White House Suggests There's a Lot of Wiggle Room in $5 Billion Demand for Wall

Blink.

Eh, what a cuck.

This isn't all on Trump, obviously. The Establishment Party in Power still hasn't gotten it through its head that we are tired of their barely-disguised open borders policy and we're not going to accept their bullshit about "virtual fences" any longer.

"We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion that we'll work with Congress," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told Fox News on Tuesday morning. She added that the Trump administration could support $1.6 billion in border security funding proposed by Senate Democrats, as long as it can "couple that with other funding resources" to get to $5 billion.

She added that "at the end of the day, we don't want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have cast the potential lapse in funding as the "Trump shutdown." When Pelosi goaded Trump into an Oval Office fracas last week, the characterization appeared to irritate the president.

I don't know what alternate funding sources she means. I've heard claims that Trump could direct the military to use its funds for the wall, but that sounds completely wrong.

Still, Trump himself has not weighed in Tuesday on how much money he would accept. As always, a comment or tweet from the president could trample on the message administration officials try to send.

In proposing $1.6 billion in border security funding, Schumer has said it would go to building new or repairing existing fences, rather than the wall as Trump has proposed it. The White House appears to want to claim that funding as "wall" money to promote a victory.

But maybe this is the alternate source of funding they mean: Some guy calculated that if each of Trump's 63 million voters donated $80 each, they'd have the five billion needed for the wall.

But then, that's not the full wall; that would be the $5 billion sought this year for it.

Still -- it's something.

I'd buy that for eighty dollars.

posted by Ace of Spades at 03:44 PM

| Access Comments