these calls? it s not clear what it means to say abolish ice. it means different things for different people. for some people, it means changing, restructuring, reorganizing. some people it means closing it down all together. it is interesting that ice agents themselves have come out recently almost two of them saying the organization needs to be restructured or ended. it s also interesting that the trump administration using the official white house account is attacking two women senators using taxpayer dollars to attack people who were paid to represent us. this is not what the government of the united states is supposed to do. final point, in response to the previous report, it s disturbing to me that the only thing that s worse than this administration s cruelty is its incompetent. they rolled the daca policy and reunification after the family separation policies completely reflective of the incompetence in managing government. on the point of the white house twitter feed,
across illegally, i hear you on that, the idea of coming across illegally is not the end of the game for people. i don t know that that has public acceptance, does it? i agree with you, chris, and democrats are not saying open borders, because ice doesn t have do do with our borders, it s a totally separate agency. what we re seeing is ice terrorizing communities, in a way that makes us all less safe. what we want is people who are willing to go to the police and law enforcement, if they see a crime, they want to be a witness, two things they have happening, what ice is doing is making people go into the shadows and that makes all of us much less safe. i hear you on that argument. it s an interesting contrast heading into these midterms. the democrats for them, the given is that you seem to have your heart in the right place. is your head going to be in the right place, in terms of how you enforce the law and keep the borders safe. they ve shown a posity of heart,
this is the homeland security s major enforcement arm, let s not forget that democrats have decided to dash leftward and endorse her idea. we believe that we should protect families that need our help. that s not what ice is doing today. t that s why i believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works. look at ice.an what a group of incompetence! at this point, they re focused more on toddlers than terrorists. instead of focusing on stopping bad guys from coming in and stopping c dirty drug money from going out, they re focusing on separating kids from their families. hey, dick, the policy didn t exist any longer, but any way, ice doesn t separate kids at the border. like of the protesters surrounding durbin, it seems like they all confuse ice with customs and border protection. it s border control, border patrol that arrests illegals at the border and runs them through
they re for certain that happening. listen, guys, again, the whole democrats whole platform, as far as i can tell to reach voters is resist trump and family separation policy that doesn t exist that s getting fixed and abolish ice. those are that s like the main deal that s getting all the media coverage. again, miss jones, i want to go back to you. you have to win pennsylvania. you have to win ohio. you have to win wisconsin. you have to win florida. itis might work in the bronx or work in brooklyn or work in malibu or brentwood or even madison, wisconsin, but the vast majority of americans in those heartland states, that s not what they re worried about. they want breadte and butter issues. your reaction. that s true. those folks in the heartland of america should know that in trump s first three months of being president, he cut so many programs and federal programs that included urban and rural business opportunities, water opportunities, so if we re worried about cutting fede
make sure that the american people know this is just one more step in the process. i think we ve been very transparent about how we ve conducted this process. we want onto fisa abuse and other matters. i ve said for a long time we re looking at the state department when we began looking at the state department, you had victoria newland and other people who decided to go out and talk about other things publicly, which actually helped our investigation out quite a bit. the reason why is because we still don t understand how this investigation was actually opened, but we know that many people in the obama era staten department were involved in the opening of that investigation. so it all comes down to how did the information make it from supposedly an australian high commissioner/ambassador to the f.b.i.? we know that that doesn t come through whatso i would call five eyes intelligence it wasn t real intelligence product. it somehow short-circuited that process we also know many people