According to federal statistics, the Department of Homeland Security – at its current catch and release rates – releases over 200 illegal immigrants into the interior of the United States every single day.

After the implementation President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy which keeps ‘asylum seekers’ in Mexico while they wait for their claims to be processed, the number of illegal immigrants being released into the country’s interior has leveled out to around 208 each day.

The DHS released 7,700 illegal immigrants into the interior of the country between July 23rd and August 26th. This month’s numbers mark a small increase in the level of catch and release to the weeks of July 10 and July 22 which saw approximately 192 illegal border crossers and illegal immigrants released into the U.S. each day.

This amount of catch and release cases seen during this period decreased by 85 percent compared to the amount that occurred before the enacting of Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy.

The catch and release process is far from ideal. In most cases, it involves federal immigration officials taking illegal border jumpers into nearby cities by bus. Sometimes it even involves flying illegal immigrants to the interior of the country and simply dropping them off with the mere hope that they show up at their immigration hearings.

Sadly, once they’re released into the United States, the vast majority of illegal immigrants and border jumpers are never deported. The illegal immigrants coming to this country are well aware of this and continue to game the system accordingly.

Right now, between 11 million and 22 million illegal immigrants are living in the United States. Most of them reside in states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

In August, most illegal immigrants and border hoppers, somewhere around 4,100, were released in San Antonio, Texas. An additional 1,200 were let go in El Paso, whereas 1,500 were released in Phoenix, Arizona and another 900 were released in San Diego, California.

Most illegals and border jumpers will not show up to their immigration hearings and the cost to sustain them will passed along to the American taxpayer.

The Department of Homeland Security has released close to 224,700 illegal immigrants into the United States since December 21, 2018.

Each and every year, 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted into the United States, with the vast majority of them arriving via a process known as “chain migration” – a process whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreigners into the country.

According to reporting by Fox News, federal prosecutors are in the final stages of making a decision on whether to charge former FBI official Andrew McCabe over the circumstances that led to his firing from the bureau last year.

A source close to the process told Fox recently that McCabe has had a “target on his back” because of the Justice Department inspector general findings against him over his actions during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, as well as his role in the surveillance warrants against Trump campaign associates during the Russia investigation. McCabe is a former deputy and acting director of the FBI.

Fox’s report comes after the — The New York Times first reported on these developments. The Times piece said that McCabe’s lawyers recently met with DOJ attorneys who would handle a prosecution, which seems to be an indication of a possible indictment of McCabe.

McCabe’s legal team and the Justice Department declined to comment on the Fox report. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. also has not responded to a Fox News request for comment.

When and Why Was McCabe Fired

If you recall, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 after the Justice Department inspector general report found that he had repeatedly misstated his involvement in a leak to The Wall Street Journal regarding an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Fox’s unnamed source confirmed that the inspector general files on McCabe went to U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is handling the “Investigation of the Investigators” probe which is looking into the origins of the Russia case, so that Durham can  investigate McCabe’s actions.

Earlier this month, McCabe sued the FBI and the Justice Department over his firing, arguing it was part of Trump’s plan to rid the bureau of leaders he perceived as disloyal to him.

The complaint contends that the two officials responsible for demoting and then firing McCabe — FBI Director Chris Wray and then AG Sessions — created a pretext to force him out in accordance with the Pesident’s wishes.

The stated reason for the firing was that McCabe had misled investigators over his involvement in a news media leak, but McCabe says the real reason was “his refusal to pledge allegiance to a single man.”

Fox says that McCabe has been singled out for attacks by the President since before he was elected, after news emerged in the fall of 2016 that McCabe’s wife had accepted campaign contributions from a political action committee associated with former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, during an unsuccessful run for the state senate there.

McAuliffe is a close ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who was being investigated at the time for her use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state.

For his part, McCabe has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has said the inspector general’s conclusions relied on mischaracterizations and omissions, including of information favorable to McCabe.

This past weekend, former U.S. congressman Joe Walsh, became the second Republican to challenge President Donald Trump for the party’s 2020 White House nomination. Walsh is currently a conservative talk show host.

Despite the President’s enormous popularity among most Republicans, Walsh has often criticized Donald Trump as “a bully who is unfit for office,”  and he used those very words as he announced his bid to take on Trump in 2020.

“I’m running because he’s unfit,” Walsh, 57, told ABC’s “This Week” program. “Somebody needs to step up.”

Adding, “He’s a bully and he’s a coward and somebody needs to call him out. The bet … of my campaign is that there are a lot of Republicans that feel like I do. They’re afraid to come forward.”

Walsh won a House of Representatives seat from Illinois as a candidate of the Republican Party’s fiscally conservative Tea Party movement in 2010 but was defeated by Democrat Tammy Duckworth in his 2012 re-election bid. After leaving Congress, he became a Chicago-area radio talk show host.

Walsh is the second disaffected Republican to try to take on Trump. William Weld, a former Massachusetts governor, is also vying to unseat Trump, but his candidacy has so far failed to gain any real traction.

Former U.S. Representative and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford said in July he was considering a primary challenge because of the rising federal debt.

An Uphill Fight to Take on Trump

Like most Republicans, Walsh was once a Trump supporter but says he turned against the President partly because of Trump’s allowing the federal deficit to burgeon, because Trump became too close to Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian leader of Russia, and because Trump is a “racial arsonist who encourages bigotry and xenophobia to rally his base.”

Walsh was also formerly a harsh critic of President Barack Obama but Walsh now says he regrets his incendiary anti-Obama remarks.

Any Republican challenger will face a formidable re-election effort mounted by Trump, who has consolidated his grip on the party’s national and state machinery. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Aug. 19-20 showed 87% of Republicans approve of his performance in office.

Walsh said he was undeterred. “I think this thing … will catch on like wildfire,” he said. “I’m a conservative,” Walsh added. “And think I there’s a decent chance to present to Republican voters a conservative without all the baggage.”

When it comes to healthcare, Democratic 2020 hopeful Kamala Harris seems to still be struggling to get her story straight. What she truly believes seems to vacillate, especially when she is speaking to a group of wealthy donors at a fundraiser in the Hamptons, and not the American public on the debate stage.

The Daily Beast among other outlets has reported that the Democrat had waffled once again on her support for Medicare for All. “I support Medicare for All,” she told the crowd of wealthy donors. But as you may have noticed, over the course of the many months, I’ve not been comfortable with Bernie’s plan, the Medicare for All plan.”

This despite being the cosponsor of Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill. What really seems to have Harris backpedaling faster than a rewinding video of Lance Armstrong is one of the proposed legislation’s major features — the elimination of private insurance.

In late July, she finally released her own version of a “Medicare-for-all” bill, which, in a departure from Sanders’s proposal, would maintain a role for private insurance within a universal public system. Why would she do that? As her rival and bill’s cosponsor Bernie Sanders might say, “it’s all about the Benjamins.”

In other words, Harris, who unlike Bernie who has made elimination of for-profit insurance a key part of his vision for healthcare – is afraid to piss off wealthy donors and corporate interests. In fact, David Sirota, a Sanders campaign adviser, wrote in his newly minted newsletter, Bern Notice, “The Harris flip flop is a reminder that while Medicare for All received an enthusiastic response at Bernie’s Fox News townhall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania — it doesn’t get that kind of response on the big dollar fundraising circuit in the Hamptons.”

The debate between Harris and Sanders on the healthcare issue is partly about a difference between Sanders’s proposal, which would eliminate private insurance, and Harris’s, which would preserve a role for insurers in the health care system. But by seizing on Harris’s remarks — and the venue where she made them — the Sanders campaign is connecting their healthcare plan to their candidate’s larger argument on corporate greed.

Harris Has Been All Over the Map on Healthcare

Harris really has been all over the place on Healthcare. Before she released “her plan,” it was nearly impossible to get any consistency from the candidate on healthcare. As stated earlier, she signed on to Sanders’s single-payer Medicare-for-all bill, and soon after, she was on the trail, publicly backing his idea to get rid of private insurance entirely, saying “let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on,” at a CNN town hall in January. She then walked that back, saying that she meant getting rid of “bureaucracy.”

Later on in April, at another CNN townhall, she emphasized that there would be some role for private insurance under Sanders’s bill, even though the Sanders Medicare for All Act would reduce private insurance’s role to things like cosmetic surgery or premium hospital rooms. And then, during the Democratic debate in June, Harris raised her hand when NBC’s Lester Holt asked, “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favorite of a government-run plan?”

But she then walked that back to say she misunderstood the question, saying she personally would prefer to enroll in public insurance.

In fact, since becoming an upper-tier contender for the Democratic nomination, every time she seemingly endorsed the actual bill she cosponsored, she’s eventually walked it back.

On the other hand, Sanders has remained steadfast in painting corporate America as the “enemy of the people.” He sees a for-profit health care system as fundamentally broken. His campaign platform is centered on fighting the greed of major corporate interests, whether pharmaceutical companies, the fossil fuel industry, or private insurance industry.

In a speech about Medicare-for-all in June, he pledged to reject money from the insurance and drug companies, and called on other presidential candidates to do the same.

For Sanders’s campaign — healthcare, like everything else is all about his perceived influence of the wealthy. But, in Harris’s case he may be right given her propensity to flip-flop on the issue.