Libertarians want Justin Amash to run for president, and he may do it

Not a whole hell of a lot of difference between this POS and McCain.

This traitor's chances of becoming the next POTUS are about as good as Avenatti's. To tell you the truth I never heard of the guy until he called for Trump's impeachment. Looks like an attempt to make a name for himself in order to run as the Libertarian candidate against Trump.

Getting back to McCain for a moment...did you see this?

John McCain Recited Names Of Dictators During Trump Inaugural, Senator Says

“I sat on that stage between Bernie and John McCain, and John McCain kept reciting to me names of dictators during that speech because he knew more than any of us what we were facing as a nation,” Klobuchar said. “He understood it. He knew because he knew this man more than any of us did.”

There he is with his fellow Democrats who he sat with him at the Trump inauguration.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) takes a selfie with (from right) Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the late John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) during President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017.

Piss and moan all you want Meghan your father was a POS... l-o-n-g before Trump ever came along!

----------------------------------

by Steven Nelson

Rep. Justin Amash's tweets declaring that President Trump committed impeachable offenses have made him an outcast among Republicans, but many of his supporters are excited about what they see as a sign he will run for president as a Libertarian.

The Michigan Republican, 39, is known for defying party leaders on issues such as mass surveillance and government spending. And since Trump took office, he’s been viewed as a possible Libertarian champion in 2020 — a notion amplified by his Saturday remarks.

Amash’s emergence as a possible competitor may have caught Trump’s campaign off-guard.

“Who?" one Trump campaign official said with a chuckle Thursday when asked about a possible Amash run. “Is that a thing?” another asked skeptically. “I had not heard that.”

[Related: Amash gets a primary challenger after impeachment remarks]

A person familiar with Amash’s thinking who spoke with him in recent days told the Washington Examiner that Amash "hasn’t ruled it out” or “pulled any triggers” on a presidential campaign.

Libertarian activist Larry Sharpe, a New York gubernatorial candidate last year, said he spoke twice recently with people close to Amash, who sought advice.

"There are people who are close to the [Amash] campaign who have made calls to members of the Libertarian National Committee and also to me personally, to just talk about the future. But also to talk about Libertarian Party infrastructure,” Sharpe said.

“They wanted to know: Can they make impact as a Libertarian?” Sharpe said, describing the most recent call. “He wants to make an impact for a freer America. If Justin Amash believes the Libertarian Party is the best way to do that, I’m sure he will come aboard.”

Sharpe said the most recent caller spoke with him in April about “opportunities” as a Libertarian, including the possibility of third-party runs for the House, Senate, or presidency.

The person familiar with Amash’s thinking who recently spoke with him, however, said it was “extremely, extremely unlikely” that Amash would run for the House or Senate as a Libertarian.

If Amash does run for president, he will be eagerly embraced by Libertarians, who see him as an eloquent evangelist for a political ideology on the decline under Trump.

“He’s terrific,” said former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, an ex-Republican who ran as the Libertarian candidate in 2012 and 2016, taking 3.3% against Trump.

Johnson aligned with the party on most issues, such as legalizing marijuana and avoiding foreign military interventions but made some members uncomfortable by seeming to embrace gay rights at the expense of the personal freedom of business owners.

Iowa Libertarian Party Chairman Joseph Howe said Amash “comes off as more principled on free market principles” and may be less prone to gaffes. “Amash has probably had more press in the past few days than Johnson in the whole campaign,” he added.

[Related: House Freedom Caucus condemns Amash for backing impeachment]

Howe is leading a national effort to draft Amash, coordinating with the Facebook group Amash 4 President, which has about 800 members.

“When you see something like this, I think it greatly increases the chances he's looking for another party,” Howe said, though he said he believed Amash called for impeachment as “a principled move” rather than a political opportunity.

“It's a long shot, but we don’t need 51% to win, you can force it to the Congress,” Howe said about a possible presidential run.

Amash has supported some Trump policies, such as improving relations with Russia, but is often critical of Trump’s conduct, writing last year he felt “something is not right” after watching Trump’s “bizarre” behavior at a press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. His Saturday tweets on impeachment prompted a state lawmaker to announce a primary challenge.

“With the bridge burning that's going on, there are a limited number of sensible possibilities” for Amash, said national Libertarian Party chairman Nicholas Sarwark, who added, “he's pretty close to the vest in terms of not sharing his plans.”

Richard Winger, a longtime Libertarian, noted Amash introduced legislation in March that would ease ballot access for minor parties. “This tells me he has been interested in minor party problems for several months now,” Winger said.

Amash’s office did not respond to a request for comment. This year, he has indicated he may indeed run. In January, Amash told CNN, “I’d never rule anything out." In January, he sidestepped the question, saying the ideal presidential candidate "wears Air Jordans" — while wearing Air Jordans.

Libertarians want Justin Amash to run for president, and he may do it

'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' on Obama's Bad Cops and Spies

Of major concern for me is the Horowitz report. Does this Obama appointee have the balls to take it to the bank... even if it entails nailing Barry's ass to the wall??? 

"This assault on democracy has not been proven, but the evidence emerging in dribs and drabs strongly suggests the possibility. If it is proven, and if the Obama White House was directly involved, as some FBI texts plainly say, the scandal would be one of the biggest in American history." 

---------------------------------

By: Charles Lipson

The skies are growing dark and increasingly ominous for dirty officials at the top of Obama-era law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Leading the “I’m really worried” list are James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and their senior aides, all political appointees. They expected Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 and bury any traces of malfeasance, just as they had buried hers. It didn’t work out that way.

Now they need protection themselves. House Democrats and anonymous leakers are busy providing it. Many are delicately called “current and former senior officials” by the New York Times, Washington Post, and other legacy media. Gee, I wonder who they are?

These defenders of the old guard are sliming Attorney General Bill Barr, who heads the investigation into their actions. They have good reasons, if not clean hands, for their attack. First, they want to keep as much secret as they can. Exposure can only harm them. Their main argument is that any disclosures will damage U.S. national security. Second, they want to paint the disclosures and forthcoming indictments as President Trump’s revenge, the illegitimate use of powerful agencies that should be nonpartisan. That, of course, is precisely what they are accused of doing.

Barr won’t be deterred. He did not return for a second stint as AG to pad his résumé or protect Donald Trump. He returned to clean out the Augean Stables. He needs to muck out the mess left by his predecessors and find the horses that left it.

Barr is determined to do that. He intends to find out how and why the Department of Justice embarked on an all-consuming, two-year project to investigate Trump’s alleged cooperation with Putin’s Russia to win the presidency. The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no such cooperation (going well beyond saying he simply could not indict). Now, Barr wants to understand the origins of the probe and whether the tools used to launch it were lies or distortions — and were known to be so by DoJ, FBI, and CIA officials. Barr wants to know if U.S. intelligence agencies were used to spy illegally on Americans, or if they outsourced that to friendly foreign services and then recovered the information from them. He wants to know if the investigations really began in July 2016, as the FBI testified, or earlier, and what evidence was used to begin them.

None dare call it spying. At least no Democrats or Obama officials will. But that’s exactly what it was. As that master of the English language, Winston Churchill, put it, “Short words are best and old words when short are best of all.” That’s far too clear for bureaucratic obfuscators, presidential contenders, and their media allies. They prefer long, Latinate terms like “surveillance” and “surreptitious investigation.” Barr is effectively telling them to “pound sand.”

Over the next few months, the public will finally see what kind of malfeasance there was. At least they will see some of it. Some will remain classified to protect sources and methods; some will be released only after criminal charges are filed. The initial evidence will come from two sources: a major report by DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the steady declassification of underlying documents by AG Barr, who was given that task by the president. Barr needed that authority because the FBI and intelligence community are resisting disclosure with all their institutional power. They fear years of abuse will be exposed.

Horowitz, a highly regarded career prosecutor, initially appointed by President Obama, will issue a public report and is virtually certain to make criminal referrals. The referrals will then be handled by John Durham, a skilled, apolitical U.S. attorney, who has successfully prosecuted major corruption cases for AGs in both parties. Apparently, he has already convened a grand jury. Another federal prosecutor, John Huber, has been working on related problems. Durham will coordinate, supervised by Barr.

These joint efforts will show whether there were good legal reasons to spy on Americans, whether the secret intelligence courts were given complete and honest information before they issued search warrants, whether top officials leaked secret information to the media, and whether U.S. intelligence agencies (which cannot legally spy on Americans) evaded that restriction. They may also show if outside contractors illegally tapped into classified databases and spied on American citizens, including political opponents.

These are very serious charges, and, if proven, serious crimes. What makes them worse — far worse — is that they may well be connected to each other. If they are, they would represent a high-level conspiracy by government officials, appointed by one party and directed at political opponents during and after an election.

This assault on democracy has not been proven, but the evidence emerging in dribs and drabs strongly suggests the possibility. If it is proven, and if the Obama White House was directly involved, as some FBI texts plainly say, the scandal would be one of the biggest in American history.

How big? Big enough that major news organizations, which always favor transparency (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”), are now deeply troubled by the release of any secret documents. They know the stakes are too high and transparency too dangerous for their side, politically.

Right now, we don’t know how big the scandal is, how extensive the coordination was, and how far up it went. But we certainly need to know, just as we needed to know if Donald Trump won the presidency by cooperating with a hostile foreign power. He did not, according to the Mueller report. Now, we need to know if the U.S. government itself worked secretly and illegally to prevent his election and, when that failed, to damage his new presidency. That conspiracy would be equally serious and for the same reasons. It needs to be rooted out, exposed and punished.

The fundamental problem was identified by James Madison, who led the drafting of our constitution. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” he wrote in Federalist Paper 51, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Under Comey, Lynch, Brennan, and Clapper, under Obama and Biden, it failed to control itself.

Over the next few months, we will learn the extent of that failure. We will see if top officials misused their agencies to investigate and crush their political opponents. Constitutional democracies cannot permit that. They cannot wave it off as yesterday’s news and expect to survive unscathed. If undetected and unpunished, it will happen again to another party, another candidate.

As the evidence comes out, a hard rain’s gonna fall. The damage will be compounded by partisan divisions, corroding trust in our basic institutions, and an impending election. For democracy’s sake, let’s hope the bitter winds are not a Cat-5 storm.

'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' on Obama's Bad Cops and Spies

Democrats can only formulate the word 'illegal' when it comes to Trump

Have you noticed throughout the year's liberals can't bring themselves to use the word illegal when it comes to describing illegal aliens? Instead, they refer to them as...

'Immigrants'

'Undocumented'

'Undocumented Americans'

'Dreamers'

You're going to love this one!

'Newcomers'

 Nancy Pelosi: Voting for Democrats Gives ‘Leverage’ to Illegal Aliens 

Lately, they've been calling them...

'Law-abiding immigrants'

(If they were law-abiding they wouldn't be here right?)

Most people with an ounce of brains look at this guy and see a bank robber. Liberals see an Asset Transfer Specialist.

  

I rest my case.

Oh...and they can't say Muslim terrorist either. They go into convulsions.

Democrats can only formulate the word 'illegal' when it comes to Trump

Karma

Trump enemy Jerry Nadler almost passes out at press conference and is carried out on a stretcher to the hospital

Finally some good news…Trump's got to be jumping for joy!  

I guess I'm supposed to say something like I feel bad for the guy. Sorry, I hate his guts. 

Most likely suffering from a terminal case of 'Investigativitis'. 

Karma

In battle for elected school board, undocumented immigrants might be left out

OMG don't tell me illegals might not be able to vote!!!

Seriously, I can't believe I'm reading this shit. Has anyone in Chicago got any common sense?

------------------------------

If the state passes an elected school board measure now working its way through the Legislature, undocumented immigrants would not be able to vote.

State Rep. Robert F. Martwick. File Photo. | Rich Hein/Sun-TimesRich Hein/Sun-Times

Should Chicago finally get an elected school board after years of attempts, undocumented immigrants — who are currently able to vote for and serve as local school council members — might not be able to vote for the citywide board members.

While some municipalities across the country let non-U.S. citizens vote in local elections, Chicago does not. Non-U.S. citizens can’t vote for city offices or state offices, according to the city’s Board of Election Commissioners. 

And the elected school board measure’s sponsor, state Rep. Robert Martwick, D-Chicago, said there’s nothing that can be done to give the undocumented a vote — unless a separate bill is filed to try to take up that battle. 

“All I want to do is make an appointed board an elected school board. Right now the undocumented have no say in who the appointed members are, but they can weight in on local school councils and serve on local school councils. So they can weigh in,” Martwick said. “I don’t intend to affect the LSC process. I’m seeking to bolster it.”

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s office last week told reporters that Martwick’s bill — which cleared the Illinois House on April 4 — is on hold, at the request of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who wanted to take a deeper dive into specifics. 

State Rep. Robert Martwick at a rally in support of his school board bill. File Photo.Stefano Esposito/Sun-Times

Martwick said he hasn’t been provided with any updates as the clock ticks to adjournment on May 31. 

“I assume that she’ll [Lightfoot] reach out to him [Cullerton]. I would think that as the person who has been the sponsor of the bill for five years and passed it three times that I would get a call and would be asked to be invited, but I don’t know yet,” Martwick said. “Not yet.” 

In February, Martwick and Lightfoot famously got into a shouting match — at a campaign news conference Lightfoot called to denounce legislation Martwick filed that would change the way the Cook County assessor from an elected to an appointed position. 

Martwick had endorsed Toni Preckwinkle over Lightfoot in the mayoral race. 

And Lightfoot accused Preckwinkle and Martwick of working together on a “power play” to undermine newly elected Assessor Fritz Kaegi. Martwick blasted Lightfoot for what he called Donald Trump-like theatrics that show “exactly why you are wholly unprepared to be the mayor of this city.”

Mayor Lori Lightfoot, left, and state Rep. Robert Martwick, right. File Photos. Sun-Times file photos.

Under Martwick’s school board proposal, the board would be comprised of 20 members elected in individual districts from around the city, compared to the seven appointed members currently on the Chicago Board of Education. And a board president would be elected citywide.

This is certainly not the first time legislators have tried to pass legislation to get Chicago an elected school board. Cullerton supported a measure in 2017, but the House didn’t act on it. Martwick re-filed the legislation this year.

Two years ago, the Senate’s version reduced the size of the board and created a Chicago panel to draw the boundary maps for board seats, rather than lawmakers, amidst concerns over who had that authority. The Senate adopted those changes, but the measure died in the Illinois House when lawmakers did not act on it.

In 1995, Mayor Richard M. Daley took control of the broken school system and began directly appointing a school board whose members previously were proffered by a grassroots nominating commission.

There have been several proposals in the mix over the years, and the number of board members has fluctuated in those proposals. But both Lightfoot and Gov. J.B. Pritzker are supportive of an elected school board. 

Lightfoot has said she is not comfortable with the number of board members in Martwick’s proposal. She has said she wants to work with Springfield “to pass a fully elected and representative school board.”

Lightfoot, too, has suggested local school council members should run for the school board, should it become an elected office. But in that scenario, if a local school council member is undocumented, they would not be able to run.

The measure, should it pass, wouldn’t go into effect until 2023. On Wednesday, all seven members of the Chicago Board of Education announced they were stepping down, opening the door to Lightfoot’s appointees.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

In battle for elected school board, undocumented immigrants might be left out

When WaPo praises a Republican you know their no damn good

Republicans may never forgive Justin Amash. The nation should thank him.

Amash is the son of a Palestinian father and a Syrian mother. Right there alone he missed his calling. Should have been a Democrat. What's the difference between McRomney, Amash, and the rest of the Democrats? Absolutely nothing. I suggest the Republican party run alternative candidates in Utah and Michigan. A dead dog would be better than these two rats! 

They should create their own website.

Backstabbers-r-us.com

---------------------------

Justin Amash finally said out loud what many other Republicans know but will only whisper: “President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meets the threshold for impeachment.” Amash’s party may never forgive him. His nation ought to thank him.

The Michigan congressman on Saturday became the first significant GOP official to acknowledge the clear implication of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report. Every Republican member of Congress should be pressed for an on-the-record response. How does the president’s conduct not amount to obstruction of justice? Where does the Constitution give Congress the right not to act?

Democrats should be asked these questions, too. I understand that many, apparently including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), think that starting impeachment proceedings would damage the party’s prospects in the 2020 election. But isn’t duty supposed to take precedence over political expediency? It clearly did for Amash, whose reward for his principled stance was a Twitter blast from Trump and a primary challenge for his seat.

Classy as ever, Trump called Amash a “total lightweight” and a “loser who sadly plays right into our opponents [sic] hands!” All the president accomplished with this name-calling was to give Amash’s analysis a much wider hearing.

Amash wrote in a series of tweets that he reached his conclusion “only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.”

That sounds like the sort of thing we pay elected officials and their staff members to do. But Amash wrote that few of his colleagues “even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation.”

That’s actually a key point. Anyone who reads the 448-page report can see, as Amash concludes, that Attorney General William P. Barr — in his four-page summary, his congressional testimony and other statements — “intended to mislead the public” about Mueller’s findings. Barr apparently “hopes people will not notice” his deception, Amash said. Busted.

Amash’s emperors-new-clothes moment did not cause the dam of blind GOP solidarity to break. Instead, his colleagues attacked him, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) saying that maybe Amash “wants some type of exit strategy.” In other words, apparently, carefully reading the Mueller report and thoughtfully analyzing its findings means you’re no longer welcome in today’s Republican Party and might as well leave.

As McCarthy noted, this is not the first time that Amash has been inconveniently faithful to his principles. I disagree with many of Amash’s libertarian views, but it is refreshing to see a politician stand up for what he believes.

In the Mueller report, Amash finds “multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice.” Impeachment, Amash noted, “does not even require probable cause that a crime . . . has been committed,” but simply that an official “has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.” Trump does all of the above, all of the time.

I’m under no illusions here. At this point, it is clear that most congressional Republicans will stay aboard the rust bucket USS Trump, which has been taking on water from the beginning until it actually begins to sink.

But here is a line from Amash’s tweetstorm that Democrats should reflect on: “While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.”

Speaking of misconduct, the Trump administration is now refusing to comply with perfectly lawful subpoenas issued by duly constituted committees of the U.S. Congress. If this president is allowed to get away with such defiance, why wouldn’t the next president do the same — or go even further? What good is a system of checks and balances if officials decline to use the tools that the framers of the Constitution so painstakingly crafted?

I can’t be certain what the political impact of a formal impeachment process might be. Trump would doubtless claim he was being persecuted, as a way to rile up his base and boost GOP turnout. But he will surely claim victimhood anyway, even if Pelosi decides not to move forward. Bullies cannot be appeased. They must be confronted.

Democrats’ options for avoiding impeachment are narrowing. Amash’s politically dangerous stand is a reminder that elected officials, regardless of party, are supposed to put duty first.

When WaPo praises a Republican you know their no damn good

Biden kicks off his campaign with a WHOPPER of a lie

Was in my favorite bar.  They always watch FOX and NEVER ran into a Democrat the 40 plus years I’ve been going there. Low and behold here comes Biden on TV. He’s donned in a blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up like a typical slimeball politician. He starts out—"I’ve been all across America” in which case I shouted…ALL 57 STATES? There was laughter and a bunch of guys raised their beer. Now for the next part, you better be strapped down in a chair tighter than Ted Bundy. He says this, “The reason the country is doing so well is Trump inherited the Obama/Biden economy”. Preposterous to the point I couldn't believe my own ears! I thought...Hunter must have slipped him some crack.

It also brought back memories of Barry’s favorite line “It’s Bushes fault” and now that Trump has the economy humming along Biden/Barry are trying to take the credit. What's worst, his asshole followers actually believed what he said. Guess I forgot about all those bonus checks mailed out by over 100 companies to their employees during Barry's occupation of the WH.

His followers are dumber than he is. 

If that's even possible.

   Biden's narrative evoked the infamous magic wand statement made by his mentor. 

Video 509

“Those jobs just aren't coming back". Well, guess what happened Barry under the Trump administration…

Biden kicks off his campaign with a WHOPPER of a lie

Fran Lebowitz suggests murdering President Donald Trump

On Bill Maher, Fran Lebowitz suggests murdering President Donald Trump: “We should turn him over to the Saudis, his buddies. The same Saudis who got rid of that reporter. Maybe they could do the same for him.”
pic.twitter.com/s6anKrRdgr

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) May 18, 2019

But wait, it's not her fault, said the bitch who could be mistaken for a buzzard on a shit wagon. We misinterpreted what she said...because we misinterpret everything.

Video 508

Fran Lebowitz suggests murdering President Donald Trump

Ex-Legionary, Fox News personality Father Jonathan Morris asks to leave the priesthood

Surprised to read this always enjoyed his commentary. I wish him well.

Rather would have read this SOB was defrocked. 

What a POS... and the church is afraid to get rid of him. He's become the 'Al Sharpton' of the Catholic church!

Pro-abortion...Pelosi, Biden, and a Catholic priest?

You be the judge.

https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2008/04/father-michael-pfleger-of-archdiocese.html

----------------------

Father Jonathan Morris, a former member of the Legion of Christ who was at one time among the most prominent Catholic priests in America as a contributor to Fox News, has asked to be dismissed from the clerical state, indicating he wants to be free to "marry and have a family" though saying it's not about an "existing relationship."

In a statement released Friday, Morris writes that the decision has filled him "with newfound joy," though he says he knows some people won't understand his decision to leave the priesthood.

"After taking some months of sabbatical to be with family and to dedicate more time to prayer and retreat, I have decided to ask the Holy Father, Pope Francis, to release me from the duties and responsibilities of the clerical state," Morris said in a statement, which he made available to Crux.

Morris left the troubled Legion of Christ in 2009, three years after the Vatican suspended its founder, Father Macial Marciel, from his priestly duties, having found Maciel guilty of various forms of sexual abuse and misconduct as well as abuse of power. Morris was incardinated into the Archdiocese of New York with the support of Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

He's appeared on several TV networks and is best known for his role with Fox News, though he was also a theological adviser to Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ", and was the program director for "The Catholic Channel," a project of the Archdiocese of New York, on the Sirius XM radio network for three years.

Morris said in his statement that the fear of "disappointing people's expectations" has held him back from taking the step he's now taking, something he's considered "often and at length in years past and discussed with my spiritual guides."

In his statement, Morris acknowledges that even though he's "loved and thrived" in much of his ministry, he's struggled with his vocation and the commitments demanded by being a Catholic priest, particularly not being able to marry and have a family.

Morris writes that his decision "is not about an existing relationship, but rather about the peace and spiritual freedom I trust will come in the future by following God's will for my life now."

Lastly, Morris says that his decision shouldn't "take away anything from the many heroic men and women who are living out their religious vocations with admirable fidelity and fulfillment."

"I will always be in the pews ready to support you, because my faith in God and love for my Church is stronger than ever," Morris said. "I look forward to serving in new ways alongside of you."

Morris told Crux he's "just beginning the process to request laicization," and there's no indication of when a response to his request is expected.

Morris is a native of Cleveland, Ohio. To read the full text of Morris's statement, click here: Morris statement.

Ex-Legionary, Fox News personality Father Jonathan Morris asks to leave the priesthood

L.A. wary of adding money to legal defense fund for migrants and refugees

“We must work together to guarantee that no child goes to immigration court alone,” Moreira said.

With a name like Jossiel Moreira what did you think he was going to say? 

So the assholes in L.A. are going to spend $7.4 million on legal costs for illegals who shouldn't be here in the first place. Certainly, this money could be better spent serving their own citizens but illegals have always held a special connection (voters) to the demented liberal. What has fascinated me for years illegals are treated like a treasured commodity in CA. Even convicted felons who have committed murder! They'll bend over backwards protecting them from ICE and being deported...even when they kill their own legal citizens. And for the most part, and this is what really gets me, the legal citizenry of CA goes along with it!!!

L.A. most wanted list:

http://www.lapdonline.org/all_most_wanted

See anyone with a name like Jablonski? 

---------------------------

Activists and attorneys urged Los Angeles city officials Thursday to renew funding for a legal defense program for migrants.

The L.A. Justice Fund, a city- and county-backed program that was launched after President Trump took office, pays for attorneys for individuals and families who are detained or at risk for deportation.

Los Angeles had set aside $2 million and the county committed $3 million for the fund in 2017, to be spent over several years, and private philanthropic groups also gave money. But budget leaders have declined to put new money toward it.

Overall, the fund has granted $7.4 million to help with legal representation and counsel, according to the website of the California Community Foundation, a philanthropic organization that disburses the money. In the year since the program launched, 19 people had been released from custody and 223 cases were handled, the foundation said in September.

So far, city and county officials have resisted renewing the L.A. Justice Fund money in the upcoming budget year, as officials evaluate the program and its effectiveness.

“From the outset, the L.A. Justice Fund was developed and implemented as a two-year pilot program with a one-time county expenditure,” said L.A. County spokeswoman Rachel Estrada.

Jay Cortez, a spokesman for City Councilman Gil Cedillo, said Thursday that the city is still awaiting data about the program. Cedillo also wrote a letter on May 3 to Councilman Paul Krekorian, who heads the budget committee, expressing his support for the program.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last month that there is enough city money in the L.A. Justice Fund to last until October. The goal, he said, was for the fund to raise $10 million, but private groups haven’t raised their share. He also questioned how much each case is costing the Justice Fund compared with similar programs.

“It was like looking at $20,000 per case, versus the state program, which is about $5,000 per case,” Garcetti said. “With a report back, with those questions answered, we will look at continuing that, but that won’t be until after October.”

On Thursday, Garcetti spokeswoman Andrea Garcia said the mayor plans to work with California Community Foundation and others to “evaluate the impact of this program and develop a long-term strategy to support this vital work and keep immigrant families together.”

The foundation didn’t provide answers about the program to The Times as of late Thursday.

Earlier in the day, frustrated immigrant advocates came to City Hall for a budget hearing to rally for new funding, arguing that not supporting it is tantamount to abandoning L.A.’s immigrant community.

Attorney Jossiel Moreira said the Justice Fund helps pay for his work providing legal representation for child immigrants and refugees who have come to the U.S. alone. Those youths aren’t guaranteed attorneys in court, he said, citing a study that found unaccompanied children without representation are more than four times more likely to receive a removal order.

“We must work together to guarantee that no child goes to immigration court alone,” Moreira said.

Mariana Magaña, a policy advocate with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said her group’s attorneys are often the “last resource” for families about to be split up.

“As a city who welcomes immigrants from all over the world, the City of Angels has an obligation to live up to its values and step up in a time when needed the most,” Magaña said.

(In CA an illegal and a immigrant are one and the same...even a MS-13 member)

The proposed budget now goes to the City Council for a vote.

L.A. wary of adding money to legal defense fund for migrants and refugees