Oh Boy It Never Ends: Mariska Hargitay has a new film

I did not know that Mariska Hargitay was making a documentary about her late mother Jayne Mansfield. C.I. slid that over to me tonight and it was the first I'd heard of it.

WIKIPEDIA notes:

My Mom Jayne is a 2025 documentary film directed by Mariska Hargitay in her feature film directorial debut. The film examines the life of Hargitay's late mother, Jayne Mansfield. The film had its world premiere at the Cannes Classics section of the 78th Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2025, where it was nominated for the L'Œil d'or. It will receive a limited theatrical release on June 20, 2025, and will be released on HBO on June 27, 2025.

Production

Director Mariska Hargitay was only three years old when her mother, actress Jayne Mansfield, died in a car accident. Hargitay stated, "This movie is a labor of love and longing. It's a search for the mother I never knew, an integration of a part of myself I'd never owned, and a reclaiming of my mother's story and my own truth."^[1] While her family was initially hesitant about her choice to make the documentary, they gave their blessing and agreed to appear in the film.^[2]

Release

The film was announced on April 8, 2025.^[3] It premiered in the Cannes Classics section of the 2025 Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2025.^[4] It is slated to screen at the Tribeca Festival on June 13, 2025, and will receive a limited theatrical release on June 20, 2025.^[5]^[6] It will be released on HBO on June 27, 2025.^[2]^[7]

Going out with C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Wednesday, May 21, 2025. It's as though Chump and his appointees set out yesterday to prove over and over just how ignorant of the law they are. Jasmine Crockett lays it out, Patty Murray, Maggie Hassan, Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy expose the ignorance of Chump's Cabinet in a series of questioning at one hearing yesterday after another.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. US House Rep Jasmine Crockett outlined why yesterday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on ICE.

US House Rep Jasmine Crockett: This entire situation could have been avoided if people would just know their jobs and actually do their jobs because the entire chaos that ensued, it ensued because of the unlawful detainment and arrest of the mayor in the first place. But let me get to my actual remarks. The Republicans have called today's hearing for one reason purpose: To help an administration that's already rooted in lawlessness and corruption execute their dangerous assault on American democracy.

The fat and impotent Donald Chump is clearly unbalanced but long before all that, he was just stupid. He remains ignorant to this day. And that explains the losers and liars he's used to assemble a Cabinet. Never has a team of less qualified people been put together and allowed to do so much destruction.

The worst of the worst -- that's the best description for Chump's Cabinet and, goodness, has it been on display.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's 'experience' was pretty much limited to killing her dog and publicly humiliating her husband.

Needless to say, that did not prepare her for the office she currently holds.

Senator Maggie Hassan: Secretary Noem, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff recently said that the Trump administration is actively looking at suspending habeas corpus. Last week, you were asked about this and I want to clarify your position because it's obviously really important to get this right. So, Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?

Secretary Kristi Noem: Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and --

Senator Maggie Hassan: No. No. Let me -- let me stop you, ma'am. Habeas corpus, excuse me, that's incorrect.

Secretary Kristi Noem: President Lincoln used it.

Senator Maggie Hassan: Excuse me. Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people -- including American citizens -- and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a Senator from the Live Free or Die state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents and to all Americans.

We're all aware that Kristi didn't graduate college, not really. In real time, she dropped out. Years and years later, after she was in Congress, she went back and they gave her course credit for serving in Congress at the time. Without those extra breaks and extra credits, Kristi could not have graduated So the point here is, Kristi's not a lawyer. She's taken no classes in the law. She doesn't know the law. If you want a dog shot, Kristi's your killer but if you want someone who understands the law and the Constitution, you'd be better off looking for a fifth grader who even half-assed applies themselves to their studies.

Erin Doherty (CNBC) notes:

Kristi Noem was grilled on the concept of habeas corpus during a Senate hearing, weeks after White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller floated suspending the due process for migrants.

Noem falsely claimed that "habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country."

Instead habeas corpus guarantees a person's constitutional right to challenge, in a court of law, their detention by the government.

Grasp that this idiot doesn't know what habeas corpus is and, worse, she's so stupid, she's convinced herself that the US Constitution says it is a right granted to the president.

Do we all get how stupid she is? She wasn't qualified for the office and she's been in it for months acting under the mistaken belief that habeaus corpus is a right of the US president and that this is via the Constitution. If she were an attorney, that kind of 'error' and the way she has applied it could get her disbarred.

Secretary Kristi is only one of the many idiots in the Chump administration. Billy Long? He's another idiot that Chump's nominated. 69-year-old Billy. Billy. That doesn't give anyone pause, right?

How about this -- like Krsti-with-an-i, Billy is another college school drop out -- woah-woah. But he is a certified auctioneer. Only the worst and the dimest for Donald Chump. But, hey, WIKIPEDIA notes that, in 2023, "he attended a three-day course offered by a Florida tax consultancy."

And this is the fool that Chump wants to head the IRS (someone who has spoken of wanting to abolish the IRS, by the way).

Yesterday, Senator Elizabeth Warren had some questions for Little Billy.

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the IRS collects nearly all federal revenue and that means that behind every road we build, every Social Security check that we pay is the IRS, making sure everyone pays what the law says they owe. No politics. But Donald Trump has a different idea. He wants to use the IRS to punish his enemies.

On May 2, Trump said, “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status.” Harvard wouldn’t cave in to other demands Trump made, so Trump said he would hurt them using the IRS. Now, this is about more than Harvard. It is a threat to anyone who might displease the President, including the people or organizations that can’t afford to have an expensive legal battle if Trump sets the IRS on them.

So, Mr. Long, when you and I met, I asked you whether it was illegal for the President to tell the IRS to revoke a taxpayer’s non-profit status. And you said in our meeting that you weren’t sure, but you would take a look and consult with lawyers. I sent you the statute, you’ve had three weeks to talk to the lawyers about it, so let’s jump in.

Mr. Long, is it illegal for the President to direct the IRS to revoke a taxpayer’s non-profit status?

Mr. Billy Long, nominee for Commissioner of the IRS: In the first place, he wouldn’t do that —

Senator Warren: That’s not my question Mr. Long. Please don’t start down this.

Mr. Long: Are we on Section 7212 or 7217?

Senator Warren: I’m at 26 U.S.C. 7217. Do I need to read it to you?

Mr. Long: “Prohibits any member of the executive branch to request the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit on a taxpayer.”

Senator Warren: Alrighty. So is it illegal—

Mr. Long: I’m going to follow the law. And if that’s the law, yes.

Senator Warren: Okay, but I want you—that is the law. So I just want to be clear: is it illegal for the President of the United States to instruct the IRS to remove a taxpayer’s non-profit status?

Mr. Long: “Prohibits any member of the executive branch to request the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit of a taxpayer.”

Senator Warren: Is that a yes?

Mr. Long: I’d have to go to the lawyers at the IRS to tell me.

Senator Warren: No. Come on. You just read it.

Mr. Long: I know, but I don’t see the instance that you’re speaking about in there. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t see—

Senator Warren: Look, it says “it shall be unlawful for any applicable person,” which in this case includes the President, “to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.”

Is it illegal for the President to instruct the IRS to remove non-profit status from a taxpayer?

Mr. Long: I'm not going to have the answer you need, and I apologize but like I said—

Senator Warren: Why are you not having the answer? You’ve had three weeks to consult with lawyers, the statute is about as clear as plain English makes possible—

Mr. Long: Well, if I say I’m going to follow the law, why would you need to ask me the question?

Senator Warren: Well, because I want to make sure that you understand what the law says. If you think ‘follow the law' means you just get to make it up on the spot, then bud, you don't get to be the IRS Commissioner. The point here is to follow the law as it is written and I'm asking what I think is a pretty simple question: can the President of the United States legally tell the IRS to change someone's nonprofit status?

Mr. Long: I'm not able to answer—

Senator Warren: You can't read these words and tell what those words say?

Mr. Long: I can read the statute and I did but—

Senator Warren: Alright, then tell me what they mean. What does it mean to say that ‘a person, an applicable person’ here—that’s the President, right?

Mr. Long: Yes.

Senator Warren: Alright, ‘cannot directly or indirectly,’ right?

Mr. Long: (silence)

Senator Warren: ‘Tell any officer or employee,’ that would be you, ‘of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.’ What part do you not understand here?

Mr. Long: It seems to be a non-profit—I don’t see exactly what it refers to—

Senator Warren: Any taxpayer. To start an investigation of any taxpayer.

Mr. Long: If it’s illegal, I’m not going to allow it to happen at my IRS.

Senator Warren: Is it illegal? That’s the question.

Mr. Long: Me and you will be friends then. I want to be your friend anyway but we will be on the same page. I’m going to follow the law, and if that’s point blank the law—

Senator Warren: What do you understand the law to be saying about the President telling the IRS in his dealings with any particular taxpayer? What do you understand this law to be saying?

Mr. Long: I think it sounds like it's saying what you are saying, but I don’t—I've got a little bit of a section here, and I looked at it, I talked to an attorney that used to be at the IRS and now is going to maybe be back at the IRS and I'm sorry if I don't have the answer.

Senator Warren: What? You mean the lawyers told you that they couldn't understand this?

Mr. Long: The what?

Senator Warren: The lawyers told you they couldn’t understand this?

Mr. Long: I didn’t say that.

Senator Warren: Well, then tell me, what part do you not understand? It says ‘no person,’ and you’ve said that includes the President, ‘cannot instruct any officer,’ that would be you, ‘of the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation for any particular taxpayer.’

Mr. Long: I don't intend to let anyone direct me to start an audit for a political reason or any type of reason.

Senator Warren: Does that include the President of the United States?

Mr. Long: Anyone.

Senator Warren: Can you say yes? That the President of the United States cannot tell the IRS what to do.

Mr. Long: I can tell them they’re not going to tell me what to do. I can’t speak for if there’s other agents at the IRS that you’re talking about, but I’m telling you what I don’t want to have happen at my IRS.

Senator Warren: You know, Mr. Long, you’d have a lot more credibility if you would just say yes. It's clear the statute makes it illegal for the President to direct the IRS vis-à-vis any particular taxpayer. And the fact that you want to sit there and dance around about this tells me that you shouldn't be within 1000 miles of the directorship of the IRS.

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.

“Before I ask my questions, I just ask that after this hearing you go back and reconsider a claim that you made in your opening statement. It would certainly shock Americans to hear that only 12% of our foreign aid reaches needy recipients on the ground– the people who need the help. That is not actually an accurate number. That is the amount of our aid that goes directly to local groups on the ground, but as you know, most of our aid runs through bigger international organizations, like Save the Children. Those entities are getting somewhere around 80%, 85% of the aid we give them directly to recipients on the ground. So I think that what you have done to shutter USAID is illegal, but I also think it is bad policy, and I do think it is important for us to all be operating with the same set of facts. The fact is not that only 12% of taxpayer dollars are ending up in the hands of the people who really need it on the ground.

“Mr. Secretary, I wanted to talk to you about the President’s personal business interests. During his first term he made the decision to not enter into any new business deals during his presidency– that Trump-affiliated businesses would not enter into any foreign business arrangements. And that made sense, because obviously it can be confusing for foreign governments to know how to try to win favor with the U.S. government if they have one route – making concessions that are good for U.S. national security – and they also have another route – which is perhaps helping the President's business interests. The President obviously changed that policy, and in this administration, his business interests are announcing new agreements and new investments into those business interests by foreign governments. And I think it stands to reason that that creates a real problem for foreign policy. It creates a problem for foreign governments in which they don’t exactly know what the best way is to try to get on good terms with the U.S. government and with the White House. Is it to do what’s right for American national security, or might it also be to do a business deal with the President of the United States and the entities he controls? Just to clarify, when the President's businesses are engaged in negotiations, for instance with the UAE on their stable-coin business – there was this big investment announced recently – you are not part of those negotiations. Those are being done by the President's family or those representing the President’s businesses?”

RUBIO: “I am not aware the President is involved in managing any business, other than the presidency of the United States. His family is allowed to make business deals. They continue to operate the enterprises that his family ran. I also don't accept the notion that these deals – for example in Saudi Arabia, or the UAE or Qatar – had anything to do with the President. For example, Qatar bought $200 billion worth of airplanes from Boeing. The President’s not – as far as I know– a shareholder of Boeing. He certainly does not own Boeing. The overwhelming – if you look at the deals that were structured, they were involved with investments in the United States, that’s the deals he signed, and/or investments in, for example, the UAE or Saudi Arabia, involving artificial intelligence.”

MURPHY: “UAE did announce a massive investment in World Liberty Financial, and World Liberty Financial is controlled by the President. And the President does actively engage in these businesses. He uses his social media to market the businesses that are being run by his family. I mean, just go on to his social media feed and you will see him marketing his meme coin. That is the President of the United States, that is not his sons doing it.”

RUBIO: “But just to be clear, that was not an announcement as part of this trade visit that was conducted into the Middle East.”

MURPHY: “Well, whether or not it was made during the time the President was there, there are obviously business deals being done between Trump entities and these countries.

“Let me ask you about the one that is probably most confusing to this Committee, which is the planned gift of a plane to either the United States government or the President. Is it your understanding that this luxury plane that Qatar has offered the President – and the President has announced he is willing to accept – is a gift to the United States government? Or is it a gift, ultimately, to the President himself that he can use in his library?”

RUBIO: “Well you would have to talk to the Department of Defense because this is a replacement, or at least a temporary bridge plane, for Air Force One – the new Air Force One – which is way off of its delivery schedule. And so that would have to be with the Air Force. They operate Air Force One. My understanding of it basically has been from the very beginning that this is a plane that was identified after talking to Boeing about what other planes around the world would fit the bill – that are out there, that could be used now – they identified the ones the Qataris had as an opportunity for one, and the ones the UAE had as an opportunity for one, and that’s how that–“

MURPHY: “And it’s not your understanding that the plane ultimately will belong to the President, or to the President's library, after?”

RUBIO: “I’m not involved at that level of it. I’ve never heard that before. What I’ve heard is that that plane will replace Air Force One which is an Air Force plane.”

MURPHY: “Let me ask you about the dinner that’s happening this Thursday night. The President has offered access to him to the 200 top purchasers of his meme coin. Reports are that maybe about half or more of those individuals, who will be meeting with him, many in a VIP reception, are foreigners. Do you have a list of those foreign individuals who will be meeting with the President?”

RUBIO: “I don't. I don’t know anything about it. I didn’t even know there was a dinner on Thursday night, so I’m not sure what you're referring to.”

MURPHY: “So you don't know whether any of the foreign individuals who are going to be meeting with the President this Thursday night, for instance, are on our list of sanctioned individuals, or whether any of those individuals have connections to, let’s say, terrorist organizations abroad?”

RUBIO: “Well I think if they had terrorist links the Department of Homeland Security probably would not have allowed them into the country. But, again, I don’t even know there is a dinner on Thursday. You’re asking me about something I don't know about.”

MURPHY: “Listen, this is a dinner that the President is having. It is likely going to involve some very significant foreign interests. You have to be pretty wealthy in order to be able to get inside this dinner. Isn't that a relevant question for the Secretary of State–”

RUBIO: “I’m not the Social Secretary.”

MURPHY: “–which foreign interests are going to be speaking to the President?”

RUBIO: “No.”

MURPHY: “I mean, it’s kind of naive to believe they aren’t going to be in that room talking about national security matters.”

RUBIO: “I don't think that that’s the case at all, because I would be aware if it was the case. The truth of the matter is I interact with government officials and others in governments of other countries. You’re asking about a dinner I don't know anything about. I can’t answer you because I don't know anything about this dinner. It’s the first I heard of it. Like I said, I don’t keep the President's social schedule. It’s not on my phone. It’s not in my pocket. I can’t comment on a dinner I know nothing about.”

MURPHY: “I think that represents a real problem for this Committee, because there is clearly a way around the State Department for foreign individuals of significant influence and wealth, to be able to directly lobby the President of the United States. And so if your answer is that you don't know this is happening, that in and of itself is a problem.”

RUBIO: “I don’t think that’s fair. I don’t know that there’s a dinner, and I don't know what the guest list is, but I can tell you I’ve run into the President of FIFA from the World Cup. He’s here all the time. I see him. He’s a private individual, it’s not a government entity, and he’s met with the President and is friendly with the President. He doesn’t have to go through me to meet with the President. The President has relationships and friends and people he’s known for a long time. Some of them are foreigners. That’s not unusual. But you’re asking me about a specific dinner and implying nefarious impact. I can’t comment on a dinner.”

MURPHY: “Yeah, but those are people that he’s known for a long time. These are individuals who just bought their way into a meeting with the President. I think you should probably endeavor to get your hands on the list to make sure that there aren’t individuals there who are perhaps contravening national security interests that the Department of State is prioritizing.”

RUBIO: “I don’t have any concern about that. I don't have any concern that the President having dinner with someone is going to contravene the national security of the United States.”

MURPHY: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released the following statement on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s outburst during today’s Senate Appropriations hearing, where Secretary Kennedy repeatedly lied, dodged Senator Murray’s questions, and made a number of totally unfounded allegations, in particular relating to Senator Murray’s constituent, Natalie, who is suffering from Stage Four colorectal cancer and whose care was delayed as a direct result of the Trump administration’s staffing cuts across HHS. Senator Murray brought up Natalie’s story to Secretary Kennedy at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing last week; additional background on that exchange is below.

At the appropriations hearing today, Secretary Kennedy claimed to Senator Murray: “You told me two or three days ago, four days ago that we had cut a clinical trial in your state and it turned out what you said turned out to be completely untrue and you knew it was not true because you corresponded.” This was not at all what Senator Murray suggested or what happened. At the HELP hearing on May 14th, Senator Murray laid out how Natalie’s treatment in a trial at the NIH Clinical Center had been delayed by the staffing cuts, according to her doctors at NIH, and then she asked Secretary Kennedy directly how many staff were cut from the NIH’s Clinical Center. Video and transcript of their initial exchange on May 14^th is HERE. A full transcript of their exchange today is available HERE.

“RFK Jr. is a shameless liar and a dangerous conspiracy theorist—he should have never been confirmed. As much as he lies and deflects, I’m not going to stop holding him accountable for the real harm he is inflicting on people in this country.

“Natalie’s care has been complicated, but here’s what’s not: her NIH doctor told her twice that her care was explicitly delayed due to NIH staffing cuts—specifically, that she would have to wait eight weeks rather than four to have her cells re-infused. On the question of credibility, I will trust an NIH doctor over an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist every day.

“After an initial contact with RFK Jr.’s office last Wednesday, it was complete radio silence with no answers until about an hour before today’s hearing. It should not take me raising this issue with RFK Jr. face-to-face to make sure NIH is working the way it’s supposed to.

“I still have no answer about how many NIH clinical staff have been fired. I still have no answer why Natalie was told by her NIH doctor that her care was being delayed due to staffing cuts. For weeks, my staff has been demanding answers about agency staffing cuts.

“Meanwhile, my staff has been in constant touch over the past three weeks with dedicated career staff at NIH and FDA—the same people the Trump administration is trying to push out the door—to address Natalie’s case. But it has been no thanks to RFK Jr. or HHS political leadership.”

“If RFK Jr.’s mass firings weren’t having an impact on clinical care at NIH, he would provide those details and tell us which positions he’s eliminated. He’s not—because he knows that if he did, he would be caught lying. This isn’t just about Natalie, this is about the millions of Americans like her who are already being harmed by the destruction Secretary Kennedy is causing at HHS, or will be soon.”

We'll note the senator's statement in full in a post later today we do not have room in The Snapshot, sorry. On the transcripts above, I did the first one. The other three I'm taking from official press releases.

We saw the incompetence of Chump's administration of full display. The worst and the dimest.

You can see the same ignorance in Chump himself. Brett Samuels (THE HILL) reports:

President Trump on Tuesday lambasted Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over allegations she assaulted an officer in a clash outside an immigration detention facility.

“Oh, give me a break. Did you see her? She was out of control,” Trump told reporters during a visit to the Capitol.

“The days of woke are over. That woman — I have no idea who she is. That woman was out of control,” Trump added. “She was shoving federal agents — she was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We’re going to have law and order.”

Yet again, Fat Boy doesn't know the first thing about being a president. He has no intelligence so let's use artificial intelligence. This is now a criminal case. And Chump's commenting.

Generally, presidents are not supposed to comment on individual criminal cases. The judiciary and prosecutor's office should be free from presidential interference in the conduct of individual cases. However, the president may comment on criminal justice policy in general, and may even have the authority to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes.

We used AI because we know Chump's an idiot with no intelligence of his own. So next time before he speaks, maybe he can Google first and let AI explain it to him.

LaMonica broke no laws. I'm low on space and we're short on time but Elaines covered this topic so we'll just swipe from her:

If you missed today's primary lesson, it may be do not waste your money sending your children to Widener University Commonwealth Law School. Their graduates are apparently remedial level as evidenced by. Alina Habba. The deluded fool is charging a member of Congress, LaMonica McIver, with assault because Alina's a racist. Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) reports:

"That conduct cannot be overlooked by the chief federal law enforcement official in the State of New Jersey, and it is my Constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties," wrote Habba. "I have persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Representative McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined."

In a statement, McIver called the charges politically motivated and an effort to impede congressional oversight.

"We were fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before, and our visit should have been peaceful and short," wrote McIver. "This administration will never stop me from working for the people in our district and standing up for what is right. I am thankful for the outpouring of support I have received and I look forward to the truth being laid out clearly in court."

Further complicating the issue, legal analyst Lisa Rubin noted on X that the charges Habba has supposedly filed against McIver are not currently available on the public docket.

Michael Luciano (MEDIAITE) notes, "McIver, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) and Reps. Rob Menendez (D-NJ)and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) visited the center on May 9. Baraka was arrested on that day, and shortly afterward, Habba hailed his arrest. But on Monday, Habba announced she is dropping the charges against the mayor and will proceed with the prosecution of McIver, alleging the lawmaker 'assaulted, impeded, and interfered with law enforcement'." Alex Woodward (INDEPENDENT) adds, "Criminal charges against a sitting member of Congress escalate threats from the Trump administration under an emboldened Justice Department to target his political enemies. Last week, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called federal law enforcement agencies targeting members of Congress a 'red line'."

Habba's eager to go through the rest of her life without a law license. She may be able to bully and intimidate and break the law while the overweight and impotent Donald Chump occupies the White House. But he's out the door January 2029 and Habba will be 44 years old. No law degree. Maybe she'll go back to Iraq where her extended family's known to have attacked Black Iraqis repeatedly over the years?

If you're confused about the law on this, maybe Habba is, US House Rep Jason Crow outlined it recently in a letter to Homeland Security's Secretary Kristi Dog Killer Noem and the acting and faking director of ICE Patrick Lyons:

Members of Congress possess explicit statutory authority to conduct unannounced oversight visits to facilities operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security. This was outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-93), Division D – Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2020, Sec. 532 and re-affirmed in each year since, including Section 527(a) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law 118–47), which stipulates:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent…a Member of Congress…from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland

Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens… [nor] to make any temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a visiting Member of Congress… compared to what would be observed in the absence of such modification.

Furthermore, subsection (b) clarifies that nothing in this section requires a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of intent to enter such a facility for oversight purposes.

Such a sad site to see idiots placed in jobs they can't grasp as they struggle to pretend they're qualified.

Yesterday was Chump and his appointees and would be appointees demonstrating over and over how they do not understand the law.

The following sites updated: