Brain gym , be careful do not overdue it

Posted June 22, 2017 by joopklepzeiker
Categories: Uncategorized

The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism

 

 

 

On Mueller investigation, Trump should fight fire with fire

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: "Trump scandals", Deep state, Department of Justice, DOJ and Obama administration, DOJ and Trump, Law enforcement, Lawlessness, Obama - rogue president, Obama administration, Obama administration and Trump, Trump agenda

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

On Mueller investigation, Trump should fight fire with fire, American ThinkerKarin McQuillan, June 22, 2017

President Trump has the responsibility to re-establish the rule of law in our country, and he will have the enthusiastic backing of his base if he does so.  It is time to end Democrats’ politically motivated abuse of the law.  Stop the Mueller investigation, and go after Obama Inc.’s multiple crimes.

****************************

John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, writes in American Greatness this week that the powers invested in Special Counsel Mueller to investigate “Russian hacking/collusion/obstruction poses grave dangers to our body politic and our liberty.”  His advice to President Trump: Fight fire with fire.  Turn the law and the courts back on your opponents. Trump is being investigated without any probable cause of a crime.  The Obama administration, in contrast, is a target-rich arena of criminal activity.

It is unconstitutional to issue a search warrant when there has been no crime and there is no probable cause.  But that is exactly what President Trump’s DOJ has inflicted on the president and his team with Mueller’s special investigation.  It was not just cowardice, but folly for the DOJ to buckle to the left-wing media’s hysterical insistence to investigate our president’s alleged collusion with the FSB.  

According to Professor Eastman:

The special counsel will not to track down the details of a crime known to have been committed and determine “who dunnit,” but will scour the personal and business affairs of a select group of people – the President of the United States, members of his family, his business associates, and members of his presidential campaign and transition teams – to see if any crime can be found (or worse, manufactured by luring someone into making a conflicting statement at some point). This is not a proper use of prosecutorial power, but a “witch hunt,” as President Trump himself correctly observed. Or, to put it more in terms of legalese, this special prosecutor has effectively been given a “writ of assistance” and the power to exercise a “general warrant” against this select group of people, including the President of the United States, recently elected by a fairly wide margin of the electoral vote.

That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent. Indeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America’s war for independence.

 Professor Eastman suggests fighting fire with fire, prosecution with prosecution.

Unfortunately, the only antidote may be to fight fire with fire. President Trump: Perhaps it is time to make good on that old pledge to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the Clinton “matters” after all. And while you’re add it, add in referrals to the grand jury for the contempt of Congress committed by the IRS’s Lois Lerner and former Attorney General Eric Holder, an FBI investigation of the destruction of government documents and servers in the midst of the IRS scandal, an investigation into alleged perjury committed by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in testimony about those matters given under oath to Congress, an “obstruction of justice” investigation against former Attorney General Eric Holder and others (and related perjury charges against Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez) for allegedly ordering that an egregious voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party be dropped shortly before a default judgment was about to be entered in the government’s favor, etc., etc., etc.

President Obama and his leftist minions spat on our constitution  and flouted the rule of law for eight long years.  Google “Obama flouts constitution,” or see here and here and here and here and here.  Their abuse of power was ignored by the media and our partisan courts, but it has not been forgotten by conservatives.

President Trump’s voters would like to see equality before the law upheld once again in America.  It is bad for our country that rich and powerful Democrat politicians and bureaucrats harm our national security and ruin other people’s lives, in flagrant violation of the law, and are never held to account for their crimes.

Professor Eastman’s advice to fight fire with fire stops short.  Based on his own analysis, it is unconstitutional to do warrantless searches with no probable cause.  Ending the baseless “Russian collusion” witch hunt is fundamental to upholding our constitution.

Those who counseled President Trump to not prosecute Hillary Clinton said a Clinton investigation would distract the White House from furthering Trump’s positive agenda.  That was a strong argument – then.  But as Professor Eastman points out, it backfired.  Perhaps Trump’s civility was taken as a sign of weakness.  Hillary launched the lie that the Russians made her lose the election.  Democrats instigated this phony Russian collusion investigation of Trump, precisely in an effort to distract the White House and halt the Trump agenda.  The best defense is to return to offense.

President Trump has the responsibility to re-establish the rule of law in our country, and he will have the enthusiastic backing of his base if he does so.  It is time to end Democrats’ politically motivated abuse of the law.  Stop the Mueller investigation, and go after Obama Inc.’s multiple crimes.

H/T: Powerlineblog.com

 

Trump and his generals

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: James Mattis, John Kelly, McMaster, National secuity, Trump's generals

Tags: , , , ,

Trump and his generals, Washington TimesVictor Davis Hanson, June 21, 2017

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally, Wednesday, June 21, 2017, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

[T]he three generals are beholden to Mr. Trump for a historic opportunity to shape America’s security posture in ways impossible during the last half-century.

On the other hand, Mr. Trump must recognize that such generals lend credibility to his role as commander in chief and signal that he is wise enough to value merit over politics.

At least for now, it is a win-win-win solution for Mr. Trump, the generals — and the country.

****************************

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Donald Trump earned respect from the Washington establishment for appointing three of the nation’s most accomplished generals to direct his national security policy: James Mattis (secretary of defense), H.R. McMaster (national security adviser) and John Kelly (secretary of homeland security).

In the first five months of the Trump administration, the three generals — along with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO — have already recalibrated America’s defenses.

At home, illegal immigration is down by some 70 percent. Abroad, a new policy of principled realism seeks to re-establish deterrence through credible threats of retaliation. The generals are repairing old friendships with allies and neutrals while warning traditional enemies not to press their luck.

President Trump has turned over most of the details of military operations to his generals. According to his critics, Mr. Trump is improperly outsourcing to his generals both strategic decision-making and its tactical implementation.

But is Mr. Trump really doing that?

In his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to avoid new ground wars while not losing those he inherited. He pledged to wipe out ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism without invading Middle Eastern countries to turn them into democracies.

Those are wide but nonetheless unmistakable parameters.

Within them, the U.S. military can drop a huge bomb on the Taliban, strike the chemical weapons depots of Syria’s Bashar Assad, or choose the sort of ships it will use to deter North Korean aggression — without Mr. Trump poring over a map, or hectoring Gen. Mattis or Gen. McMaster about what particular move is politically appropriate or might poll well.

Other presidents have done the same.

A wartime President Lincoln — up for re-election in 1864 — wanted the tottering Confederacy invaded and humiliated. But he had no idea that Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman would interpret that vague wish as nearly destroying Atlanta, and then cutting his supply lines to march across Georgia to the sea at Savannah.

When Sherman pulled off the March to the Sea, Lincoln confessed that he had been wrongly skeptical of, totally surprised and utterly delighted with Sherman’s victories. He then left it to Sherman and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to plan the final campaign of the war.

Had Sherman lost his army in the wilds of Georgia, no doubt Lincoln would have relieved him, as he did so many of his other failed generals.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt demanded a cross-channel invasion of France by mid-1944. He did not worry much about how it was to be implemented.

The generals and admirals of his Joint Chiefs handled Roosevelt’s wish by delegating the job to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and his Anglo-American staff.

Had Eisenhower failed on the Normandy beaches, Roosevelt likely would have fired him and others.

Other critics complain that decorated heroes such as Gens. Mattis, McMaster and Kelly should not stoop to work for a firebrand like Mr. Trump.

The very opposite is true.

Anti-New Dealers such as Republicans Henry Stimson and Frank Knox served in the Roosevelt administration to ensure national unity and expertise during World War II — in much the same manner that old George W. Bush hand Robert Gates stayed on as secretary of defense to advise foreign policy novice Barack Obama.

Mr. Trump entered office with no formal political or military experience. That does not mean his business skills and innate cunning are not critical in setting national security policy — only that he benefits from the wise counsel of veterans.

The patriotic duty for men the caliber of these three generals was to step forward and serve their commander in chief — and thereby ensure that the country would have proven professionals carrying out the president’s recalibrations.

Of course, there must be tensions between the Trump administration, its Democratic opponents and the largely apolitical Gens. Mattis, McMaster and Kelly, who have enjoyed high commands under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Liberals want the generals to leak to the press and hint that Mr. Trump is a dunce whose blunders force wise men like themselves to clean up the mess.

Republicans prefer the three to get on board the Trump team and appoint only conservatives who will resonate administration values.

In truth, Mr. Trump and his generals share a quid pro quo relationship that so far has worked.

Gens. Mattis, McMaster and Kelly must know that few other presidents would have taken the heat to entrust three military men to guide national security policy. And even if another president did, he might not empower them with anything like their president latitude.

In that regard, the three generals are beholden to Mr. Trump for a historic opportunity to shape America’s security posture in ways impossible during the last half-century.

On the other hand, Mr. Trump must recognize that such generals lend credibility to his role as commander in chief and signal that he is wise enough to value merit over politics.

At least for now, it is a win-win-win solution for Mr. Trump, the generals — and the country.

Saudi Advisers to King Condemn Muslim Brotherhood

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Al Azhar University, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia and Islamic terrorism

Tags: , ,

Saudi Advisers to King Condemn Muslim Brotherhood, Clarion ProjectMeira Svirsky, June 22, 2017

(Claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood merely “doesn’t care” about the beliefs of the sunnah may be a clever way to reject the erroneous thesis that  Muslim Brotherhood terrorism is “not Islamic.” — DM)

King Salman of Saudi Arabia (center) (Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

The Council of Senior Scholars, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, attacked the Muslim Brotherhood, saying the organization doesn’t care about the beliefs of the sunnah (the crucial oral tradition of the teachings, deeds and sayings of the Islamic prophet Mohammad).

In addition, the council said the Brotherhood’s way is to foment rebellion against their host countries. In a series of tweets, the council — which is tasked with advising the king on religious matters — said the Brotherhood’s primary goal is to use their host country’s political system to assume political power.

Following the pronouncement, the Assembly of Islamic Researchers, a branch of Al Azhar (the highest religious body in the Sunni Arab world located in Egypt), said they would be reviewing the Saudi announcement with the intention of the possible publication of a similar declaration.

The manager of the department of dawah (outreach) of the assembly, Abed el-Aziz Anajar, stated, “These words [of the Saudi council] are coming very late. This group [the Brotherhood], since their beginning, have used violence, assassinations and explosions against everyone that stands in their way.

“Everyone who follows the history of this group can see that there were times that they made deals with politicians in order to achieve all kinds of things from officials. Then, when these achievements were taken from them, they turned into human wolves, and they took revenge against all of society that didn’t stand with them.”

Anajar noted when the Brotherhood assumed power in Egypt during the presidency of Mohammed Morsi, they failed to make the changes they had promised during their campaign.

“They condemned the previous government for not implementing the sharia of Allah, [yet when they were in power], it didn’t happen, they were just driving the country into the ground,” he said.

Anajar praised the “awakening” of the Egyptian people and the “wisdom of the youth” for deposing the Brotherhood-led government.

In a similar vein, the former president of Yemen, Ali Abdallah Salah, condemned the Brotherhood saying the organization is responsible for the current civil war in his country.

Salah was talking during a meeting of the political branch of Al-Mo’tamar Ash-Sha’abiy Al-‘Aam,  the General People’s Congress, the political party in Yemen which he heads.

“The terrorists that belong to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are connected to the organization abroad, caused the nakba [catastrophe] in Yemen by refusing to change the regime in a peaceful way. If they were really Muslims, they would have avoided hurting the people and country. They are extremist, terrorists,” Salah said.

The Mauritanian minister of transportation Mohammed Abdallah Wallad Awdah also recently accused the Brotherhood of deceiving his country and cast aspersions on their morality.

His declaration caused members of Tewassoul, the Islamist political party in Mauitania to walk out of the parliament. Tewassoul demanded an apology for his remarks, but Awdah refused.

The FBI’s Briefing On The GOP Baseball Shooting Couldn’t Have Been More Bizarre

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Anger on the left, Cover-up, Democrat incitement to murder, FBI, James Hodgkinson, Shooting at baseball practice in Virginia, Steve Scalise

Tags: , , , , , ,

The FBI’s Briefing On The GOP Baseball Shooting Couldn’t Have Been More Bizarre, The Federalist, June 22, 2017

(Since the attack had nothing to do with Islam Democrat incitement to the murder of Republicans, perhaps Hodgkinson’s mother’s failure to breastfeed him caused him to feel neglected and he had to do something to become famous. Yeah. That must be it.– DM)

The FBI’s briefing appears so contrary to the facts as to be insulting. When a man with a history of hating Republicans cases a location, takes pictures, verifies the targets are Republicans before opening fire, has a list of Republican politicians in his pocket, and shoots and nearly kills Republicans, it’s hard to swallow the FBI’s contention that the shooting was “spontaneous” with “no target.” The agency should reconsider whether it wants to troll Americans about something this serious.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem.

***************************

The FBI gave an utterly bizarre update on its investigation into an attempt to assassinate Republican members of Congress. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) remains in the hospital from the attempt on his life in which two police officers and a congressional staffer were also shot. The hospital upgraded his condition to “fair” and said he faces a long recovery.

Americans may know, thanks to public social media profiles, that attempted murderer James Hodgkinson was an active Democratic activist and Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer who hated Republican members of Congress. He held membership in multiple social media groups strongly opposed to Republicans, such as “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans,” “Join the Resistance Worldwide,” “Donald Trump is not my President,” “Terminate the Republican Party,” “Boycott the Republican Party,” and “Expose Republican Fraud,” among dozens of other groups. He was a voracious consumer of liberal media and believed the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to secure the White House.

The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:

  • vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,
  • had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,
  • was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria,
  • had mapped out a trip to the DC area,
  • took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,
  • lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,
  • legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”
  • modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,
  • rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,
  • asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,
  • ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,
  • and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.

We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.

So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.” The Associated Press reported the FBI:

  • believes the gunman “had no concrete plan to inflict violence” against Republicans,
  • “had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why,”
  • believes he may have just “happened upon” the baseball game the morning of June 14, and that the attack appeared “spontaneous,”
  • are unclear on the “context” of Hodgkinson’s note with six names of members of Congress,
  • does not believe that photographs of the baseball field or other sites “represented surveillance of intended targets,” and
  • “painted a picture of a down-on-his-luck man with few future prospects.”

In fact, USA Today went with “FBI offers portrait of troubled Alexandria shooter with ‘anger management problem’” for their headline, since that’s what the FBI emphasized in the briefing.

The FBI also said there was no “nexus to terrorism” in the attempted mass assassination of Republican leadership by a Democratic activist. The claim that tourists take pictures of a a completely unremarkable baseball field in a tiny neighborhood also seems odd, particularly when the pictures were taken a few days after The New York Times reported that Republican members of Congress practice baseball there with little security. Yoenis Cespedes wrote, “As a guy who could arguably be called a reconnaissance manager when he was in the Army, this is reconnaissance.”

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit that didn’t interest many people in the media beyond a brief mention in the last paragraphs:

Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.

As one Twitter wag put it, “You’d think “Congressional Shooter Visited Actual Capitol Hill Offices” would be kinda a big deal and you’d be wrong.”

I wrote last week that the media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering the shooting if the parties were reversed. Can you imagine if a shooter had visited the office of Sen. Ted Cruz and corresponded with two Republican senators? Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gave emails to investigators last week but it was treated mostly as local news.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem. Or, as Jason Beale put it:

Their conclusion? Just a down-on-his-luck guy. No planned target. Pix not surveillance. Names lacked context. Jobless. Nothing to see here. pic.twitter.com/8KGLvVoVyF

Finally, this is what we get when the FBI allows politics to intervene in basic investigative analysis. A defensive, PC smoke screen. END/ pic.twitter.com/aQBKUGpud2

View image on Twitter
 The FBI’s briefing appears so contrary to the facts as to be insulting. When a man with a history of hating Republicans cases a location, takes pictures, verifies the targets are Republicans before opening fire, has a list of Republican politicians in his pocket, and shoots and nearly kills Republicans, it’s hard to swallow the FBI’s contention that the shooting was “spontaneous” with “no target.” The agency should reconsider whether it wants to troll Americans about something this serious.

President Trump is fully authorized to destroy Iran in Syria

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Authorization of Use of Military Force, Iran - Syria war, Iran - world's worst sponsor of terrorism, Iranian proxies, Rex Tillerson, Trump and Iran

Tags: , , , , ,

President Trump is fully authorized to destroy Iran in Syria, Israel National News, Mark Langfan, June 22, 2017

President Trump has full and plenary US Constitutional authority to wipe out Iran, and its affiliates in Syria or anywhere else for that matter, if he chooses to do so.

********************************

Last Tuesday, the 13th of June, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was asked if there was no legal authorization from Congress to target Syrian President Bashar Assad or Iranian proxies, Tillerson answerd, “I would agree with that.” 

Secretary of State Tillerson is mistaken.  There is plenary and continuing congressional authorization under the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) for the President to attack any country, organization, or person at all responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.  And, there is sufficient and conclusive evidence that Iran aided and abetted some of the 9/11 attackers before and after September 11, 2001. 

Therefore, there is full current authorization for President Trump to attack any Iranian-backed militias anywhere in the world, including but not limited to, those in Syria.

Exactly what was passed by the Congress 7 days after the United States was attacked by the Islamic barbarians in 2001?

On Sep 18, 2001, the Congress of the United States of America passed S.J. Res. 23 an Authorization of War under the United States Constitution authorizing the President, from then-President Bush, through Obama, to President Trump to engage in any military action against those who fall under the following conditions::

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

•   This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

•   (a) IN GENERAL– That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not that there are two sets of critical language, the first is the “aided the terrorists” language, and secondly there is the “harbored such organizations or persons.”

Wikipedia sketches out the elemental facts:

The U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 stated that al-Qaeda “forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies.”

On May 31, 2001, Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Officials of the Iranian government helped arrange advanced weapons and explosives training for Al-Qaeda personnel in Lebanon where they learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.”

The 9/11 Commission Report stated that 8 to 10 of the hijackers had previously passed through Iran and their travel was facilitated by Iranian border guards. The report also found “circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000.”[137]

Judge George B. Daniels ruled in a federal district court in Manhattan that Iran bears legal responsibility for providing “material support” to the 9/11 plotters and hijackers in Havlish, et al. v. Osama bin Laden, Iran, et al. Included in Judge Daniels’ findings were claims that Iran “used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator for training the terrorists”,

Ramzi bin al-Shibh traveled to Iran in January 2001, and an Iranian government memorandum from May 14, 2001 demonstrates Iranian culpability in planning the attacks. Defectors from Iran’s intelligence service testified that Iranian officials had “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.”

Therefore, there is sufficient open-source information to invoke the 2001 AUMF to include Iran and any force assisted by Iran.

Regarding Iranian post-9/11 activities harboring al Qaeda there is extensive evidence regarding Iranian guilt.  For example there was January 16, 2009 US Treasury Memorandum entitled  Treasury Targets Al Qaida Operatives in Iran which goes into extensive detail of Iran’s active involvement in harboring and protecting al Qaeda and its operatives.

There is a more than sufficient factual predicate to invoke the 2001 AUMF against Iran, and its affiliates.

President Trump has full and plenary US Constitutional authority to wipe out Iran, and its affiliates in Syria or anywhere else for that matter, if he chooses to do so.

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs

Posted June 22, 2017 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Border controls, Law enforcement, MS-13 in America, Sanctuary cities, Trump agenda, US Southern border

Tags: , , , , ,

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs, Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, June 21, 2017

(Please see also, FBI: MS-13 Is Most Violent, Organized Gang in America.– DM)

The Health and Human Services department detains unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally and tries to place them with sponsors, but youths often end up with gangs. (Associated Press/File)

[T]he population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat. . . .

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

**************************

Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.

The Border Patrol identified 160 teens who were known or suspected gang members when they first showed up at the border, but whom the Obama administration said it had to admit under U.S. law.

Meanwhile, a spot check this month of 138 teens being held by the federal Health and Human Services Department identified 39 with gang ties. Four of them were forced into cooperating with the gangs and 35 joined voluntarily, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

“It is well-known that MS-13 actively targets and recruits children as young as 8 years old,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee who called Wednesday’s hearing.

“While their illegal status and Central American heritage are a key factor in MS-13’s targeting, without a doubt the failures of the current system for handling these children is also to blame,” he said. “The current system is fraught with abuse, systematic errors and a lack of effective cooperation.”

He was stunned that no agency could say how many “UAC,” as the government dubs unaccompanied alien children, have been recruited.

The agencies point to one another and to federal laws, saying their hands are tied.

UACs are usually arrested by the Border Patrol, which is required to turn them over to the social workers at HHS within 72 hours, ending the Border Patrol’s involvement. HHS says that under the law it must try to place the children with sponsors. Other than limited circumstances, the department says, its involvement ends soon after it sends the children off.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t get involved until a UAC is ordered deported.

That usually leaves the children with no federal supervisions once they are released to sponsors — where they are often prime recruiting targets.

Scott Lloyd, director of the HHS office that handles UAC, said his team is looking to increase monitoring of the minors and is reviewing Obama administration interpretations of policy.

He also said the population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat, authorities said.

Officials said MS-13 is involved in some drug dealing and does engage in human trafficking, but its real money-making operation is extortion. The gang threatens families — including American citizens — with violence against relatives back in Central America unless those in the U.S. pay them off.

Gang members in the U.S. take directions directly from gang commanders in El Salvador, authorities say.

Kenneth A. Blanco, acting assistant attorney general in the criminal division at the Justice Department, also said immigrants who fail to report crimes to local police are often not afraid of being deported by federal authorities, but rather fear retaliation from the gang members and other criminals who live in their neighborhoods.

He said witnesses’ names become public, making them targets for retribution.

“That really, in my 28 years, has been the fear they have of calling the police. Not so much the other way around,” he said. “They’re really scared of these people.”

That runs counter to the argument made by Democrats and some local police chiefs that illegal immigrants refuse to report crimes because they fear entanglement with federal deportation agents.

Democrats pointed to calculations by some police agencies that crime reporting among Hispanics has dropped dramatically in the months since President Trump took office.

The Democrats say that is one justification for sanctuary city policies — though Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, offered another one Wednesday. He said Chicago, which in 2011 pioneered blanket sanctuary policies, doesn’t want to protect illegal immigrants but is too poor to assist federal agents.

“Come on, Uncle Sam, where’s the money?” Mr. Durbin said.

He said Chicago and Cook County are eager to keep serious criminals and other gang members out of their communities but added that it’s up to the federal government to fund the training he said local authorities need.

“Please help us. Send us some resources,” he said.

Federal officials, though, said they are not looking for locals to do the job, but rather to allow federal officers into their facilities and to share information about releases.

“We’re asking for their cooperation,” said Matthew Albence, executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mr. Albence singled out the Chicago area as one of the most prominent sanctuaries. “Chicago is a large one. We haven’t been able to get into the Cook County Jail for a long time,” he said.

He also named New York City and San Francisco as top sanctuary cities.

The conversation sprang from questioning by Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who asked about MS-13 and other gang members who are nabbed by local authorities in sanctuary cities.

“These are evil people. It’s pretty hard to miss them. There are tattoos all over their body,” Mr. Kennedy said. “If they’re arrested and they’re in a local jail, there are some cities in the United States that would prevent you from coming in and talking to them?”

“Correct,” Mr. Albence replied.

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.