Thread by @ScottHech

Judge (furious): “It’s really cold. It gets colder when they complain. They’re forced to sleep crowded w/ lights on all night long, on concrete floor w/ aluminum blankets. No one would argue that this is secure & sanitary.”

Sarah Fabian (DOJ): “I would!”

Judge (holding everything back): “Are you really going to tell us that *sleep* isn’t a part of safe & sanitary conditions?”

Sarah Fabian (DOJ’s Defender of child torture): “Yes. I. Am.”

Judge (nearly out of his seat): “It is within every one’s understanding that if you don’t have toothpaste, soap, a blanket it’s not safe & sanitary. Wouldn’t every body agree with that? Do you agree with that?”

Sarah Fabian (heartless, cold): “No.”

Few folks are rightfully saying that I didn’t include full context of Sarah Fabian’s responses. True: I was simplifying. So here are her full responses. I’ll start with the first. In response to the first judge saying, “No one would argue,” Fabian *does argue* w/ the following:

“I think the concern there is that finding that sleep is relevant to a finding of no safe & sanitary conditions is 1 thing but the ultimate conclusion is safe & sanitary is a singular conclusion in the agreement.m & one has to assume that left that way....” Cont 👇.

“...and not enumerated by the parties bc either the parties couldn’t reach agreement on how to enumerate that or that it was left to the agencies to determine...”

Judge 2 cuts her off: “Or it was relatively obvious.”

After 2d judge asks “are you really going to tell us?” She does. After another judge interjects & asks “what is your best arguments?” Sarah Fabian responds: “When you start enumerating specific hygiene items & the way that was done is that the court sort of enumerates...” Cont👇.

“...these and they fall within the rubric, they fall within the category of what can be required.”

Judge: “It wasn’t perfumed soap. It was SOAP!”

Then third judge takes over. More below.

3rd judge asks her “Do you agree with that?” referring to the argument she’s making. Her response:

“Well I think there is fair reason to find those things may be be part of safe and sanitary conditions.”

Judge: “Not may be. ARE!!” Continued 👇.

Judge #3 cont: “You mean there are circumstances where a person doesn’t need a toothbrush, toothpaste, & soap? For days?”

“Well I think CBP custody is frequently intended to be much shorter. So it may be that for shorter term stay those things may not be required.” Cont...👇

Judge #2 then interjects: “But I don’t think that’s the situation the court was confronting. It wasn’t as though those people were held for 12 hours then moved to a Hilton hotel. They were there for a fairly sustained period.”

There are all of Sarah Fabian’s words.