The most common sense position I think I've ever heard from a politician. Ted Cruz says billions in assets tied to 'El Chapo' should fund the border wall U.S. prosecutors are seeking to seize billions of dollars in assets connected to convicted drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Tuesday that he believes the money should be used to build a border wall with Mexico. In reference to Guzmán's conviction on 10 criminal counts — including drug trafficking, weapons violations and operating a continuing criminal enterprise — Cruz tweeted: "U.S. prosecutors are seeking $14 billion in drug profits & other assets from El Chapo which should go towards funding our wall to #SecureTheBorder." It's a nod to a previously introduced bill, CNN reports. The "EL CHAPO Act" — or "Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act" — was first introduced in April 2017 and reintroduced in January of this year, the network reports. "The bill would reserve any amounts forfeited to the U.S. Government as a result of the criminal prosecution of 'El Chapo' ... and other drug lords for border security assets and the completion of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border," a January release from Cruz. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-says-billions-assets-043249779.html
I'm thinking that certain members of Congress would do everything they could to prevent those assets from being used for the wall. After all we've got other priorities like taking care of the dreamers.
Perhaps you are just being cute, but in case you are not the dreamers are only seeking permanent status in the country they grew up in and love, Not anyone's money.
It's my felling that most of that money has already disappeared. I have no doubt that that the liberals will do any thing in their power to make sure that money never gets used to prevent illegal infiltration to this country.
I so hope Mr. Trump declares a national emergency. That will keep him busy tweeting and watching TV for the next year. The final year will be a lame duck year. Hopefully the "deep state" can keep us out of trouble then, with little interference by him. Appointees for the various agencies involved in foreign affairs seemed to have turned out not too bad, for the most part. The Republicans have gotten all they can out of this president now (tax cuts for wealthy and corporations, and corporate deregulation). No money left for infrastructure or things that might benefit ordinary people.
I wasn't implying the president won't get re-elected. I'm not sure what the old definition for lame duck was, but it seems to me in recent decades it just means that nothing gets done in the final year of a term. Could be I'm wrong. The person holding office, whoever it is, is usually busy campaigning for re-election, and doesn't want to risk rocking the boat in the final year by doing something that might turn out harmful to re-election. For example, one third of the Senators, approximately, will be in a lame duck year for them in 2020. Most will get re-elected.
Respectfully I disagree that the "deep state" can keep us out of trouble. When the disgraced former director was involved in a scheme to get rid of a duly elected President, we are not safe at all.
I'm neither a Trump hater nor lover, but he'll be reelected in a landslide. He still speaks in the vernacular, and the Dems will remain fragmented.
In politics, a lame duck is an elected official whose successor has already been elected. The official is often seen as having less influence with other politicians due to their limited time left in office.
Yes, you are right, Beth. I'm sorry. I thought there was an expression for what I meant, but I can't think of one, so maybe not.