Earlier today, I blogged about Hillary Clinton, during an interview with London’s Daily Guardian, comparing herself to Winston Chuchill.

But that’s not all she said.

Here, via Justin Caruso’s article at dailycaller.com is her response after being asked about Democrat “incivility” to President Trump and his administration:

“‘Oh, give me a break,’ she erupts, eyes widening into indignation. ‘Give me a break! What is more uncivil and cruel than taking children away? It should be met with resolve and strength. And if some of that comes across as a little uncivil, well, children’s lives are at stake; their futures are at stake. That is that ridiculous concept of bothsideism.’”


What does Ms. Clinton have to say about the children separated from their parents when Barack Obama was President?  Does she consider that exact same procedure uncivil?  Cruel?

And while we’re on the subject, what does Ms. Clinton have to say about the fact that the original legislation allowing this to happen was enacted into law in 1997 (The Flores Settlement), and signed by President Bill Clinton -who, rumor has it, is engaged in some kind of a relationship with her?

One more very important thing:  I would like to further discuss “The Flores Settlement”, signed by Bill Clinton in 1997.  I am doing so because several of the so-called “fact-checking” sites claim it did not stipulate children should be separated from their parents – but without further explanation, which I think is necessary.

Yes, it is true that Flores did not specifically stipulate separation of families.  But what it did do is open the door for separation to occur.

Here’s the best explanation of Flores I’ve seen – from Michelle Mark’s article at businessinsider.com:

The Flores settlement

This is a 1997 legal agreement struck by Clinton administration following years of litigation on the treatment of children detained by immigration authorities. The settlement says the government is required to release immigrant children from detention without unnecessary delay — generally within 20 days — to parents, relatives, or licensed programs.

If those options are not immediately available for certain children, the government is then required to place them in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate for their ages.

The Trump administration has argued that the Flores settlement means children must be separated from their parents, since they cannot be held in custody alongside their parents who are facing criminal prosecution and deportation for crossing the border illegally.

It has also argued that the settlement prevents the timely deportation of unaccompanied children, allowing them to remain in the US out of custody, where they typically fail to attend court hearings regarding their asylum cases.

As you can see, it does not require the separation.  But it specifically allows it.

President Trump has dramatically overstated what Flores does.  Mr.  Trump, to his discredit, has a very unfortunate, very self-damaging habit of wildly exaggerating fact, and sometimes making them up out of thin air.

But that does not change the fact that Flores created a procedure by which separations could occur.  So, while President Trump is wrong about whether it establishes the procedure, he is right about the fact that it creates a pathway for it to occur.

Thin gruel, but the gruel is there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *