Skip to content

Month: June 2019

Please don’t let him look past the headlines on Iran polling

Please don’t let him look past the headlines on Iran polling

by digby

Here’s the headline:

A majority of self-identified Republican voters, 59 percent, do support further military action in Iran. But support for striking Iran is much lower among Democratic voters (23 percent) and independents (28 percent).

Trump said last week that the military was planning to strike Iran in retaliation for the destruction of the U.S. drone, but the president ordered the strike to be canceled upon learning the response could kill scores of Iranians — a result he viewed as disproportionate to Iran’s actions.

Please nobody tell him that his beloved base is a bloodthirsty group of warmongers. I don’t think he knows that.

.

A Reading of the Investigation

A Reading of the Investigation

by digby

The cable nets are ignoring this so it didn’t happen.  But here it is:

I really hope that some of you take the time to watch this. I know the wingnuts won’t bother. But for those of you who haven’t had the time or the inclination to read it,  this is an interesting way to digest the Mueller Report and it’s important that we all do that one way or the other. It’s quite entertaining.

There an opening statement and then a very short break and then the reading.

.

If Democrats pass awesome bills and nobody hears about it, did it really happen?

If Democrats pass awesome bills and nobody hears about it, did it really happen?


by digby

All the polling shows that health care remains the public’s number one issue. For Democrats it’s their main concern after defeating Donald Trump. But I wonder how many have even heard about this? Joan McCarter at Daily Kos writes:

Last week, House Republicans were given yet another opportunity to separate themselves from Donald Trump’s lawsuit to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Once again, they sided with Trump. The House considered amendments to top a “minibus” spending package Thursday and in addition to funding a number of agencies, they adopted an amendment to defund the Trump administration’s efforts in federal courts to overthrow the law.

Freshman Democratic Rep. Laura Underwood of Illinois offered the amendment, which passed 238-194. Just four Republicans decided that sticking with the American people—particularly the 134 million estimated to have pre-existing conditions—isn’t as important as sticking with Trump. What’s at stake in this lawsuit is health coverage for 20 million people who’ve gained it through Obamacare is at stake here, as well as the ongoing coverage for people whose illnesses could once again be excluded in health plans if the law is struck down.

This is the second time the vast majority of Republicans voted with Trump and against Americans on health care in just two months. Just last month, the House passed the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019 230-183, with just four Republicans breaking ranks.

They really couldn’t make it more clear. A decade later, Republicans are still fighting against the idea that everyone should have access to health coverage and they’re still lying about it. They’ve had nine years of debate to come up with a plan and they’ve failed for nine years. And they’re going to go out on the campaign trail one more time to try to convince voters that none of that has happened and they have a plan. The good news is, voters stopped believing that years ago.

Trump reassured us that he’s going to have a beautiful plan any day now. In fact, he said he already has one that nobody’s seen.

This illustrates the fallacy of the Democratic leadership’s belief that their voters are so obsessively concerned with the bills they are passing to address their concerns about kitchen table issues that they don’t want them to waste their time on impeaching Donald Trump unless Republicans agree in advance to remove him from office.  I’m sure they are concerned about kitchen table issues. But I would guess that the number of people who are aware of votes like these is minuscule. And they aren’t paying attention because they know that nothing will make it past Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.

What this leaves is a strange vacuum around both the issues Democrats care about and about the Big Issue, which is stopping this assault on norms, decency, the constitution and humankind that’s currently being perpetrated by Donald Trump.   So naturally, we’re just watching the horse-race now, wondering what stupid thing tTump or Joe Biden is going to say next and it’s all as if it’s all just business as usual. 

We’ll “beat him at the ballot box” and then … what?  This whole thing will just have been a bad dream that meant nothing? We’ll act as if this man and his decadent, nihilistic party haven’t permanently changed the way the rest of the world sees the United States? That the weaknesses in our system haven’t been torn asunder, showing how another, more cunning, demagogic fascist might exploit them, knowing that the opposition party will just wait it out assuming they can always “beat them at the ballot box” with their awesome ideas?

Do we think the Trump/McConnell judiciary will let that happen?

I don’t know. But I do know that the Democrats look feckless right now, reminiscent of the Republicans in 2008 and 2012.  Only now the stakes are truly existential.

Donald Trump could win.

.

Great Britain’s own Trump. Even down to the hair

Great Britain’s own Trump. Even down to the ridiculous hair

by digby

For those who only follow British politics vaguely, I thought I’d share this piece about Boris Johnson, former London mayor and possible new Prime Minister. If it feels familiar, you aren’t alone:

I have known Johnson since the 1980s, when I edited the Daily Telegraph and he was our flamboyant Brussels correspondent. I have argued for a decade that, while he is a brilliant entertainer who made a popular maître d’ for London as its mayor, he is unfit for national office, because it seems he cares for no interest save his own fame and gratification.

Tory MPs have launched this country upon an experiment in celebrity government, matching that taking place in Ukraineand the US, and it is unlikely to be derailed by the latest headlines. The Washington columnist George Will observes that Donald Trump does what his political base wants “by breaking all the china”. We can’t predict what a Johnson government will do, because its prospective leader has not got around to thinking about this. But his premiership will almost certainly reveal a contempt for rules, precedent, order and stability.

A few admirers assert that, in office, Johnson will reveal an accession of wisdom and responsibility that have hitherto eluded him, not least as foreign secretary. This seems unlikely, as the weekend’s stories emphasised. Dignity still matters in public office, and Johnson will never have it. Yet his graver vice is cowardice, reflected in a willingness to tell any audience, whatever he thinks most likely to please, heedless of the inevitability of its contradiction an hour later.

Like many showy personalities, he is of weak character. I recently suggested to a radio audience that he supposes himself to be Winston Churchill, while in reality being closer to Alan Partridge. Churchill, for all his wit, was a profoundly serious human being. Far from perceiving anything glorious about standing alone in 1940, he knew that all difficult issues must be addressed with allies and partners.

Churchill’s self-obsession was tempered by a huge compassion for humanity, or at least white humanity, which Johnson confines to himself. He has long been considered a bully, prone to making cheap threats. My old friend Christopher Bland, when chairman of the BBC, once described to me how he received an angry phone call from Johnson, denouncing the corporation’s “gross intrusion upon my personal life” for its coverage of one of his love affairs.

“We know plenty about your personal life that you would not like to read in the Spectator,” the then editor of the magazine told the BBC’s chairman, while demanding he order the broadcaster to lay off his own dalliances.

Bland told me he replied: “Boris, think about what you have just said. There is a word for it, and it is not a pretty one.”

He said Johnson blustered into retreat, but in my own files I have handwritten notes from our possible next prime minister, threatening dire consequences in print if I continued to criticise him.

Johnson would not recognise truth, whether about his private or political life, if confronted by it in an identity parade. In a commonplace book the other day, I came across an observation made in 1750 by a contemporary savant, Bishop Berkeley: “It is impossible that a man who is false to his friends and neighbours should be true to the public.” Almost the only people who think Johnson a nice guy are those who do not know him.

There is, of course, a symmetry between himself and Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn is far more honest, but harbours his own extravagant delusions. He may yet prove to be the only possible Labour leader whom Johnson can defeat in a general election. If the opposition was led by anybody else, the Tories would be deservedly doomed, because we would all vote for it. As it is, the Johnson premiership could survive for three or four years, shambling from one embarrassment and debacle to another, of which Brexit may prove the least.

For many of us, his elevation will signal Britain’s abandonment of any claim to be a serious country. It can be claimed that few people realised what a poor prime minister Theresa May would prove until they saw her in Downing Street. With Boris, however, what you see now is almost assuredly what we shall get from him as ruler of Britain.

We can scarcely strip the emperor’s clothes from a man who has built a career, or at least a lurid love life, out of strutting without them. The weekend stories of his domestic affairs are only an aperitif for his future as Britain’s leader. I have a hunch that Johnson will come to regret securing the prize for which he has struggled so long, because the experience of the premiership will lay bare his absolute unfitness for it.

If the Johnson family had stuck to showbusiness like the Osmonds, Marx Brothers or von Trapp family, the world would be a better place. Yet the Tories, in their terror, have elevated a cavorting charlatan to the steps of Downing Street, and they should expect to pay a full forfeit when voters get the message. If the price of Johnson proves to be Corbyn, blame will rest with the Conservative party, which is about to foist a tasteless joke upon the British people – who will not find it funny for long.

We feel their pain.

This must be a new leadership archetype that a lot of people really like: an asshole TV personality. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because politics have become a form of entertainment to many people who may not really understand anything more than a vague sense of us vs them? Or is being an asshole just the best way to get people’s attention in this cacophonous media world?

I don’t know, but I suspect we are seeing a new form of leadership developing. And it isn’t good.

.

They’re sending the kids back to the hellhole?

They’re sending the kids back to the hellhole?

by digby

I wonder who gave this order:

U.S. government officials say they’ve moved more than 100 kids back to a remote border facility where lawyers reported detained children were caring for each other and had inadequate food, water, and sanitation.

An official from U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday that the “majority” of the roughly 300 children detained at Clint, Texas, last week have been placed in facilities operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity, wouldn’t say exactly how many children are currently detained there. But the official says Clint is better equipped than some of the Border Patrol’s tents to hold children.

Attorneys involved in monitoring care for migrant children who visited Clint last week said older children were trying to take care of toddlers, The Associated Press reported Thursday.

They described a 4-year-old with matted hair who had gone without a shower for days, and hungry, inconsolable children struggling to soothe one another.

Some had been locked for three weeks inside the facility, where 15 children were sick with the flu and another 10 were in medical quarantine.

Many children interviewed had arrived alone at the U.S.-Mexico border, but some had been separated from their parents or other adult caregivers including aunts and uncles, the attorneys said.

Clara Long, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, and other lawyers inspected the facilities because they are involved in the Flores settlement, a Clinton-era legal agreement that governs detention conditions for migrant children and families.

Lawmakers from both parties decried the situation last week.

The Acting Commissioner of the Border Patrol, John Sanders, has resigned. As I write this, nobody seems to know whether it has anything to do with the ongoing clusterfuck at DHS but it would seem to be an inopportune moment for it, if not.

I think Trump believes this is a selling point for him. Many of his base think sadistic treatment of foreign children is a righteous policy and that’s all that matters.

.

Really, is this what it’s going to take? by @BloggersRUs

Really, is this what it’s going to take?
by Tom Sullivan


“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.”

“RIPPED FROM THE PAGES OF THE MUELLER REPORT” makes The Investigation: A Search for Truth in Ten Acts sound more ripping than it actually is. Performed live Monday night by an A-list ensemble of Hollywood and Broadway actors, The Investigation features dramatic readings from the 448-page Mueller report most Americans will never read. That includes many members of Donald Trump’s own party and the acting president himself. Trump’s interview last week with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos demonstrated that plainly to anyone familiar with the report’s contents.

Adapted by Emmy-nominated playwright, screenwriter, and actor Robert Schenkkan and live-streamed by Law Works, The Investigation joins a growing list of theatrical efforts to make the (redacted) Mueller report more accessible to the general public. The “ten” in the title refers to the 10 specific acts for which special counsel Robert Mueller presents evidence of the president’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

The actors sat behind music stands hung with red, white and blue bunting in New York City’s Riverside Church and stood to read excerpts assigned to them. Annette Bening served as narrator, with John Lithgow drawing occasional laughter for his reading of Trump tweets and statements to associates found in the report. The performance features Kevin Kline as Mueller and Joel Grey as Jeff Sessions. Also appearing are Jason Alexander, Alfre Woodard, Gina Gershon, Michael Shannon among others. In a postscript video, Mark Hamill, Mark Ruffalo, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Sigourney Weaver join in summarizing the report’s findings.

The Investigation follows last week’s online posting of a short video by director Rob Reiner featuring Robert De Niro, George Takei, Stephen King, Rosie Perez, Martin Sheen and more publicizing “the most damning evidence ever complied against a sitting U.S. president.”

Theater groups and a media company have already staged a 24-hour reading in New York of the full report, titled “Filibustered and Unfiltered: America Reads the Mueller Report.” Arena Stage in Washington, DC, will present Volume 2 of the Mueller report in a planned 11-hour reading. That event will also be live-streamed beginning at noon on July 11.

Mueller explained his team found insufficient evidence to prove the Trump campaign entered a criminal conspiracy with Russia to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Obstruction of justice was another matter. Mueller detailed 10 of Trump’s acts of obstruction for which any other person not the president would face criminal charges, and for which Mueller could not exonerate Trump.

Theatrical efforts to promote the Mueller findings, while noteworthy, add to the sense that not only is the criminal justice system broken and unequal (black Americans know this from everyday experience), but democracy is, too. We await a ruling this week from the U.S. Supreme Court on adding a citizenship question to the census demanded by Republicans insistent on breaking it some more. And another ruling on whether they can make the rubble bounce by further gerrymandering districts they’ve designed to under-represent minorities.

Hats are off to Rob Reiner and Robert Schenkkan for attempts to draw eyeballs to evidence supporting what any American with a television stands witness to each new day in Trumpistan.

But really, is this what it’s going to take to move Congress and American public opinion to reign in a criminal administration led by a developmentally challenged sociopath? Actors? Dramatic readings? Preaching to the choir? Maybe if there were more piledrivers, monster trucks, and special effects.

Ravelry Gets It by tristero

Ravelry Gets It 

by tristero

Indeed they do:

Ravelry is a website where both millennials and knitting grannies (among other demographics) meet to talk about knitting, crocheting, weaving, and other craft and fabric arts. But if you plan to crochet a MAGA hat or knit a Trump sweater, think twice about posting it on Ravelry. The forum-style website, which is often described as “Facebook for knitters,” recently issued a statement that they would ban open support of Donald Trump on their site. 

The reason: it has become abundantly clear to the owners of Ravelry (following the RPGNet forums) that Trump is a white supremacist, and that his followers are cynically exploiting the tolerance of the knitting community in order to spread hate and divisiveness. Trumpists can post about knitting but they don’t want them promoting white supremacist memes (like MAGA). Ravelry has standards.

Trump supporters, of course, are free to form their own knitting online community, and I hope they do. That’s called support for freedom of speech. For all I care, they can collaborate with knitters in the KKK and Stormfront and run their own Web site.

If they can find a company that will host it.

Constructing Anti-Liberal Bias by tristero

Constructing Anti-Liberal Bias 

by tristero

WaPo:

Going into the meeting, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) attacked the idea that Congress would provide billions of dollars in more funding to detain unaccompanied children apprehended at the border. She cited numerous recent reports detailing the poor conditions at U.S. facilities.

“That’s not due to a lack of resources; that’s due to a desire — an active desire by this administration to hurt kids,” she said. “We need to stop funding the detention of children under any and all circumstances.” 

But other Democrats have struck a more measured tone…

Implying that Ocasio-Cortez is somehow not measured, i.e., that she is unhinged. I can imagine similar authors back in the 1930’s deciding after hearing Churchill sound the alarm against the Nazis to seek an oh so much more measured response from someone more level-headed.  Somehow, WaPo’s finest think that there is something defensible about this.

Seriously, I can’t remember the last time I saw the condescending, patronizing phrase “But other Republicans have struck a more measured tone…” from any major media outlet.

“Send bachelors and come heavily armed”

“Send bachelors and come heavily armed”

by digby


Charlie Pierce on the scary happenings in Oregon
, a place where red and blue meet in the most dramatic ways:

In these times, everything looks like an ill omen. The capitol is crowded with crows. But it is not an exaggeration to say that if you’re not following the ongoing insanity in Oregon, you are missing a look into a very dark future. It begins with a not-at-all-unusual squabble between the Republicans in the Oregon legislature and the Democratic Governor, Kate Brown. At issue is a huge bill aimed at dealing with the climate crisis. On Thursday, every Republican member of the Oregon state senate took a powder, denying Brown and the Democrats a quorum and effectively killing the bill.

Now this is not an unusual tactic. Not long ago, Democratic lawmakers in Texas and in Wisconsin blew town for the same purpose—to throw sand in the gears of a legislative act of which they did not approve and could not stop by conventional means. In Wisconsin, it was to slow down an anti-union measure. In Texas, it was about a redistricting map that gerrymandered the Texas legislature into a farce. The legislative lamsters all had a good time, taking goofy videos in what appeared to be Holiday Inn lobbies while Republicans back home fumed. (The Texans, it should be noted, won a temporary victory.) 

What makes Oregon different is what the fugitive Republican senators did.

The Republican senators—with the full support of the Oregon Republican Party—made common cause with armed domestic terror groups. (Calling them a militia is a misnomer, regardless of what they may think of themselves.) When a Republican state senator named Brian Boquist heard that Brown was sending the Oregon state police after them, he told a local television station:

Send bachelors and come heavily armed. I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.

Almost immediately, the local domestic terror groups sprang to Boquist’s defense. From ThinkProgress:

A member of the Oregon 3 Percenters — a militia group whose members have vowed to combat what they perceive as constitutional infringement — said they would act as the senators’ de-facto bodyguards against the state police. “We have vowed to provide security, transportation and refuge for those Senators in need,” they wrote in a Facebook post. “We will stand together with unwavering resolve, doing whatever it takes to keep these Senators safe.” 

In Idaho, where some of the lawmakers have supposedly fled, the state’s 3 Percenters group was similarly willing to defend the Republicans as well, posting threatening memes on its Facebook page. “This is what the start of a civil war looks like,” the group wrote in one post. “Elected officials seeking asylum in a friendly jurisdiction.” Speaking to ThinkProgress, Eric Parker, president of the group Real 3 Percenters Idaho, said the group was currently networking to figure out if Brown had asked for any “out of state resources” — such as help from the FBI or Idaho State Patrol — and were willing to assist the the Republican senators in any way necessary.

And you could find a way to wave this off as well, except for what happened on Saturday. From the Oregonian/OregonLive:

A spokeswoman for the Senate President confirmed late Friday that the “Oregon State Police has recommended that the Capitol be closed tomorrow due to a possible militia threat.”

An “Occupy The Senate” rally on Sunday, sponsored by the local and state GOP, seems to have fizzled. (Jason Wilson on the electric Twitter machine is your go-to on this, and he has pictures, including one of a chainsaw the size of a Saturn V.) That doesn’t calm me down at all. There has been a wildness in the land for a while now and, at this moment, at the top of the government, we have a president* who’s more than willing to give that wildness a purpose and a focus.

People with guns have involved themselves in a legislative dispute while the officials of one of the political parties was rooting them on, and one session of a state legislature was cancelled because of it. Roll that around in your head for a while and see where you end up. Something is building in our politics and now I wish I hadn’t watched that series about Chernobyl. We may be exceeding the tolerances of all our systems.

There’s more at the link.

Remember, Trump pardoned the two Oregon ranchers whose criminal activities sparked the Bundy standoff. They know which side their clemency is buttered on.

.

What the hell are we doing to these poor kids?

What the hell are we doing to these poor kids?

by digby

CNN:

A 14-year old told us she was taking care of a 4-year old who had been placed in her cell with no relatives. “I take her to the bathroom, give her my extra food if she is hungry, and tell people to leave her alone if they are bothering her,” she said.

She was just one of the children we talked with last week as part of a team of lawyers and doctorsmonitoring conditions for children in US border facilities. We have been speaking out urgently, since then, about the devastating and abusive circumstances we’ve found. The Trump administration claims it needs even more detention facilities to address the issue, but policy makers and the public should not be fooled into believing this is the answer.

The situation we found is unacceptable. US Border Patrol is holding many children, including some who are much too young to take care of themselves, in jail-like border facilities for weeks at a time without contact with family members, regular access to showers, clean clothes, toothbrushes, or proper beds. Many are sick. Many, including children as young as 2 or 3, have been separated from adult caretakers without any provisions for their care besides the unrelated older children also being held in detention.

We spoke with an 11-year-old caring for his toddler brother. Both were fending for themselves in a cell with dozens of other children. The little one was quiet with matted hair, a hacking cough, muddy pants and eyes that fluttered closed with fatigue. As we interviewed the two brothers, he fell asleep on two office chairs drawn together, probably the most comfortable bed he had used in weeks. They had been separated from an 18-year-old uncle and sent to the Clint Border Patrol Station. When we met them, they had been there three weeks and counting.

“Sometimes when we ask, we are told we will be here for months,” said one 14-year-old who had also been at Clint for three weeks.

Some of the children we spoke with were sleeping on concrete floors and eating the same unpalatable and unhealthy food for close to a month: instant oatmeal, instant soup and a previously-frozen burrito. Children should spend no more than a few hours in short-term border jails to be processed and US-law limits their detention under typical circumstances to 72 hours.
The government has been unapologetic about conditions. A Department of Justice lawyer, Sarah Fabian, told judges in the Ninth Circuit last week that the government’s obligation to provide “safe and sanitary” conditions for child migrants does not require it to provide children with hygiene items such as soap or toothbrushes and it can have them sleep on concrete floors in cold, overcrowded cells.

These doctors risked their careers to expose the dangers children face in immigrant family detention
In late May, acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kevin McAleenan told reporters that the agency had 2,350 unaccompanied children in its custody awaiting placement in detention centers and shelters run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Trump administration wants more money to build more child detention centers to hold even more children, citing these relatively higher numbers of border arrivals. It is urging Congress’ swift approval of the Department of Homeland Security’s supplemental budget request for this purpose.

But that ask glosses over the fact that more children are in immigration custody because over the last several years the government has slowed down the rate at which children are reunified with their families. The government has sought to use children in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) facilities as bait to arrest and deport the family members who come forward to care for them, according to a report by advocacy groups The Women’s Refugee Commission and the National Immigrant Justice Center.
Based on our interviews, officials at the border seem to be making no effort to release children to caregivers– many have parents in the US — rather than holding them for weeks in overcrowded cells at the border, incommunicado from their desperate loved ones. By holding and then transferring them down the line to ORR facilities, the government is turning children into pawns for immigration enforcement.

A second-grader we interviewed entered the room silently but burst into tears when we asked who she traveled with to the US. “My aunt,” she said, with a keening cry. A bracelet on her wrist had the words “US parent” and a phone number written in permanent marker. We called the number on the spot and found out that no one had informed her desperate parents where she was being held. Some of the most emotional moments of our visit came witnessing children speak for the first time with their parents on an attorney’s phone.

Trump and his sadistic henchmen believe that if they torture refugees and their children enough they won’t make the desperate trip to our border to try to save their lives. That is not hyperbole:

Trump administration officials weighed speeding up the deportation of migrant children by denying them their legal right to asylum hearings after separating them from their parents, according to comments on a late 2017 draft of what became the administration’s family separation policy obtained by NBC News.

The draft also shows officials wanted to specifically target parents in migrant families for increased prosecutions, contradicting the administration’s previous statements. In June, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the administration did “not have a policy of separating families at the border” but was simply enforcing existing law.

The authors noted that the “increase in prosecutions would be reported by the media and it would have a substantial deterrent effect.”

The draft plan was provided to NBC News by the office of Sen. Jeff Merkley, D.-Ore., which says it was leaked by a government whistleblower.

In the draft memo, called “Policy Options to Respond to Border Surge of Illegal Immigration” and dated Dec. 16, 2017, officials from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security lay out a blueprint of options, some of which were later implemented and others that have not yet been put into effect.

At the time, the number of undocumented immigrants seeking to cross the southern border was near historic monthly lows: 40,519 in December 2017, compared to 58,379 the same month the year prior.

The document was circulated between high level officials at DHS and the Justice Department, at least one of whom was instrumental in writing the first iteration of the administration’s travel ban.

The plan, and the comments written in the margins, provide a window into the policy discussion thinking at the time, how far officials were willing to go to deter families seeking asylum and what they may still be considering.

In one comment, the Justice Department official suggests that Customs and Border Protection could see that children who have been separated from their parents would be denied an asylum hearing before an immigration judge, which is typically awarded to children who arrive at the border alone.

Instead, the entire family would be given an order of “expedited removal” and then separated, placing the child in the care of HHS in U.S. Marshall’s custody while both await deportation.

“If CBP issues an ER [expedited removal] for the entire family unit, places the parents in the custody of the U.S. Marshal, and then places the minors with HHS, it would seem that DHS could work with HHS to actually repatriate [deport] the minors then,” the official wrote.

“It would take coordination with the home countries, of course, but that doesn’t seem like too much of a cost to pay compared to the status quo.”

It is unclear from the official’s comment whether the government planned on reunifying children with their parents before they were deported.

“It appears that they wanted to have it both ways — to separate children from their parents but deny them the full protections generally awarded to unaccompanied children,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who led the class action suit on behalf of migrant parents who had been separated from their children.

A DHS official told NBC News on the condition of anonymity because the department does not comment on pre-decisional documents that the draft’s authors’ intent was to enable agencies to reunify families after they were separated for prosecution.

But the draft and comments do not mention plans to reunify.

They adapted to the legal restraints on these cruel plans but only barely. The intention has never changed. They seek to deter these refugees and they are using any means necessary. I have no doubt that they sincerely believe that by torturing these little kids they can persuade their families, here and in their home countries, that America does not want them.

It is indefensible.

.