't. Mueller and Barr stated the report does not exonerate nor convict the president of criminal charges. Straight up lie. There was clear russian interference in the election. The have been multiple criminal charges brought because of this interference.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.