web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

MSNBC Personalities Dangerously Push Fake Story About CBP Holding Kids Hostage at O’Hare Airport

Westlake Legal Group fake-news-1024x578-620x350 MSNBC Personalities Dangerously Push Fake Story About CBP Holding Kids Hostage at O’Hare Airport Rachel Maddow Politics MSNBC kids Inciting Violence hostage Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story False Story fake news democrats dangerous Chicago O'Hare CBP airport

Social media was set abaze this afternoon with allegations of CBP holding kids hostage. Rachel Maddow and an MSNBC contributor spread the patently absurd story, accusing CBP of purposely keeping three children in custody at Chicago O’Hare Airport to try to lure the parents in for detainment. This makes no sense for a variety of reasons and turned out to be completely false, which we’ll cover in a moment.

But first, here’s the accusations.

It’s pretty infuriating to see this pampered liberal pretend she’s fighting Nazis by spreading fake accusations of which she had no verification of.

So what actually happened?

Three children showed up at O’Hare with an adult cousin. The adult cousin (a Mexican citizen) was found not eligible for entry. This happens to thousands of people of all races and ethnic backgrounds every single day at ports of entry across the United States. There is a laundry list of reasons why someone might be found inadmissible and having a visa does not automatically get you through customs, nor does even having a U.S. passport for that matter.

At that point, CBP contacted the mother of the children. It is required by law that she or another legal guardian come take custody of them. Because she is an illegal alien though, she didn’t want to go to the airport. Instead, for the next 13 hours, she played games by sending a lawyer down there and eventually officials from the Mexican consulate. Some are trying to blame CBP for the kids being there so long, but it’s clearly the mother’s fault. She could have sent the Pope down there and the law still doesn’t allow CBP to hand children over to non-guardians.

Finally, after much negotiation, the mother herself decided to show up and the children were given to her. There was no trap and the children were not being used as bait. CBP were simply following the law. Furthermore, CBP doesn’t do interior enforcement, ICE does, so the entire premise was ridiculous from the beginning.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) also tried to get a photo-op out of this and only made things worse.

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky had just landed at O’Hare International Airport from Washington, D.C. when she got word of the girls’ situation and headed over to the International Terminal as the situation was unfolding Thursday afternoon.

”I feel that it’s a kind of kidnapping of children by our government and I am really fed up,” Schakowsky said. “They created a situation that didn’t have to be and I am so resentful for this.”

Schakowsky attempted to meet with children to check their well being before they were released but said agents didn’t allow her.

Of course she wasn’t allowed to check on them. CBP can’t let strangers, even if they are elected officials, in to see children that aren’t theirs. No one “kidnapped” anyone and that kind of language is incredibly inciting and dangerous.

This kind of garbage is going to get someone else killed. We’ve already had one person die this past week after being incited to try to firebomb an ICE facility he was convinced was a “concentration camp,” clearly motivated by the rhetoric Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was using. No Democrat has condemned the attack nor even attempted to stop their incitement. The media don’t care and they are actually out there pushing more incitement via fake news stories like this.

Many CBP agents are actually minorities themselves. They are not the Gestapo and for Democrats and the media to keep playing this game is disgusting. Do we really have to wait until an agent is murdered before this crap stops? I fear the answer is yes.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post MSNBC Personalities Dangerously Push Fake Story About CBP Holding Kids Hostage at O’Hare Airport appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-300x153 MSNBC Personalities Dangerously Push Fake Story About CBP Holding Kids Hostage at O’Hare Airport Rachel Maddow Politics MSNBC kids Inciting Violence hostage Gross Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story False Story fake news democrats dangerous Chicago O'Hare CBP airport   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bolton: Yes, we promised to pay North Korea $2 million for Otto Warmbier — but we didn’t pay it

Westlake Legal Group jb-1 Bolton: Yes, we promised to pay North Korea $2 million for Otto Warmbier — but we didn’t pay it yun Trump The Blog Taliban random otto warmbier North Korea million Kim Jong-un john bolton hostage

Via the Free Beacon. Says David Frum, “the North Koreans are the only people on earth so isolated from reality that they would accept an IOU from Donald Trump.”

That’s one possibility. Another possibility until this morning was that WaPo’s reporting about the $2 million pledge was simply incorrect. But that’s now been ruled out by Bolton himself, who admits that the U.S. agreed to pay North Korea for Warmbier — a decision made before he became NSA, he’s quick to add. There’s a third possibility, though: Not only did we agree to compensate the most degenerate government on Earth for horribly abusing an American citizen, we actually did pay them. WaPo’s sources claimed that the IOU went unpaid through 2017 but its fate since then is unclear. It’s conceivable that we forked over $2 million at some point since then and that Trump and Bolton are now engaged in a cover up, knowing that if news of the payment leaked Trump’s strongman image would be shattered. No doubt the media’s sniffing around for evidence of that as I write this. Better hope they don’t find anything, warns Matthew Walther:

This would be a lie concerning a subject about which most Americans have strong views — i.e., the lives of their fellow citizens in the hands of our enemies. I cannot imagine even Mitch McConnell defending Trump’s attempt to cover up something as sordid as a ransom paid secretly in order to secure an outcome that was later passed off as the work of a heroic and skilled diplomat. It would be the opening that Republican critics of the president such as Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse and others who have long been on the fence — Lindsey Graham comes to mind — have been waiting for to declare open war.

It would be hell in an election year. Nothing would play more into, say, Joe Biden’s hand than a real example of Trump cowering in front of America’s enemies and then lying about it. It would not even matter if Trump responded that his predecessors had done similar things in the past. It would become almost impossible for the president to pose as a tough, shrewd negotiator who defends the lives and liberties of Americans at home and abroad.

Trump’s base would invent whatever reason it needed to excuse the humiliating decision to pay a ransom (“Obama paid Iran more!”) but not everyone who voted for him in 2016 is part of his base. Democrats would club him with it every day from now until next November. He’d have to defend not only the decision to make the payment but overtly lying about it afterwards when questioned. Bolton would also be forced to explain why he was under the impression this morning that no money had changed hands. Did he lie to the country’s face on “Fox News Sunday” or is the National Security Advisor being kept in the dark about U.S. diplomacy with Pyongyang? Whatever the answer ends up being, it’d amount to a scandal. It’s a political disaster in the making.

But it’s already a scandal, really. Consider the two possibilities before us, that the U.S. did pay the $2 million to Kim or that it didn’t. If we did pay it, it’s blood money. Warmbier’s father told WaPo that it sounds like a “ransom” but it’s worse than that. A ransom payment ideally results in the hostage being returned to safety. Given Warmbier’s condition when he was handed over, the payment in this case would practically amount to murder for hire. (North Korea reportedly framed its demand as reimbursement for Warmbier’s hospital bills, which is like running someone down with your car and then billing their family for the damage to your fender.) If, on the other hand, Trump and Bolton are telling the truth and we pledged to pay the $2 million without ever having done so, how can nuclear negotiations advance? The NorKs would have firsthand evidence, replete with an instrument signed by a U.S. diplomat, that the Trump administration has no intention of keeping its diplomatic promises. Why would they ever agree to destroy their nuclear program knowing that Trump’s not only willing to break his commitments to them but has already done so?

It’s hard to believe Kim would have agreed to two separate summits despite the U.S. having welched on its Warmbier obligations. And it’s surprising that neither Trump nor Bolton nor anyone else has suggested that the issue has been resolved somehow since the Warmbier negotiations ended, e.g., “they agreed to forgive the debt in the spirit of compromise when the first summit was scheduled.” Either the unpaid $2 million bill is still hanging out there, capable of becoming an issue between the two sides at any time, or it was paid at some point and we’re being deceived. Which is it?

The post Bolton: Yes, we promised to pay North Korea $2 million for Otto Warmbier — but we didn’t pay it appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-1-300x159 Bolton: Yes, we promised to pay North Korea $2 million for Otto Warmbier — but we didn’t pay it yun Trump The Blog Taliban random otto warmbier North Korea million Kim Jong-un john bolton hostage   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: No, I didn’t pay $2 million ransom for Warmbier

Westlake Legal Group trump-no-i-didnt-pay-2-million-ransom-for-warmbier Trump: No, I didn’t pay $2 million ransom for Warmbier The Blog ransom otto warmbier North Korea Kim Jong-un hostage donald trump

Westlake Legal Group warmbier Trump: No, I didn’t pay $2 million ransom for Warmbier The Blog ransom otto warmbier North Korea Kim Jong-un hostage donald trump

Did North Korea force a US envoy to sign off on a $2 million “bill” for medical services before releasing Otto Warmbier? According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump personally ordered Joseph Yun to sign such an agreement. But did the US ever pay the “bill”?

North Korea issued a $2 million bill for the hospital care of comatose American Otto Warmbier, insisting that a U.S. official sign a pledge to pay it before being allowed to fly the University of Virginia student home from Pyongyang in 2017.

The presentation of the invoice — not previously disclosed by U.S. or North Korean officials — was extraordinarily brazen even for a regime known for its aggressive tactics.

But the main U.S. envoy sent to retrieve Warmbier signed an agreement to pay the medical bill on instructions passed down from President Trump, according to two people familiar with the situation. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The bill went to the Treasury Department, where it remained — unpaid — throughout 2017, the people said. However, it is unclear whether the Trump administration later paid the bill, or whether it came up during preparations for Trump’s two summits with Kim Jong Un.

This morning, Trump denied paying any bill to get Warmbier released. “This is not the Obama administration,” Trump tweeted, citing the cash-for-hostages trade with Iran and the 5:1 prisoner swap for Bowe Bergdahl. He didn’t specifically deny ordering the envoy to sign the invoice, however.

Yesterday, NBC notes, the White House refused to respond specifically to the report at all, citing the need for secrecy in dealing with abductions:

Responding to questions from NBC News about the report, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday, “We do not comment on hostage negotiations, which is why they have been so successful during this administration.”

That reaction set off speculation that the bill eventually got paid, perhaps as an enticement to hold one of the two summits with Kim Jong-un. Trump’s tweets this morning appear intended to put the story to rest, at least as to whether the US paid any money to North Korea. Whether they tried to present a “bill” in exchange for Warmbier’s release, and whether the US initially agreed to pay it, is still left as an unknown — and likely will be for quite a long time to come. Even for North Korea, a ransom demand under those circumstances would be surprisingly arrogant, though, and so an order to sign off on it would be … unusual, to say the least.

That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, of course, but it is reason to remain a little skeptical of the initial report. It’s almost impossible to predict a set of circumstances that would allow these questions to be settled definitively, especially because of the need to keep hostage negotiations under wraps. Put this one in the “historical curiosities” file for much later clarification.

The post Trump: No, I didn’t pay $2 million ransom for Warmbier appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group warmbier-300x153 Trump: No, I didn’t pay $2 million ransom for Warmbier The Blog ransom otto warmbier North Korea Kim Jong-un hostage donald trump   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Should ransom have been paid to release American hostage in Uganda?

Westlake Legal Group endicott Should ransom have been paid to release American hostage in Uganda? Uganda The Blog Terrorism ransom Mike Pompeo Iran hostage

The US has made its public position clear for decades — we do not pay ransom for abductions of Americans, pour encourager les autres. Sometimes we do so on the down-low, or sometimes on a more spectacular basis as with the $400 million payment to Iran in exchange for imprisoned Americans. (And not even all of them.) Mike Pompeo reiterated that policy days ago after the kidnapping of American tourist Kimberly Sue Endicott in Uganda and the demand from her captors for a half-million dollars in ransom.

Endicott was freed last night after the safari company coughed up the cash — or at least that’s the story for the moment:

Ugandan police claimed that they had rescued Endicott and her driver, but the New York Times reports that the kidnappers released the pair after getting their money:

An American woman and her Ugandan guide who were kidnapped while on safari this past week have been freed after a ransom was paid, according to officials with the safari company with which they were traveling.

The Ugandan police said in a statement posted on Twitter Sunday that the police and security forces “have rescued” the two kidnapping victims. One official with the safari company, Wild Frontiers, who asked not to be named, said the two were currently “enjoying a square meal and hot shower” at a wilderness camp in Uganda run by the company.

They were dropped off at a point near the border of Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo on Sunday, the official said. He asked not to be named because he was not authorized to provide details about the circumstances of the release.

The official said he did not know the identity of the kidnappers and that Wild Frontiers paid the ransom.

Everyone’s happy to see Endicott freed, from the top down:

American policy doesn’t control what a Ugandan tour company decides to do about abductions, if in fact that’s what happened. It’s certainly possible that the company decided to cough up the cash in order to salvage its business, but that’s a lot of cash for any business to get on short notice, let alone a regional tour company. What happens the next time these kidnappers or others want a quick cash infusion? Wild Frontiers might have been able to scrape that cash together once, maybe, but it won’t be able to do so on demand.

Paying the ransom creates a powerful incentive for others to commit the same crime. The Iranian ransom payment certainly had that effect, the Washington Post noted at the time, which is why the US has had a policy forbidding even negotiations with captors and terrorists. That policy has been followed inconsistently, however, a point that families of the abducted have long criticized. Barack Obama finally issued an executive order barring the prosecution of families for pursuing private negotiations with captors of Americans abroad, but kept in place the US public policy forbidding any negotiations so as to prevent those incentives from expanding in both scope and number.

Endicott’s safety is worth celebrating. At the same time, we need to know whether we played a part in paying the ransom, and whether our no-negotiation policy is still as murky and arbitrary as it became over the last decade or so. It doesn’t take much for “an isolated incident” to turn into a continuing problem, especially if people throw money at it to make it disappear.

The post Should ransom have been paid to release American hostage in Uganda? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group endicott-300x162 Should ransom have been paid to release American hostage in Uganda? Uganda The Blog Terrorism ransom Mike Pompeo Iran hostage   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com