Quantcast
Connect with us

‘More barbed wire?’ Fox News host pounds GOPer over Trump’s nonsensical promise to ‘shut down the border’

Published

on

Fox News host Leland Vittert on Sunday challenged Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) to explain how President Donald Trump promise to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border would stop of caravan of asylum-seekers from entering the country.

“Any idea what a shutting down the border actually means?” Vittert asked Norman in an interview on Sunday.

“I mean, stopping the points of access so that you can have those go through the points and have them do it legally and go through the court system to seek asylum,” the congressman replied.

ADVERTISEMENT

Vittert, however, failed to understand how Norman’s explanation applied to Trump’s words.

“Congressman, we have the Border Patrol and they’re still zillions of illegal immigrants coming across the border every day,” Vittert said. “Does that mean you’re closing it to trade as well, to every semi/tractor trailer that’s going back and forth, to every U.S. citizen who wants to come back through the border? I’m confused.”

But Norman insisted that the Trump administration would “figure those out.”

“This is for caravans of people who have been publicly on this 2,000 [mile] journey,” the lawmaker said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I’m still confused,” Vittert interrupted. “What does shutting down the border mean? The law says now you can only come into the United States legally… I’m just confused at what shutting it down means if it’s not already shut down to illegal immigration.”

“If it was shut down now, you still wouldn’t have the 500,000 coming across from illegal immigration,” Norman answered.

“Exactly,” Vittert agreed. “I’m just confused — if we have 500,000 coming across now illegally, are you saying the border patrol and military aren’t doing enough? Does shutting it down mean that it’s going to be shoot on sight? What does shutting down the border mean?”

ADVERTISEMENT

Norman insisted that there would continue to be a “legal process of people getting through.”

“But isn’t that what the border patrol and military is already supposed to be doing?” Vittert pressed. “How does the president saying ‘shut it down’ make them any more able to do it today than they were able to do it 10 days ago?”

“It’s impossible without a wall to control it completely,” Norman stated.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The president is saying if Mexico won’t allow the asylum-seekers to stay there, he’s going to shut down the border,” the Fox News host explained. “He’s already said he’s going to build a wall so conceivably shutting down the border means something different. But I’m not hearing from you an explanation of actually what it means.”

“It means that the barbed-wire fences that’s being put up now to stop the caravans,” Norman remarked.

“I’m still confused,” Vittert admitted. “What is the president going to do different tomorrow when he — quote, unquote — shuts down the border than is done now? Are the orders going to change to the military? Is there are going to be more barbed wire? Are you going to deploy extra Border Patrol agents and how do you shut something down that we’ve been unable to shut down by your own admission for decades?”

ADVERTISEMENT

“So what does ‘shut down the border’ actually mean?” he demanded to know.

“It’s a combination of all of the above,” Norman said. “Barbed-wire fences, National Guard, more troops to stop what’s going on. Is he going to shut it down 100 percent? Probably not.”

Vittert concluded the interview by thanking Norman for answering the question.

“More National Guard troops, more barbed wire,” Vittert stated.

ADVERTISEMENT

Watch the video below from Fox News.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

‘Conspiracy, extortion and bribery’: Ex-prosecutor ticks off crimes Trump and Rudy may have committed with Ukraine gambit

Published

on

On MSNBC Saturday, former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah laid out all the ways that President Donald Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani could be breaking federal law with their apparent scheme to push Ukraine into digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Extortion, conspiracy to engage in extortion, and violating federal election law," said host Alex Witt. "Do you agree with all those premises?"

"I do, Alex, and I would add one to that, which is federal bribery," said Rocah. "Here, Trump essentially was trying to get the Ukrainian president to bribe him, give him information about his political opponent in exchange for aid to the country. So, that is soliciting a bribe. And you know, look, we can get into this more. Obviously, this is my area of expertise, whether something violates federal criminal laws, but I do worry that we're going down a path that we went down with the Mueller investigation, because for the president of the United States, that is not the standard."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Giuliani’s public invitation to Ukraine to interfere in US elections opened the door for other countries to run to Trump

Published

on

President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani turned heads with his bizarre, unhinged rant on national television that effectively urged Ukraine to continue trying to gather dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden — and for news outlets to take whatever they find seriously.

As Casey Michel wrote in The Daily Beast, even if this effort ultimately fails to turn up useful opposition research against Biden, this is a profoundly dangerous development for American democracy.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Trump whistleblower needs to go directly to FBI because Bill Barr can’t be trusted: Ex-FBI director

Published

on

Appearing on MSNBC with host Alex Witt, former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi blew up Donald Trump's claim that he is the victim of a "Ukraine Witchhunt."

He then added that the whistleblower who went to the inspector general with a serious charge against the president should take what he has and go to the FBI within a week if nothing happens.

"We've got to get to the bottom of this, and we can't rely on leaks and certain reporters getting certain tidbits of information," the ex-FBI man explained. "This needs to be explored and it's likely this could end up in a criminal investigation."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Investigate and Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image