That said, everyone I know who applied for aid got turned down by FEMA. Publicly the Feds promised '$750,' but really it was an indefinite figure and you had to fill out an application and go through a long process, one that allowed them to reject you for many different reasons. One reason was 'we weren't able to meet with you to verify your claims,' which if they wanted to verify claims about your property losses presumably means they had to come out to your property.
So when I hear that they just avoided houses with Trump signs, I wonder if voting maps were another resource for determining which areas to visit. Allegedly, avoiding 'hostile' houses is departmental policy -- and maybe avoiding 'communities' where the 'trend' was thought negative.
On "Fox News @ Night," Washington clarified that bypassing properties that sport Trump signs is part of a broader policy designed to protect the safety of FEMA personnel. So, staffers have the right to skip over houses displaying Trump signage if they feel "uncomfortable," she said, similar to the fear of aggressive animals that are unchained and running loose.So, the policy isn't specifically about avoiding Trump supporters per se, Washington insisted. The guidelines instruct FEMA workers to avoid any situation that may make them feel unsafe — such as an off-leash dog, she suggested...."So the people [with] FEMA were fearing the Trump houses like they were fearing people with vicious dogs in their backyards?" Fox News host Trace Gallagher pressed."Exactly," Washington replied. "Unfortunately, the passionate supporters for Trump, some of them were a little bit violent."..."This was the culture. They were already avoiding these homes based on community trends from hostile political encounters. It has nothing to do with the campaign sign. It just so happened to be part of the community trend," Washington went on.
I don't claim to have any definite information about this beyond having never met a FEMA person in the whole rescue operation. As I said above, that could simply be understandable triage of the sort that is normal and necessary. Her testimony invites questions, however. I'm sure we'll all be interested in the answers.
2 comments:
All I can say is that it's another reason to be very, very glad the election turned out as it did, and I look forward to the appointment of a new FEMA director, followed by mass panicked resignations. If they're that afraid of us, I'm sure they'd be happier working somewhere else.
"Unfortunately, the passionate supporters for Trump, some of them were a little bit violent."...
No small number of Trump supporters were, and are, loudly enthusiastic in their support for Trump and in their disdain for Harris and Biden.
However, it wasn't Trump supporters who rioted and committed (isolated) instances of arson over Trump's election and inauguration the first time around.
It wasn't Trump supporters who shot up a Republican Congressional baseball game practice.
It wasn't Trump supporters who tried twice to murder Trump, succeeding in wounding him once while also murdering and severely wounding innocent bystanders.
It wasn't Trump supporters who ran Young Huckabee and her dinner companions out of a restaurant.
It wasn't a Trump supporter who loudly demanded folks come up in the face of any Trump supporter they saw in a public place.
On the other hand, it's also possible that Washington, as a newly fired disgruntled ex-employee of FEMA, is just blowing smoke and trying to dilute her own miserable complicity.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment