Trump offered pardons to officials if they would break law at his request

[Rawley]

Why do you hate laws?

:roll:

Because lemons are yellow.

Strike 1

 

[Cardinal]

Strike 3. Thanks for playing. Enjoy your lovely parting gift.

When you see somebody shoplifting, shoot him in the head. Tell the judge, "Why is it illegal to stop somebody committing a crime?" Enjoy your 15 years in maximum security.

What did you have lined up after "strike 3?"

 

[Rawley]

What a lazy question. There is nothing illegal about stopping illegal immigrants from entering the country per se, but there are legal and illegal methods that can be implemented in doing so. Clearly, we are discussing illegal methods in this thread and The President's promises to pardon those acts. Had you read the article and the OP, you would have known that. Instead, you lazily asked why it is illegal to prevent something illegal.

Really? This guy is making a claim "Even though he'd been told on repeated occasions that the way he wanted to do it was illegal" A natural question is what was the President asking them to do to stop illegals from crossing the border? Shoot them? If you guys don't know, a simple "I don't know" will suffice rather than jumping up my ass.

 

[Grand Mal]

I was talking about his early (2016 campaign) rally rhetoric. It's part of a pattern.

Sorry, I misunderstood. Re-reading your post showed me my error.

 

[Xilnik]

Really? This guy is making a claim "Even though he'd been told on repeated occasions that the way he wanted to do it was illegal" A natural question is what was the President asking them to do to stop illegals from crossing the border? Shoot them? If you guys don't know, a simple "I don't know" will suffice rather than jumping up my ass.

That was not what you asked. Had you asked, "What is President Trump being accused of asking them to do?" I would have understood your frustrations with non-answers. Maybe you would like to ask that question now?

If I had to guess, I would say it was probably related to his policy change on "Catch and Release."

Trump's decision to end 'catch and release' stops the illegal immigration surge - Washington Times

He was probably having DHS officers detain illegal immigrants and send them back to Mexico instead of releasing them to our legal system before his administration made direct deportation legal.


EDIT: It seems I was incorrect, though the policy shift is still similar. The illegal act was stopping any illegal immigrant from entering the country regardless of reason, including seeking asylum.

It was made clear to the president that it was against the law for us to simply deny entry to anyone seeking entry across the southern border, including people who were fleeing violence, persecution, danger. Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge. ('The Trump show' continues as RNC heads to second night packed with Donald's family – US politics live | US news | The Guardian)​

 

[Ikari]

Trump has repeatedly denied reports that he offered senior aides pardons to stop undocumented immigrants from coming into the United States or to expedite construction of a border wall. But a former top official at the Department of Homeland Security — who has become a Trump critic trying to derail his reelection — says Trump did offer pardons to immigration officials in a new advertisement designed to offer counter-messaging to the Republican National Convention.

“It was April of 2019. We were down at the border, and the president said to the senior leadership of the Homeland Security Department behind the scenes we should not let anyone else into the United States,” Miles Taylor, the former chief of staff at DHS, said. “Even though he'd been told on repeated occasions that the way he wanted to do it was illegal, his response was to say, do it. If you get in trouble, I'll pardon you."

Taylor said the president told the staff, “the bins are full." “The president offered to pardon U.S. government officials for breaking the law to implement his immigration policy,” Taylor said in the new ad.Taylor is among a chorus of loosely affiliated Republican critics who are trying to stop the president’s reelection. The president has said he does not know Taylor, who was in a number of Oval Office meetings, according to other officials.



[cont]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2020/08/25/republican-national-convention-live-updates/


Now, we already know what the Trumpists are going to say because they say it about everything Trump does that is bad.

But damn, in any other time, this alone would probably lead to impeachment. It's insanely corrupt. Literal tin pot behavior.

Seems about right. There isn't a moral fiber in his entire being, he wants to be able to run the US like Xi runs China or Putin runs Russia.

 

[Rawley]

That was not what you asked. Had you asked, "What is President Trump being accused of asking them to do?" I would have understood your frustrations with non-answers. Maybe you would like to ask that question now?

Sorry you guys struggled so mightly with "Why is it illegal to stop illegals from entering the country?" Seems every single one of you knew exactly what I was asking, but had to come back with some snarky smartass response in some weird attempt at displaying intellectual superiority. I don't respond to that kind of bull**** posting.

If I had to guess, I would say it was probably related to his policy change on "Catch and Release."

Trump's decision to end 'catch and release' stops the illegal immigration surge - Washington Times

He was probably having DHS officers detain illegal immigrants and send them back to Mexico instead of releasing them to our legal system before his administration made direct deportation legal.

How was it "illegal" before? It was simply a policy change, no laws were changed. To get a pardon you have to break a law, be arrested be tried and convicted. You guys seem to be putting a lot of faith in this guy you didn't know existed twenty minutes ago

 

[Xilnik]

Sorry you guys struggled so mightly with "Why is it illegal to stop illegals from entering the country?" Seems every single one of you knew exactly what I was asking, but had to come back with some snarky smartass response in some weird attempt at displaying intellectual superiority. I don't respond to that kind of bull**** posting.



How was it "illegal" before? It was simply a policy change, no laws were changed. To get a pardon you have to break a law, be arrested be tried and convicted. You guys seem to be putting a lot of faith in this guy you didn't know existed twenty minutes ago

It seems I was incorrect, though the policy shift is still similar. The illegal act was stopping any illegal immigrant from entering the country regardless of reason, including seeking asylum.

It was made clear to the president that it was against the law for us to simply deny entry to anyone seeking entry across the southern border, including people who were fleeing violence, persecution, danger. Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge. ('The Trump show' continues as RNC heads to second night packed with Donald's family – US politics live | US news | The Guardian)​

 

[Rawley]

It seems I was incorrect, though the policy shift is still similar. The illegal act was stopping any illegal immigrant from entering the country regardless of reason, including seeking asylum.

It was made clear to the president that it was against the law for us to simply deny entry to anyone seeking entry across the southern border, including people who were fleeing violence, persecution, danger. Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge. ('The Trump show' continues as RNC heads to second night packed with Donald's family – US politics live | US news | The Guardian)​

No. They have a right to seek asylum absolutely. They have no legal right to remain in our country while their asylum case is heard. This was the "catch and release" policy of prior administrations. Again, this is a change in policy, not a change in the law. .

 

[Xilnik]

No. They have a right to seek asylum absolutely. They have no legal right to remain in our country while their asylum case is heard. This was the "catch and release" policy of prior administrations. Again, this is a change in policy, not a change in the law. .

Except denying them the chance to be heard does prevent them from seeking refuge, and that denial is/was against the law. "Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge."

 

[Rawley]

Except denying them the chance to be heard does prevent them from seeking refuge, and that denial is/was against the law. "Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge."

??? No one is denying them the right to be heard. PLease follow along here. I'll say it again, this time slowly. They absolutely have the right to claim asylum and have their case heard. What they do not have the right to do is stay in this country until their case comes up before an immigration judge. They have to stay in a safe refuge country such as Mexico.

Instead of struggling with this, Mr. Taylor and the OP might have explained what is supposedly illegal about stopping illegals from entering the country.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Nixon

Worse than

 

[Xilnik]

??? No one is denying them the right to be heard. PLease follow along here. I'll say it again, this time slowly. They absolutely have the right to claim asylum and have their case heard. What they do not have the right to do is stay in this country until their case comes up before an immigration judge. They have to stay in a safe refuge country such as Mexico.

Instead of struggling with this, Mr. Taylor and the OP might have explained what is supposedly illegal about stopping illegals from entering the country.

It sounds like they were being deported without being heard or having a hearing scheduled. COVID-19 has provided excuses for similar behavior. Would you agree that is illegal?

United States law enshrines the protections of the international Refugee Convention, drafted in the wake of the horrors of World War II. The law provides that any person “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … irrespective of such [person’s] status, may apply for asylum...”

For asylum seekers, making it to the United States often means they have found safety from persecution, torture, and sometimes death. But upon their arrival, they face a new odyssey of navigating complex U.S. immigration laws and an increasingly restrictive environment that bars many bona fide asylum seekers from winning protection. Under the Trump administration, these challenges have become even greater.

Since 2017, the federal government has unleashed relentless attacks on the U.S. asylum system and against the people who seek safety within our borders. Internal memos have revealed these efforts to be concerted, organized, and implemented toward the goal of ending asylum in the United States.
...
Since March, the Trump administration has been exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to expel nearly all noncitizens, including asylum seekers and thousands of children. These unlawful expulsions began in response to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) order closing the Southern border. (See May 2020 update for more information.) Though mostly shrouded in secrecy, news broke that the government was confining children alone in hotels for weeks, without access to counsel or proper medical care (Asylum Seekers & Refugees | National Immigrant Justice Center).​

 

[Rawley]

It sounds like they were being deported without being heard or having a hearing scheduled. COVID-19 has provided excuses for similar behavior. Would you agree that is illegal?

Well you heard wrong. It's perfectly legal. What you are reading is from an advocacy group that doesn't like the President's policy. That doesn't make it illegal.

United States law enshrines the protections of the international Refugee Convention, drafted in the wake of the horrors of World War II. The law provides that any person “physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … irrespective of such [person’s] status, may apply for asylum...”

For asylum seekers, making it to the United States often means they have found safety from persecution, torture, and sometimes death. But upon their arrival, they face a new odyssey of navigating complex U.S. immigration laws and an increasingly restrictive environment that bars many bona fide asylum seekers from winning protection. Under the Trump administration, these challenges have become even greater.

Since 2017, the federal government has unleashed relentless attacks on the U.S. asylum system and against the people who seek safety within our borders. Internal memos have revealed these efforts to be concerted, organized, and implemented toward the goal of ending asylum in the United States.
...
Since March, the Trump administration has been exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to expel nearly all noncitizens, including asylum seekers and thousands of children. These unlawful expulsions began in response to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) order closing the Southern border. (See May 2020 update for more information.) Though mostly shrouded in secrecy, news broke that the government was confining children alone in hotels for weeks, without access to counsel or proper medical care (Asylum Seekers & Refugees | National Immigrant Justice Center).​

 

[Xilnik]

Well you heard wrong. It's perfectly legal. What you are reading is from an advocacy group that doesn't like the President's policy. That doesn't make it illegal.

Wow. DHS leader says illegal behavior is occurring, even outlining what that behavior is. Trump supporter says, "Nope, that is not what he said at all. It is perfectly legal." And you wonder why people say you are part of a cult. :lamo

 

[Rawley]

Wow. DHS leader says illegal behavior is occurring, even outlining what that behavior is.

Wow yourself. He was never a leader, he had a staff position. He's been a Goggle goon for a year now. Does the timing of his bombshells raise any bells whatsoever with you?

Trump supporter says, "Nope, that is not what he said at all. It is perfectly legal." And you wonder why people say you are part of a cult. :lamo

So disappointing Xilnik. We had a rational discuission going on, and then you revert to form, spew the ad hominum and start asshole posts.

 

[Xilnik]

Wow yourself. He was never a leader, he had staff position. He's been a Goggle goon for year now. Does the timing of his bombshells raise any bells whatsoever with you?



So disappointing Xilnik. We had a rational discuission going on, and they you revert to form, spew the ad hominum and start asshole posts.

If you want to argue that we should wait for an investigation and not believe hearsay evidence, that is one thing. I would have been fine to agree with you on that point.

Instead, you made the claim that I "heard" wrong when the words were plain for anyone to see. Your claim is that I did not read what I read, which is absolutely ridiculous. It is not ad hominem if that is your true stance that I read the words incorrectly. I know what I read. Whether it is valid or not is up for debate, which you avoided doing.

 

[Xilnik]

Wow yourself. He was never a leader, he had a staff position.

He had a Chief of Staff position. That is the second or third highest position in the Department of Homeland Security if I am reading the chart correctly. The chart actually makes it appear there are five positions that lead the department, among which is Chief of Staff.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_1205_dhs-organizational-chart.pdf

I think someone that high up deserves listening to. That does not mean I believe him 100%, but I believe him over some random staff member. And yes, the timing is questionable, but that will also be true when the Durham Report is released. Will you have any issues with that being released just before the election?

I apologize for implying that I think you act like you are part of a cult, but I get tired of people misrepresenting what my stance is on topics. I read what I read, and it was not really open to interpretation. It was clear that the Chief of Staff believed illegal immigrants were being sent back without an opportunity to seek refuge or have a hearing about gaining refuge. You may argue that we do not have all the facts, and that is true, but you cannot argue that I read that wrong.

 

[Rawley]

If you want to argue that we should wait for an investigation and not believe hearsay evidence, that is one thing. I would have been fine to agree with you on that point.

Instead, you made the claim that I "heard" wrong when the words were plain for anyone to see. Your claim is that I did not read what I read, which is absolutely ridiculous. It is not ad hominem if that is your true stance that I read the words incorrectly. I know what I read. Whether it is valid or not is up for debate, which you avoided doing.

Investigate what? Back to my original question. We have no idea what this joke Taylor is even claiming.

What you heard wrong is believing a press release by any advocacy group is giving you anything close to an accurate picture. And yes, calling me part of a cult is certainly ad hominem. If you can't see that, tell me now, because we're done.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Trump has repeatedly denied reports that he offered senior aides pardons to stop undocumented immigrants from coming into the United States or to expedite construction of a border wall. But a former top official at the Department of Homeland Security — who has become a Trump critic trying to derail his reelection — says Trump did offer pardons to immigration officials in a new advertisement designed to offer counter-messaging to the Republican National Convention.

“It was April of 2019. We were down at the border, and the president said to the senior leadership of the Homeland Security Department behind the scenes we should not let anyone else into the United States,” Miles Taylor, the former chief of staff at DHS, said. “Even though he'd been told on repeated occasions that the way he wanted to do it was illegal, his response was to say, do it. If you get in trouble, I'll pardon you."

Taylor said the president told the staff, “the bins are full." “The president offered to pardon U.S. government officials for breaking the law to implement his immigration policy,” Taylor said in the new ad.Taylor is among a chorus of loosely affiliated Republican critics who are trying to stop the president’s reelection. The president has said he does not know Taylor, who was in a number of Oval Office meetings, according to other officials.



[cont]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2020/08/25/republican-national-convention-live-updates/


Now, we already know what the Trumpists are going to say because they say it about everything Trump does that is bad.

But damn, in any other time, this alone would probably lead to impeachment. It's insanely corrupt. Literal tin pot behavior.

If this bilge was even close to being true, he would be impeached.

I hope your hard on doesn't last longer than 4 hours.

 

[Xilnik]

Investigate what? Back to my original question. We have no idea what this joke Taylor is even claiming.

We do know what he is claiming. I quoted it.
Taylor said, "It was made clear to the president that it was against the law for us to simply deny entry to anyone seeking entry across the southern border, including people who were fleeing violence, persecution, danger. Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge." ('The Trump show' continues as RNC heads to second night packed with Donald's family – US politics live | US news | The Guardian)

What you heard wrong is believing a press release by any advocacy group is giving you anything close to an accurate picture. And yes, calling me part of a cult is certainly ad hominem. If you can't see that, tell me now, because we're done.

I never called you a part of a cult. I said "And you wonder why people say you are part of a cult." I was expressing that I can understand why people might think that based on your response that misrepresented what I was saying. You used a strawman to pick apart my argument instead of saying what you really think, which is that we cannot trust what Taylor is telling us.

If Taylor was the only person making those claims, I would agree with you that they cannot be trusted, but we have seen numerous reports from immigration advocacy groups that they are receiving similar allegations against DHS and President Trump's administration. I still agree with you that it would be wise to wait and see what the class action lawsuits and investigations into Taylor's claims reveal before forming an ironclad conclusion, but the reports themselves are concerning.

 

[Rawley]

He had a Chief of Staff position. That is the second or third highest position in the Department of Homeland Security if I am reading the chart correctly. The chart actually makes it appear there are five positions that lead the department, among which is Chief of Staff.

Yes, you are reading it wrong. The Chief of Staff is not in the chain of command at all.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_1205_dhs-organizational-chart.pdf

I think someone that high up deserves listening to. That does not mean I believe him 100%, but I believe him over some random staff member. And yes, the timing is questionable, but that will also be true when the Durham Report is released. Will you have any issues with that being released just before the election?

It could just as well be indictments. And they would work both ways. Your party will be chanting "SEE - WE TOLD YOU BARR WAS THE SPAWN OF SATAN"

I apologize for implying that I think you act like you are part of a cult, but I get tired of people misrepresenting what my stance is on topics. I read what I read, and it was not really open to interpretation.

Apology accepted. All I was doing was pointing out that the allegations you were relying on were coming from a political advocacy group and should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

It was clear that the Chief of Staff believed illegal immigrants were being sent back without an opportunity to seek refuge or have a hearing about gaining refuge. You may argue that we do not have all the facts, and that is true, but you cannot argue that I read that wrong.

Once again, back to my original question. You have no idea what Taylor is claiming that was illegal that Trump was ordering them to do. It's your assumption it might have something to do with asylum.

 

[Rawley]

We do know what he is claiming. I quoted it.
Taylor said, "It was made clear to the president that it was against the law for us to simply deny entry to anyone seeking entry across the southern border, including people who were fleeing violence, persecution, danger. Under the law they had the right to come in and try to seek refuge." ('The Trump show' continues as RNC heads to second night packed with Donald's family – US politics live | US news | The Guardian)


I never called you a part of a cult. I said "And you wonder why people say you are part of a cult." I was expressing that I can understand why people might think that based on your response that misrepresented what I was saying. You used a strawman to pick apart my argument instead of saying what you really think, which is that we cannot trust what Taylor is telling us.

If Taylor was the only person making those claims, I would agree with you that they cannot be trusted, but we have seen numerous reports from immigration advocacy groups that they are receiving similar allegations against DHS and President Trump's administration. I still agree with you that it would be wise to wait and see what the class action lawsuits and investigations into Taylor's claims reveal before forming an ironclad conclusion, but the reports themselves are concerning.

It was litigated, and continues to be litigated. It's already been to the Supreme Court and they sided with Trump (for the moment).

Trump’s win at the Supreme Court is a devastating blow to the US asylum system - Vox

 

[Xilnik]

Yes, you are reading it wrong. The Chief of Staff is not in the chain of command at all.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_1205_dhs-organizational-chart.pdf

What are the Chief of Staff's duties in DHS? I have been unable to find anything for DHS leadership beyond the Secretary. The Chief of Staff is listed as a leader.

Leadership

List of senior leaders at the Department. For more information about an individual listed, including a biography, click on their name.

Secretary (acting), Chad F. Wolf | Secretary's Corner
Deputy Secretary (vacant), Ken Cuccinelli, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff (acting), John Gountanis
Executive Secretary, Clark Barrow
General Counsel (vacant), Chad Mizelle, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel
Military Advisor, Rear Admiral Brendan C. McPherson

Leadership | Homeland Security​

Once again, back to my original question. You have no idea what Taylor is claiming that was illegal that Trump was ordering them to do. It's your assumption it might have something to do with asylum.

For a third time, Taylor told us what Trump ordered him to do. He was told to prevent illegal immigrants from entering our country even if they were seeking refuge. That was not an assumption. That was what Taylor said.

 

[Rawley]

What are the Chief of Staff's duties in DHS? I have been unable to find anything for DHS leadership beyond the Secretary. The Chief of Staff is listed as a leader.

Leadership

List of senior leaders at the Department. For more information about an individual listed, including a biography, click on their name.

Secretary (acting), Chad F. Wolf | Secretary's Corner
Deputy Secretary (vacant), Ken Cuccinelli, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff (acting), John Gountanis
Executive Secretary, Clark Barrow
General Counsel (vacant), Chad Mizelle, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel
Military Advisor, Rear Admiral Brendan C. McPherson

Leadership | Homeland Security​

For a third time, Taylor told us what Trump ordered him to do. He was told to prevent illegal immigrants from entering our country even if they were seeking refuge. That was not an assumption. That was what Taylor said.

Your link didn't have anything about Taylor.