1) Jerry Sandusky never pled guilty, harmed himself, or was harmed in prison (because he is innocent)
2) Jeffrey Epstein, killed himself in prison (because he was guilty)
A great point. A few years ago, Yale students melted down — struggle sessions, confrontations, etc — over Halloween costumes deemed to be “problematic.” But cosplaying terrorists chanting actual terrorist slogans while harassing Jews? No micro-aggressions, or whatever, there?
@conservmillen I would’ve voted against the Democrats but I was in jail. Fortunately it turns out the Trumpkins were right all along and they didn’t need my vote which I cast for Marco Rubio in the Minnesota primary which delegates @Reince refused to seat when @tedcruz grew a pair for a second.
What is the most appalling about all this is that two completely separate narratives exist and those, like Politico, who drive one narrative completely ignore the established facts in the other narrative. It’s precisely this brazen deceitfulness that drove moderates into Trump’s camp and served as a primary reason why he won.
…Finally, if Patty Morin hoped to shame media outlets into covering an angle to this story regarding Van Hollen’s disparate treatment of a wife-beating adjudicated gang member illegal immigrant who’d been living in MD, versus an American citizen mother of five (her daughter Rachel) who was viciously raped and murdered by an illegal immigrant from El Salvador in MD (no meeting, no interviews, just a brief published statement), that effort failed.
Many quotes were included from fellow Democrats and leftist activists gushing over Van Hollen and his trip. Patty Morin directly calling out her Senator on his priorities didn’t make the cut.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say this article could have been produced by Van Hollen’s press shop. In fact, I’m not even sure his own press shop would have gone quite as far into the tank as Politico has with some of this.
…also, what on earth is this? Politico’s team is framing a US Senator visiting El Salvador as taking some sort of a valiant “personal safety risk”? The State Department recently downgraded its travel advisory to that country to the lowest available level. Even if you hate how he’s done it, Bukele has made his country much, much safer, having aggressively broken the rape and murder gangs that used to rule the streets. Presenting Van Hollen as a courageous hero who put his own physical SAFETY on the line to defy Trump is cringeworthy…
…Based on my understanding of the case, this passage provides information that is incomplete, at best. A judge ruled in 2019 that Garcia couldn’t be deported *to El Salvador,* which was the Trump admin’s mistake here. He did not have any permanent authorization to “remain in the United States.” He in fact had a removal order against him.
And SCOTUS did not exactly ‘uphold’ a judge’s order on facilitating his return. The high Court didn’t endorse the lower ruling that the admin had to *effectuate* Garcia’s return, telling the judge to explain what she meant by that word, effectively downgrading the order to the lower bar of ‘facilitation’ (the govt’s compliance with which is still being fought about). I’m entirely open to the argument that the WH has not facilitated anything here & that they should get the Salvadoran government to send Garcia back (likely for prompt re-deportation elsewhere), but the wording of the article paints a misleading picture…
…Violent spousal abuse allegations and protective orders against him went unmentioned, as did reasonable human trafficking suspicions, backed by Tennessee police records (Garcia was transporting 8 people across many state lines, with no luggage, all while driving without a valid license). Readers would have no idea about any of this context or info…
…also, Garcia was indisputably in the US illegally, a fact that appears nowhere in the story. He is called a “Maryland resident” and a “constituent” of Van Hollen’s. The word “illegal” appears once in the piece — a Van Hollen quote attacking the WH. The preferred ‘undocumented’ euphemism also does not appear…
… it might be fair to write that he’s credibly accused of gang membership (with two judges making this determination during his many rounds of due process), but his advocates deny it. But to ignore the evidence presented by the government in order to call the accusation “erroneous” is incorrect and asserted ‘without evidence’…