This money went to a Trump donor:
"A Minnesota prison was for sale at $75M. ICE paid nearly $500M for it.
https://www.the-independent.co...
Meanwhile, from the summary:
So far, the DOE has "identified over 830,000 potentially fraudulent federal student aid accounts
That's a big fucking 'if'.
Kristin Anderson, E. Jean Carroll, Jessica Drake, Jill Harth, Cathy Heller, Ninni Laaksonen, Jessica Leeds, Mindy McGillivray, Jennifer Murphy, Cassandra Searles, Natasha Stoynoff, Temple Taggart McDowell, Karena Virginia, Summer Zervos, Mariah Billado, Tasha Dixon, Victoria Hughes, Bridget Sullivan, Lisa Boyne, Beatrice Keul, Stacey Williams, Katie Johnson, and many others have documented assaults and similar behavior by Donald Trump.
You are ignoring this extensive, correlated evidence presented by these women to instead concentrate on things that others, mostly men, did not do. That is not how evidence works.
As you know, most women do not report sexual assaults, in large part because the criminal justice system has repeatedly shown that they will be ignored.
I will not be continuing this conversation. Anyone comparing this to pizzagate has shown that they are incapable of evaluating the evidence. And quite frankly, that comparison shows that you have crossed the line into sociopathy.
The word "allegedly" means there is no evidence.
As you know, that is not correct. In this context, it means these specific charges have not been proven in court.
As you know, even prior to this report, literally dozens of women have gone on record about rape and sexual assault by Trump.
As you know, other rape charges against Trump have been proven in court.
As you know, the only reason many of the other charges were not taken to court is the statute of limitations.
As you should know, the recently released report has evidence refuting Trump's 'I kicked him out of MaL' claim.
As you should know, the report details rape and sexual assaults by five women. Two of them were minors at the time of the assaults. The report contains contemporaneous evidence to correlate their statements.
Donald Trump is a rapist. Concluding otherwise now requires willfully ignoring mountains of evidence.
US interference in the Brazilian election:
"Inside the Trump-administration campaign to return Brazil's Bolsonaro clan to power"
https://www.reuters.com/world/...
"Battle over Meta's alleged Bolsonaro bias intensifies days before Brazil presidential runoff"
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Spoiier alert:
https://slate.com/culture/2026...
An interesting, albeit somewhat meandering, Wired interview with Fielder about the film:
https://www.wired.com/story/na...
Then fucking prove it. There are several posts in this thread, by myself and others, that explain how high the bar for that is.
I am amazed by how many people seem to be ok with the US government having armed agents storm someone's house in a predawn raid, based on an internet rumor sparked by a Wikipedia entry.
People really are ok with authoritarianism. Especially when it's aimed at 'other' people.
OK, guess I was wrong about the 'able to write complete sentences' part.
Apparently you're trying to construct a hypothetical that has absolutely no relationship to the topic under discussion, and then use that to draw conclusions. That's a thing people often do, but it's still stupid.
Since we're going to be a little repetitive here:
Omar is an American. Full stop.
This thread has really brought out the losers.
And I'm very sure that you are a loser. Research has shown repeatedly that authoritarian regimes and racist groups attract mediocre, weak people.
It's not always the truly stupid that join groups like that and blame their failures on others - they usually know that they are struggling. And truly smart and successful people do not need to find a someone to hate.
Instead these groups recruit among the weak and the dunning-krugers of the world. People smart enough to write a complete sentence, but not smart enough to get meaningfully ahead on merit. People who cannot see how they have failed, and cannot take responsibility. People who are much more easily manipulated.
That crowd would also think that you are making a clever joke, but it's not. If the US government had previously allowed your father to state that he was Valentine Michael Smith and that his children were born on Mars, then you could become a citizen. Now, decades later, the government would have to prove that you knowingly participated in a false claim, not that they would not have accepted the claim today.
And even if state could prove that your father deliberately misrepresented the facts, the action would taken against your father, not you. You would still be a citizen.
Omar is an American. The only people saying otherwise are losers.
Like you.
Multiple posts in this thread have explained the law, the government's burden of proof, and the actual information available. But for some bizarre reason, you've decided to ignore all of that, and instead focus on a conspiracy website that mis-states what laws would apply, claims that the dates listed on a couple of web sites are somehow incontrovertible evidence, and that mixes in some Islamophobia for good measure.
It turns out there is another source that knows there is no case here - the Trump administration:
"Trump officials scrutinized Omar in 2019. They didn't find citizenship issues."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Politics aside
Why? This is obviously a political case. This raid would not have happened if the president had not ordered it.
Omar is absolutely NOT required to demonstrate anything about her citizenship. Once granted, the presumption is that it was granted legally; the government has to prove otherwise. Vague "she might have been 18" allegations aren't even close to being proof.
And let's be clear: Only a complete monster would try to denaturalize somebody over shit like this after twenty-six years in this country. Of course, Miller is that kind of monster.
You are completely wrong about the law here, asshole. Please go away.
For anyone else who has read this far down in the thread, what is being alleged is that Ilhan Omar was actually 18, not 17, when her father applied for US citizenship for the family. If she was 18, she should have filed a separate application.
There are multiple problems with the government pursuing a denaturalization case here:
- It's based on a lie - somebody made up the original claim of knowing when she was born.
- It's impossible to prove anything. Somalia was in the midst of a civil war, there are no records.
- The alleged fraud would have been by her deceased father, not her - he's the one who filed the application.
- IT DOES NOT MATTER.
The last point is especially important. The written law and case law for denaturalization is unambiguous: after someone becomes a citizen, the government must demonstrate that any mistaken or fraudulent information would have been significant and material. The state must PROVE that an application would have been almost instantly rejected if the information had been complete.
The only cases where denaturalization has been applied in the past has been for things like former concentration camp guards and direct participants in terrorist organizations.
The facts in this case do not come even close to to what the law requires. In fact, the evidence is that even if she had filed an application as an 18-year-old, it would have been approved.
This entire case is because Stephen Miller and Trump wanted to attack her. Anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot.
Fuck off, you psychotic piece of shit.
The law is crystal clear: citizenship is citizenship. It is absolutely not conditional on whether you like someone or not.
The state should not go fishing for paperwork errors from three decades ago because the president ordered it.
The government should never raid someone's house or seize their passport because of some fucked-up conspiracy theory.
But that is exactly what happened, in no small part because of weak people who continue to support this administration.
A question for you: why do you hate freedom and free speech? Why do you hate what America stands for?
The Trump administration is trying to strip the US citizenship of a member of Congress in an absolutely reprehensible attack on free speech and basic rights:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/p...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news...
It's not surprising that people do not want to openly criticize this administration.
The first line of the summary should read:
Security researcher Brian Krebs reports (in a story retyped by CNN):
Almost everything in the CNN story is from Krebs.
(A t least CNN gave credit to Krebs; not every outlet does that).
When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt. -- Henry J. Kaiser
