Congresswoman Maxine Waters Demands Guilty Verdict in Derek Chauvin Trial, Without It She Encourages Violent Confrontation In The Streets

82-year-old Maxine Waters is one of the most vitriolic racial antagonizers in the nation.  During the George Zimmerman trial Maxine Waters demanded a guilty verdict.  During the investigation of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson she demanded a murder indictment based on the demonstrably false “hands-up, don’t shoot” claims.  After the 2016 election Waters demanded that people physically confront Trump officials in restaurants and gas stations, “get up in their faces” and make them uncomfortable; in short, Maxine Waters consistently demands political violence.

There is zero doubt in my mind that Obama’s crew of racial antagonists are orchestrating and manipulating events around the trial of Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd.  All political arrows are being deployed from the quiver of racial hate and division.  Even the racially driven comments by Meghan Markle on the eve of the trial beginning were not random.   The activated political leftists are once again drum-beating for violent confrontation.

Following her pattern, the California representative traveled to Minnesota’s riot-plagued Brooklyn Center last night and called for people to get even “more confrontational” if Derek Chauvin is acquitted. She is blatantly endorsing political violence and mob anarchy. “We’re looking for a guilty verdict” she said, adding “If we don’t, we cannot go away, we’ve got to get more confrontational.” WATCH:

[embedded content]

Source

USA Today: Rifles Used in Fed-Ex Attack Were Purchased ‘Legally’

USA Today reports that alleged Fed-Ex attacker Brandon Scott Hole used two rifles to carry out his heinous act and both guns were purchased “legally.”

USA Today notes that Hole purchased one rifle in July 2020 and the other in September 2020.

Breitbart News reported that the March 22, 2021, Boulder attacker bought his gun “legally” too, as did the March 16, 2021, Atlanta-area gunman.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of high profile attackers acquire their guns by complying with background checks, rather than going around them.

Here is a just a partial list of other attackers who got their guns by complying with gun control laws:

  • Parkland high school attacker (February 14, 2018)
  • Texas church attacker (November 5, 2017)
  • Las Vegas attacker (October 1, 2017)
  • Alexandria attacker (June 14, 2017))
  • Orlando attacker (June 12, 2016)
  • UCLA gunman (June 1, 2016))
  • San Bernardino attackers (December 2, 2015)
  • Colorado Springs attacker (October 31, 2015)
  • Umpqua Community College attacker (October 1, 2015)
  • Alison Parker’s attacker (August 26, 2015)
  • Lafayette movie theater attacker (July 23, 2015)
  • Chattanooga attacker (July 16, 2015)
  • Alleged Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal attacker (Jun 17, 2015)
  • Muhammad Carton Contest attackers (May 3, 2014)
  • Las Vegas cop killers (June 9, 2015)
  • Santa Barbara attacker (May 23, 2014)
  • Fort Hood attacker (April 2, 2014)
  • Arapahoe High School attacker (December 13, 2013)
  • D.C. Navy Yard attacker (September 16, 2013)
  • Aurora movie theater attacker (July 20, 2012)
  • Gabby Giffords’ attacker (January 8, 2011)
  • Fort Hood attacker (November 5, 2009)
  • Northern Illinois University attacker (February 14, 2008)
  • Virginia Tech attacker (April 16, 2007).

Yet President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats continue to push background checks as a solution to high profile firearm-related attacks.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Source

WATCH: Body Cam Video of Chicago PD Shooting 13-Year-Old Released

Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) is calling for Chicago police to reform foot pursuit policy amid the unrest that followed a video release of an officer shooting a 13-year-old on March 29, 2021.

CBS News reported Lightfoot called for the reform on Thursday, the same day on which body cam video of the shooting was released.

The 13-year-old, named Adam Toledo, was shot by an officer about 2:30 a.m. following a foot chase after “reports of gun shots.”

Reuters noted the pursuing officer, Eric Stillman, allegedly ordered Toledo to stop then fired one shot, which proved fatal.

On Thursday, the same day the body cam video was released, the Chicago PD “placed an arrow on a still frame, pointing to what appeared to be a handgun in Toledo’s right hand before Stillman opened fire.”

The Chicago PD commented, “838 milliseconds between gun shown in hand and single shot.”

Minutes into the video “the officer shines a flashlight on a handgun feet from where officers worked frantically to save Toledo’s life.”

[embedded content]

The Toledo family attorney, Adeena Weiss Ortiz, said, “I don’t know if the officer had enough time or not. All I know is the officer is trained to not shoot an unarmed individual.”

France 24 quoted Lightfoot admitting there is much that is not known about the incident:

We live in a city that is traumatized by a long history of police violence and misconduct. So while we don’t have enough information to be the judge and jury of this particular situation, it is certainly understandable why so many of our residents are feeling that all too familiar surge of outrage and pain. It is even clearer that trust between our community and law enforcement is far from healed and remains badly broken.

CBS News observed that Lightfoot also called for police foot pursuit reforms, saying, “Foot pursuits put everyone involved at risk: the officers, the person being pursued, and bystanders. We have to do better and I’ve charged the superintendent with bringing me a policy that recognizes how dangerous this is. We can’t afford to lose more lives,”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Source

House and Senate Planning to Introduce Legislation Thursday to Pack The Supreme Court

Jerry ‘the penguin’ Nadler and Senator Ed Markey are planning to introduce legislation tomorrow to add four Supreme Court justices to the current bench.  The objective is to bring a liberal bias to the high court by adding four leftist judges.

WASHINGTON DC – The bill, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), is the first legislation in recent years designed to add seats to the high court, and its introduction comes as progressive organizations are pushing for court expansion, after watching Senate Republicans fill three Supreme Court vacancies in four years under President Donald Trump. (read more)

Source

Two-Tiered Justice, DOJ Close Investigation into Murder of Ashli Babbitt With No Charges

Infuriating… and the timing of the DOJ announcement explains Biden on distract television today.

Not only did the DOJ not prosecute the Capitol Hill police officer who murdered Ashli Babbitt, but they still refuse to name him.  The sunlight upon the two-tiers of justice in the United States is at a supernova level of intensity.  Everything about this DOJ announcement is FUBAR:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue criminal charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer involved in the fatal shooting of 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, the Office announced today.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia’s Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and the Civil Rights Division, with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), conducted a thorough investigation of Ms. Babbitt’s shooting. Officials examined video footage posted on social media, statements from the officer involved and other officers and witnesses to the events, physical evidence from the scene of the shooting, and the results of an autopsy.

Based on that investigation, officials determined that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. Officials from IAD informed a representative of Ms. Babbitt’s family today of this determination.

The investigation determined that, on January 6, 2021, Ms. Babbitt joined a crowd of people that gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds to protest the results of the 2020 presidential election. Inside the Capitol building, a Joint Session of Congress, convened to certify the results of the Electoral College vote, was underway. Members of the crowd outside the building, which was closed to the public during the Joint Session, eventually forced their way into the Capitol building and past U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officers attempting to maintain order. The Joint Session was stopped, and the USCP began evacuating members of Congress.

The investigation further determined that Ms. Babbitt was among a mob of people that entered the Capitol building and gained access to a hallway outside “Speaker’s Lobby,” which leads to the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, the USCP was evacuating Members from the Chamber, which the mob was trying to enter from multiple doorways. USCP officers used furniture to barricade a set of glass doors separating the hallway and Speaker’s Lobby to try and stop the mob from entering the Speaker’s Lobby and the Chamber, and three officers positioned themselves between the doors and the mob.

Members of the mob attempted to break through the doors by striking them and breaking the glass with their hands, flagpoles, helmets, and other objects. Eventually, the three USCP officers positioned outside the doors were forced to evacuate. As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors, Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out. An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor. A USCP emergency response team, which had begun making its way into the hallway to try and subdue the mob, administered aid to Ms. Babbitt, who was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she succumbed to her injuries.

The focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws, concentrating on the possible application of 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal civil rights statute. In order to establish a violation of this statute, prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer acted willfully to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the Constitution or other law, here the Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure.

Prosecutors would have to prove not only that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but that the officer did so “willfully,” which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment cannot establish the high level of intent required under Section 242.

The investigation revealed no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter. (link)

Source

PHOTO: Armed Civilians Stand Guard Outside Brooklyn Center Store

As riots rage on the streets of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, armed civilians were photographed standing guard outside a business to keep looters away.

The riots are occurring one day after 20-year-old Daunte Wright was shot and fatally wounded by a Brooklyn police officer during a traffic stop. On Monday, Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon indicated the officer may have shot Wright accidentally.

Townhall’s Julio Rosas posted a photo of rioters allegedly throwing projectiles at police:

He explained that while police were focused on protecting the police building from one set of rioters, others were allegedly looting various stores at will.

He posted video of the alleged looters, followed by a photo of showing a store where armed civilians stood guard and no looting was occurring:

Similar defenses of businesses were sent during the riots that erupted in response to the death of George Floyd. On May 30, 2020, Breitbart News reported that some Minneapolis store owners armed with AR-15s, AK-47s, pistols, and other firearms, banded together to protect their property.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Source

Another Tripwire Crossed – Pentagon Orders Updated Screening of Military to Identify “Extremist” Outlooks in Preparation for What is to Come…

Let me be clear…. I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands. I have made this assertion since the jaw-dropping revelations about the Pentagon during the first impeachment effort in August 2019 and the lack of leadership from the military in removing Lt. Col Alexander Vindman from his compromised position.

♦ WHAT: As I look forward the likely origination point for military deployment will be federal COVID mandates, though it could also be state election issues.  ♦ HOW: The hardline leftists are weaponizing the military for political benefit.  ♦ WHEN: As a result of severe federal government intrusion it is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands. That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point and posse comitatus will be suspended.

The majority of the U.S. military rank and file are patriots; America-first nationalists with a patriotic outlook toward the United States as a constitutional republic.  The majority of the military also come from red states.  This is an identified risk to the Obama objective of fundamental change.  Additionally, thanks in large part to a purge during the Obama era, the majority of the flag officers are not in alignment with the rank and file.   This sets the stage for a problem….

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday ordered new steps to tackle the threat posed by extremism in the ranks of the military, including updated screening questionnaires for recruits, a review of the department’s definition of extremism and efforts to prevent veterans from being drawn into violent movements.

The move follows a 60-day stand-down across the armed services that Austin ordered to allow commanders and troops in every unit to discuss how to confront the problem of white supremacist or other extremist ideology within the military. The Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump thrust the issue into the spotlight, as some of the mob were former or current members of the military with links to ultra-rightwing groups.

In a memo Friday to top officials and commanders, Austin said the department was still reviewing the results of the stand-down but he had decided to move ahead with “several immediate steps.”

Under Austin’s instruction, the Pentagon’s top lawyer and other officials will review and update the department’s definition of “prohibited extremist activities” for all service members. Critics have said the Pentagon needs to take into account how extremism has evolved in the digital era, and how some adherents engage in more loosely formed networks.

The secretary also called for updated screening questionnaires for potential recruits to gather information about current or previous extremist behavior ”to ensure that only the best qualified recruits are selected for the services,” according to the memo. (read more)

It is well known and accepted that most of the rank and file military come from Red States, and/or the Southern U.S. region.   This has been a reality in the military for as long as I can remember.   Again, this is a problem if the government is going to weaponize the military against the citizens.  Hence, they need to quantify the issue in advance.

[HISTORIC NOTE:  This is not the first time the Pentagon has undertaken such an assessment.  In the aftermath of the Chinese regular army refusing to turn their fire on the protesting students at Tienanmen Square (remember, the Mongolian divisions were called in); the world noticed.  The U.S. Pentagon did a similar internal assessment.]

♦ My prior warning with the examples and citations of data to back-up my prediction are HERE and repeated below:

Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.

Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple.  The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.

Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).

If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws, it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state who would be non-compliant.

Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific state action.

When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.

If my suspicions/predictions are correct, this would explain exactly why there has been a recent uptick in the visual politicization of the military; including empirical examples of emboldened U.S. military leadership openly engaged in domestic political advocacy against Tucker Carlson.

The marching of the U.S. military through the Capitol building to the offices of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be another orchestrated optic sending the same political message.

These are not examples of the military “woke” community advancing political correctness, instead these are examples of advanced politicization of the military (in an open context) in preparation for domestic political use.   The “insurrection narrative” is then considered a seed planted to blossom later in support of the overall agenda.

One of the data-points highlighting future intent was clearly visible and seemingly overlooked by almost all media.  It happened when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman first became a political whistle-blower against the office of President Trump.

It was not the details of the Vindman accusation that stood out, though that was the aspect the media focused on.  What was more concerning was the lack of action by the Pentagon after Vindman compromised his position as an advisor to the commander in chief.

2019 – When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC did not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political.  The necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.

In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman.  No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature.  Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment.  Yet his command does nothing? (more)

That was the alarming lack of action from the Pentagon everyone seemed to overlook.  Why did senior military leadership not remove Vindman from his post at the White House once he clearly compromised his ability to carry out his duty?  Their lack of action was stunning when you consider their primary obligation.

Fast forward to 2021 and now a very political military officer, General Russel Honore’, is appointed by Nancy Pelosi to be in charge of the military deployment around Washington DC.  When you consider the political ramifications of the military supporting a false narrative, this is more than just another data-point.  Then the military openly attacked the position of Tucker Carlson based entirely on political ideology.

The increased frequency of the military being politicized is what leads me to believe this phase is all just a public relations pre-positioning.  I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands… the likely origination point will be federal COVID mandates.

The leftists are weaponizing COVID mandates for a political agenda.  It is only a matter of time before states start to rebel against federal COVID demands.  That, in my opinion, will be the inflection point.  That will be when the U.S. military is held as a compliance activation against any rebellious state.  It could be another issue that activates this triggering of the military (ex. state election laws), but as it stands right now federal COVID compliance seems the most likely trigger.

Bottom line… The American electorate are being positioned to accept deployment of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, under the guise of insurrection and/or a public threat.  That is why we are seeing so much willful politicization of the military.

If you live in a region or state that values individual liberty and/or freedom, you are likely in a location that leftists consider a risk to their ability to execute their agenda.  You are likely right now being defined as a ‘dissident’, or possibly a “domestic terrorist.”  As a result, get ready to see this type of activity in your neighborhood.

Source

Levi Strauss CEO Bergh: ‘When it Comes to Gun Control, Gun Violence Is Ripping This Country Apart’

President and CEO of Levi Strauss & Co. Chip Bergh said Friday on CNN’s “Newsroom” that his company is advocating for so-called gun control because “gun violence is ripping this country apart.”

Bergh said, “I’ve been a CEO now for about ten years. I can tell you that over that 10-year period of time, the role has changed dramatically. You know, the business roundtable, talk about stakeholder management and ensuring that we’re driving value for all stakeholders. I have a large employee base globally. I’ve got communities where we work and serve the communities. So we’ve got a broad range of stakeholders. I really do believe, especially at Levi’s, that I have a platform. We’re committed to making change. This company has been around for 180 years. A big part of the reason I believe we’ve been around for 180 years is we’ve not been afraid to take a position on issues that are really, really important and not been afraid to stick our neck out on these tough issues.”

He continued, “When it comes to gun control, gun violence is ripping this country apart. It’s almost every single day you’re hearing about another incident. So this is important to us as a country. I serve the U.S. Army. We’re not trying to repeal the Second Amendment. We’re just calling for legislation that will make our world a safer place.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Source

PolitiFact: Joe Biden’s Gun Claims ‘Mostly False’

PolitiFact weighed the background check gun control claims President Joe Biden made Thursday and labeled them “mostly false.”

During the gun control push, Biden said, “Most people don’t know: If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.”

PolitiFact weighed Biden’s claim, noting Biden “exaggerated” and asserted his claim is “mostly false”:

Democrats have long used gun shows to justify the passage of more gun control. They often frame their appeals under the guise of fixing the so-called “gun show loophole,” intimating that criminals are using gun shows as a way to circumvent background checks and acquire guns.

However, on August 30, 2015, Breitbart News reported a University of Chicago Crime Lab study on criminals in the Cook County, Illinois, jail system. The  study focused on “inmates who were facing gun charges or whose criminal background involved gun crimes.”

The Chicago-Tribune spoke with Crime Lab co-director Harold Pollack about the study and Pollack noted that “some of the pathways [regarding guns] people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant.” He noted very few inmates indicated using gun shows or the internet. Rather, they procured their guns in undetectable ways on the street.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Source

Joe Biden’s Push on Gun Control Distracts from Historic Border Crisis

President Joe Biden’s push for gun control Thursday distracted the media from new alarming numbers detailing the historic migrant crisis on the Southern border.

The president’s Rose Garden event highlighted the administration’s planned executive actions on gun control. The president also emphasized the dreams of gun control advocates, including a new assault rifle ban and reversing liability protections for gun manufacturers.

Biden’s gun control proposals were enough to distract reporters at the White House press briefing Thursday afternoon, who did not ask press secretary Jen Psaki a single question about the border crisis. There was also no mention of the record-breaking numbers of migrants apprehended at the border.

Agents apprehended nearly 170,000 migrants in March, a nearly 72 percent increase in a month. That included a record 18,663 unattended minors in a single month, more than twice the number apprehended in February.

Psaki ignored the crisis during the briefing, bringing in Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to discuss President Biden’s dramatic spending proposals to increase green energy.

The White House has resisted commenting on the crisis after Biden insisted during a press conference in March that the rise in apprehensions were seasonal.

“It happens every single, solitary year: There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March. That happens every year,” Biden said.

The latest numbers, however, triggered corporate media fact-checkers to point out the administration’s messaging failure on the issue:

Vice President Kamala Harris, despite taking charge of the “root causes” of the border crisis, has focused her travel domestically to promote the coronavirus vaccine and the administration’s proposed $2.5 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

On Wednesday, during the White House press briefing, Psaki declined to detail any trips to the border by the president or the vice president to draw attention to the issue.

“I don’t have any trips to outline or preview,” she said. “What our focus is, on is solutions.”

Source