2/x You claim “no illegal immigrants will get checks.”
Q1: Dick, true or false: 60% of illegal aliens are visa overstays.
Q2: True or false: Migrants who come to US legally on a work visa are allowed to have a SSN, yet when they overstay their visa they become illegal aliens.
3/x Q3: Dick, true or false: under the Dem bill, millions of illegal immigrants (w/ SSNs) will receive $1400 checks.
Q4: If that’s not true (you bellowed that it was “a lie!”), why did the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation determine my amendment would save taxpayers $675m?
4/x Q5: Dick, if no illegal aliens get $$ under the Dem bill, why didn’t Bernie Sanders (or any other Dem) raise a point of order against my amendment as having no budgetary effect?
5/x Q6: Dick, if no illegal aliens get $$ under Dem bill, why didn’t you just agree to my amendment (which, under your analysis, prohibited something that wasn’t happening)?
Q7: Why did every Dem vote against my amendment prohibiting sending $1400 checks to illegal immigrants?
6/x Q8: Dick, when, in the coming days, Biden admin sends $1400 checks to millions of illegal immigrants (& incarcerated felons), will you publicly come to the floor & apologize for falsely calling me a liar?
Q9: Will the Lefty journos echoing your false charge also apologize?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yet another example of biased, dishonest “fact-checking.”
Newsweek admits “Individuals who overstay their visas but pay tax in the United States using a Social Security number may be eligible for stimulus payments.”
They also admit 676k visa overstays in a single year.
They ignore that those accumulate over decades, and 60% of the 12m total illegal aliens are visa overstays.
So, they conclude EVERY WORD THAT I SAID IS TRUE (and Dick Durbin’s claims to the contrary are false), but they’re left-wing propagandists, so they still call it “mostly false”!
Want to understand why we’re so divided? Why each side seems to live in alternate universes? Take a moment & examine the misinformation here (both deliberate & inadvertent).
FACT 1: Dem spending bill sends $1400 to each adult in US.
Dems had agreed to know witnesses, then House Managers changed their mind this morning.
Schumer blindsided. Pandemonium. They’re negotiating now to figure out next steps.
2/x While we’re waiting to figure out what’s next, I thought I’d share some of the Qs in the pile that DIDN’T make the cut to be asked yesterday. (These are all real, from various senators, who will remain anonymous.)
After I questioned Linda Thomas-Greenfield this morning about her embrace of China in a Confucius Institute speech, some said her praise of the Chinese Communist Party was a one-off.
No it wasn't.
Let’s go to the archives.
In 2006, at the State Department, Thomas-Greenfield said she was not concerned about China's growing power in Africa.
1/x What is sickening is that you are siding with this vicious murderer. Don’t pretend he was a saint. Here are his actual crimes (quoted verbatim from DOJ)—which you ignore:
“Brandon Bernard and his accomplices brutally murdered two youth ministers....”
2/x “...Todd and Stacie Bagley, on a military reservation in 1999. After Todd Bagley agreed to give a ride to several of Bernard’s accomplices, they pointed a gun at him, forced him and Stacie into the trunk of their car, and drove the couple around for hours....”
3/x “...while attempting to steal their money and pawn Stacie’s wedding ring. While locked in the trunk, the couple spoke with their abductors about God and pleaded for their lives. The abductors eventually parked on the Fort Hood military reservation....”
If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument.
Full statement below...
Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I've publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA.
Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari. I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument.