TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-01-04 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00027552

KAMALA HARRIS NOT A SHRINKING VIOLET! ... FROM 2019 Dose of Dissonance: 'THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION!!!' Kamala Harris CONFRONTS Trump Lackey Kirstjen Nielsen PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjSVyv9-Sks Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess
'THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION!!!' Kamala Harris CONFRONTS Trump Lackey Kirstjen Nielsen Dose of Dissonance 140K subscribers ... 6,749,915 views ... 66K likes Jan 17, 2018 In a heated exchange during a Senate hearing, Senator Kamala Harris destroys Trump lackey & Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen on Trump's disastrous presidency! FREE TRIAL TO AMAZON PRIME! http://amzn.to/2tBNAGg (Affiliate Link) Cope with cognitive dissonance! http://www.DoseofDissonance.com/ Featuring Kamala Harris & Kirstjen Nielsen. Transcript 0:00 Thank You mr. chairman there's so much that has taken place over the last week and during the course of this hearing that frankly stirs in me as in my colleague senator Booker and others great emotion I join issue with the statements of Senator Booker I am deeply concerned and troubled about the words that I believe that dick Durbin has shared with us that came from the President of the United States I believe that the words spoken by any president of these United States are powerful words and should be spoken with the spirit of unifying and not dividing our country should be spoken in a way that brings dignity to other human beings and does not demean them I am deeply concerned when we are just having celebrated the birth of dr. Martin 1:00 Luther King who spoke about the effect of racism in this country and words that are motivated by racism for so many reasons they are harmful they have led to death at their mildest form which is not mild it suggests to one group of people that they are inferior and to another that they are superior to their fellow man this is a pivotal moment in the history of our country when we are having discussions about whether the people of Norway and I will use your words Madame secretary and you spoke about how they were referred to as by contrast to the people of Africa and the various country the 54 countries of Africa and Haiti and we speak of them and you spoke of them according to the president as the people of Norway well you know they worked very hard 2:00 the inference being the people of the fifty four states of Africa and Haiti do not that is a fair inference and you run the department of homeland security and when you say you don't know if Norway is predominantly white when asked by a member of the United States Senate that causes me concern about your ability to understand the scope of your responsibilities and the impact of your words much less the policies that you promulgate in that very important department you opened by talking about a number of statistics that paint the threats the country faces from terrorism in particular you spoke of those who commit acts of terror who are not born in this country the study you mention however leaves out some of the most rampant terror attacks that we've seen 3:00 lately which are domestic acts of terror as has been mentioned there is a report from the FBI and DHS which outlines white supremists extremists and I quote the report says will likely continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the course of the next year the report states that white supremacist extremists are responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from the year 2000 and 2016 more than any other domestic extremist movement I'm quoting it is deeply troubling that in your opening comments when you talk about the threats to our nation our homeland to national security that you fail to mention a report that outlined a very specific threat to us as the American people deeply troubled you must understand the inference the reasonable inference that the American 4:04 public is drawing from the words you speak much less the words of the President of the United States now I'd like to move on and talk about your management of your agency you and I spoke several times during your confirmation process both at a personal meeting on November 2nd and in your November 8th confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security Committee in your confirmation hearing on November 8th you stated you would issue guidance to your agents stating that daca recipients and dreamers are not enforcement priorities have you done that they are not enforcement priorities may have you issued that statement and that to your agents that guidance that is clear from the ice that's not my question I personally have not know you also committed that you would make clear to DHS employees that daca recipients information would not be shared for 5:00 enforcement purposes have you done that I have verified that it is not proactively shared if it's a national security threat that's a different matter but daca information is not proactively provided I have verified that that's not my question not have you verified it that's clear to me it's in policy it's an existing written documentation question I will repeat is based on a commitment you made to me in another United States Senate hearing and I'm saying that written is already exist so I didn't need to redo it it already exists that is not the point have you made that clear yes I have hundreds of thousands of employees in your department yes I have had multiple meetings where we have discussed this and I have clarified again and again yes ma'am issued some kind of directive written directive to the hundreds of thousands of employees of your agency it already exists so you've not done that that's why would I do it again it already exists okay let's talk about why you 6:00 would do it again let's talk about the data that shows that there has been an increase of I think threefold of the number of people who are non criminals by Isis own definition who have been detained in your department how do you reconcile your point which is that it's clear to the agents in your department when the data supplied by your own agency does not reflect that the data that I have has 92 percent last year being criminals and those with final orders of removal and so where we have information that there has been an increase of the number of people nearly three times the number of individuals no criminal history as compared as compared to the same period last year are you saying that's incorrect I'm saying I don't have the data that you're looking at is that final orders of removal or is there another national security threat no criminal history that's not what I asked is it a final order of removal we're talking about the 7:00 people that you are contacting are you prioritizing equally people with no criminal history as you are those who you described earlier as being criminals because they are felons we prioritize those with criminal convictions as well as those with final orders of removal so my question is do they have equal priority in your agency they're both top tier priority for enforcement do they have them equal priority ma'am we're going to enforce the law there's a final order of removal we will seek to remove you okay what is your budget request for this year I don't have the figure for for FY 18 do you believe that your department and agency is adequately funded or that you are in need of resources it depends on the particular area but we have worked very closely with the administration to ensure that we do have the tools and resources we need to do our job so I'm assuming that you have adequate resources which is why you can apply equal priority to those who are felons 8:01 and those who have no criminal records ma'am we will not ignore the law if you have gone through the system and you have a final order of removal you are a priority to be removed this past Saturday you mean following a recent u.s. district court ruling your agency resumed accepting daca renewal applications will you commit to providing direct notice to all daca recipients about their ability and right to renew we I will look into that yes ma'am you will recall that when it's by the way it's posted on the website and it's posted for anyone who is a current daca recipient that they can read it and understand how they can reapply it is also posted on your website isn't my understanding that we are no longer accepting initial or renewal requests for deferred action for childhood arrivals are you aware that that's on your web site right now I know I'm not that would suggest that you get to that right away we will clarify during your confirmation 9:02 hearing you also told me you would issue written guidance to frontline officers on DHS's sensitive locations policy and in light of the case that you have now been asked about at this hearing about the ten-year-old with cerebral palsy surgery can you tell me have you done that which is issue guidance to your agents on sensitive location policies we've clarified the guidance and we have had discussions with leadership on how to ensure that every person who enforces the law understands what those sensitive locations are the sensitive locations have not changed since 2012 and what guidance did you provide the guidance that you're now referring to in writing to all the agents in your department it's in writing can you submit that to my office and when did you issue that we can submit it we can provide it to you yes ma'am when did you issue them it's the same guidance that's been in existence since through the chin since 2012 what we have done is clarify and reinforce the existing guidance and you'll send me that clarification yes and you mentioned in your testimony today that in that 10:01 case of Rosa Maria Hernandez that your agents were being helpful in escorting that family the ten-year-old who'd needed surgery to the hospital to the hospital so I would suggest you it is not helpful for Border Patrol agents to follow an ambulance to a hospital and then arrest a ten-year-old after her surgery and I would ask you to review the efficacy of the conduct of your agents and your perspective on what happened that day I'm happy to provide you the actual facts of what happened I'd also just like to say if I could chairman if you don't mind it's not a fair inference at all to say that my comments about Norway were in contrast to any other country what I was describing was the president's views upon meeting with the prime minister and what I was quoting was what he was told in meeting with the Norwegian delegation that's what he was repeating that were words that they said that he repeated that then I repeated it was not meant to be in contrast with respect to white 11:00 supremacy we take that very seriously as I said that we have expanded our prevention efforts of terrorism in the of Homeland Security to ensure that we in fact are going after violence of any kind any kind is not appropriate and I will not allow it to occur if it's within our authority to stop mr. chairman I would just ask that the record I'm sure and we can all review it will reflect that in the opening statements when discussing challenges to our homeland in terms of security the white supremists threat was not mentioned thank you I've no further questions thank you

SITE COUNT