Trump 47

Marco Rubio's 'utter nonsense' ripped to pieces by right-wing legal analyst​

Andrew McCarthy, a legal analyst for the National Review, is criticizing Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his ‘disingenuous’ explanation for the deportation Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The 29-year-old Maryland man was mistakenly deported to El Salvador last month. He was a topic of conversation on Monday during President Donald Trump's meeting with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and others were all present for the meeting and took questions from the media.


McCarthy took issue with Rubio's declarations that judges should not be making foreign policy decisions best left up to the president of the United States.

“Marco Rubio is too smart not to know that what he was saying was utter nonsense,” Columnist and lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy wrote of Rubio’s remarks. “Rubio knows enough about the laws he’s enforcing to understand that the repatriation of an alien — even an illegal alien — is not what’s supposed to happen when an immigration judge has ruled that the illegal alien may not be deported to his home country because he has a credible fear of persecution.”


This is what happened to Abrego Garcia back in 2019 when an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal to El Salvador.” Meaning, “The illegal alien could be deported (i.e., he remained 'removable') but he could not lawfully be deported to El Salvador.”


McCarthy then stated, “Rubio went on a ridiculous rant about how the foreign policy of the United States is run by the president, not by a judge. As the former senator is surely aware, the withholding of removal remedy was enacted by Congress. (See Title 8, U.S. Code, §1231(b)(3)).”

“It is inconceivable that the United States secretary of state is unaware that Abrego Garcia had a legal right against deportation to El Salvador that was enforceable in federal court,” McCarthy opined. “A federal court’s vindication of a person’s legal rights is not a matter of the judge trying to wrest control of foreign policy. It’s the law. I’m pretty sure Marco Rubio knows that.”
 
Don't let the fact that at the time of his arrest he was here legally distract you from constantly saying he was here illegally. You know those pesky facts. Not to mention the other pesky fact, that every person in this country is allowed due process. That is all most of us are asking for.

The US could have easily deported him to anywhere, but El Salvador, after his asylum hearing in 2019. Now, all these years later they deport him to El Salvador, where a judge previously said he shouldn't be deported to. Without any hearing or anything. Just change his "status" without any notice, bag him, and ship him. Let me be clear, I don't care if they deport him or not. As long as his rights aren't infringed on.

Now Trump is talking about sending Americans to El Salvador. That should make anyone cringe after the blatant disregard this administration has shown for due process.
He illegally entered the U.S.
He fled El Salvador due to threats on his life from a rival gang.
You're right, the US COULD have legally and easily deported him, but they didn't.
How could they have legally deported him anywhere but his home country?
 
The reason Dems are crying about that one man is because Trump's admin admitted it was a mistake and wasn't meant to be sent. Theres been multiple court orders to bring him back and they are being ignored. Even if you don't care about a man accidentally sent to a foreign prison because he "has a sketchy past" as you say. You should care about the executive branch ignoring the judiciary repeatedly, condemning people to prison without due process and talking about sending US citizens to foreign prisons.

There's other examples of them just picking someone up and then shipping them off with no evidence that they were a bad person.


These people are so ignorant willfully or not that they can’t see past their side and the other side. It’s sad to see some of the people that have gone that way.
 

DHS relied on 'tabloids' as evidence to arrest green card holder and Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil​

Evidence submitted by Department of Homeland Security lawyers attempts to support the government's accusations that Mahmoud Khalil should be deported on the grounds that he lied on his green card application.

The evidence -- which included reporting by some conservative news outlets -- centers on accusations that he withheld information about his employment history and his participation in pro-Palestinian groups.


ABC News has reviewed over 100 pages of evidence submitted in immigration court by both DHS lawyers and those representing Mahmoud Khalil.

On Friday, Judge Jamee Comans, an immigration judge based in Louisiana, where Khalil is being held agreed with the government's stance that Khalil is deportable under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says a person can be deemed deportable "if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States."


But Comans did not rule on the government's allegations that he lied on his green card application.

Accusation: Khalil failed to disclose he's a 'member' of CUAD​

According to a Notice to Appear submitted in federal court filings, DHS has claimed Khalil "failed to disclose that you were a member of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD)."

CUAD has been prominently involved in protests against the war in Gaza held at Columbia University.

To support their allegations, government lawyers submitted articles that were published in April 2024, which feature Khalil as a lead negotiator between student protesters who had set up encampments on campus and university administration officials.

However, Khalil's green card application, reviewed by ABC News and included in the government's evidence, shows it was submitted on March 29, weeks before the articles were published.

"These articles from late April 2024 cannot possibly support an allegation that Mahmoud failed to disclose any affiliation with CUAD on that application. Furthermore, CUAD is a collection of organizations and there is no individual membership, so the allegation would be completely meritless even if all of the government's evidence were not from a month after Mahmoud submitted his application," Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil's immigration attorney, told ABC News.


In response to the government's claims, Khalil's lawyers have submitted information they believe shows that CUAD is not standalone group, but rather a coalition of separate groups, and that Khalil was a negotiator for these and other protesters and not a member.

As evidence, his lawyers submitted letters from several people familiar with his role in the protests, including a professor at Columbia University.

"I want to emphasize that Mahmoud Khalil's involvement was not as a member of CUAD. As I understood it — and also as is my understanding from the Columbia administrators with whom I spoke — Mr. Khalil served as a negotiator between CUAD and other student protesters, on the one hand, and the Columbia administration, on the other," the professor wrote.

Accusation: Khalil did not disclose he was a member of UNRWA​

According to court filings, DHS has also accused Khalil of failing to disclose that he was a "member" of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from June 2023 - November 2023. The organization provides humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees.

As evidence, DHS lawyers included excerpts from an article titled "These are the extremist student leaders of the anti-Israel protest camp bringing Columbia to its knees" published in the New York Post.

"Khalil was a political affairs officer with UNRWA--the United Nations' agency that supports Palestinian refugees from June to November 2023, according to LinkedIn," the article read.

Another excerpt included in the evidence, cites an article from The Times of India published March 11, 2025, which similarly claims Khalil worked as political affairs officer at the U.N. organization.

"The agency lost significant federal funding following reports that some members participated in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, which resulted in 1,200 fatalities," the excerpt says.

In immigration court, Khalil's lawyers submitted a screenshot of his LinkedIn profile which says he was an intern at UNRWA as a political affairs officer on those dates. They also submitted a letter dated April 10 and written by a Columbia University official that says Khalil concluded a 12-week internship at UNRWA for credit.

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for UNRWA confirmed Khalil did a six-month, unpaid internship at the UNRWA Representative Office in New York in 2023.

"He was not a staff member of the Agency nor was he ever on the Agency's payroll," the spokesperson said. But the spokesperson also said, the agency "does not have in its Human Resources the job title of "Political Affairs Officer".

ABC News has reached out to Khalil's attorneys for comment.


Accusation: Khalil failed to disclose he was employed at the British Embassy in Beirut​

DHS lawyers allege that on his green card application, Khalil did not disclose his "continuing employment" as a Program Manager by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut "beyond 2022."

On his green card application, under the "employment history" section, Khalil said he was a Program Manager at the British Embassy in Beirut from June 2018 to December 2022.


DHS submitted a profile of Khalil written on a website promoting an upcoming Society for International Development United States conference.

"Mahmoud Khalil works as a Program Manager at the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut," the profile says.

However, documents that Khalil's lawyers have submitted indicates they plan to argue that the information about him was written for a conference in 2020, and have included a schedule from that year that lists him as a speaker.

Additionally, they included an email written by a British Embassy official dated April 11, 2025, that states Khalil "ended his contract at the British Embassy Beirut in December 2022 in order to take up a scholarship at Columbia University."

ABC News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.

During the Friday hearing, Khalil's attorney Johnny Sinodis condemned DHS' evidence against his client.

"DHS did zero investigation on its own other than to file tabloids," he said in court.
 
No, as I have said I am not a Trump fan, I am just not anti-Trump, Agreeing this is a (win-win) good outcome has nothing to do with Trump.
You just allow your severe Trump hatred to make you support issues that most every citizen would never defend. You are basically stating you agree it is right that much smaller private universities with massive endowments receive significantly more taxpayer funds than much larger public universities.

IMO, taxpayer funds should be first directed to public schools, but some people, like Ryan Walters and you, like to steer public money to private schools.

There is a MASSIVE difference between government having an adult position of "We feel too much government money is going to private universities therefore we are evaluating those policies to distribute most appropriately" and "We are forcing a private university to follow our extremely controversial and divisive opinions by making inappropriate executive orders then bribing them by removing their funding with no consideration of the funding need."

Your "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time" positions that you constantly promote 100% of the time while adding, only to make yourself feel better, "but, I don't like Mussolini" just doesn't fool anyone.
 
I don't know. How are we deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador? Not my problem.

Just what the judge ordered. Since he was supposedly in danger going back to El Salvador. Again, the judges words. Not mine.
 
He illegally entered the U.S.
Correct
He fled El Salvador due to threats on his life from a rival gang.
You keep saying this without proving it.
You're right, the US COULD have legally and easily deported him, but they didn't.
Because at that time the US actually followed due process requirements and a Judge had ruled that he was non-deportable to El Salvador.
How could they have legally deported him anywhere but his home country?

Have an agreement with a third country to take him. Give him his due process of a safety/persecution hearing with regards to the third country before the appropriate judge and then deporting him to the third country.

This administration has already been deporting people to places other than their home country...including El Salvador. Hell, Tren de Aragua is a VENEZUELAN gang and he's shipping them to EL SALVADOR which isn't their country of origin.

You realize that, don't you? Maybe you don't. They just haven't been giving the that due process hearing.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litig...hird-countries-without-notice-halted-by-judge
 
I don't click on Facebook links, but I assume the caption is correct. You posted a pic of that ignoramus Stephen Miller wondering why some Americans are more concerned with MS-13 gang members than the laws of our country. He is a damn fool. The laws of this country are exactly what we are worried about. These clowns took an oath to uphold the constitution, but they are wiping their ass with it. That is our problem. I don't give a crap about MS-13 gang members, but I do care about due process. How come you don't seem to care about that?
 
That's because Venezuela refused to take them back, which is very telling.
Then you answered your own question regarding the Venezuelan and how they could have deported him to someplace other than his home country.
How could they have legally deported him anywhere but his home country?
If both the alleged Tren de Aragua and Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been given a meaningful and legitimate opportunity to be brought before an immigration judge before being shipped off to an El Salvador gulag run by a banana republic dictator to be held indefinitely, you wouldn't be hearing from me.

My focus is on the due process and doing things right and with respect to the Constitution.
 
I don't give a crap about MS-13 gang members, but I do care about due process. How come you don't seem to care about that?

So much this.

Even alleged gang members.....hell, confirmed gang members....hell, even murderers, child rapists, serial killers have to be given due process.

When the administration (and its citizens) start hand waving away and being wholly complacent about the loss of due process, we're nothing more than El Salvador, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Russia, etc.

It's very easy to not worry about a lack of due process for people you don't like, but that road leads directly to a police state where nobody has due process rights.
 

In his January 27 executive order, Trump cited a missile attack as "the most catastrophic threat facing the United States."

Nervous Side Eye GIF by Shogun FX
 
There is a MASSIVE difference between government having an adult position of "We feel too much government money is going to private universities therefore we are evaluating those policies to distribute most appropriately" and "We are forcing a private university to follow our extremely controversial and divisive opinions by making inappropriate executive orders then bribing them by removing their funding with no consideration of the funding need."

Your "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time" positions that you constantly promote 100% of the time while adding, only to make yourself feel better, "but, I don't like Mussolini" just doesn't fool anyone.
So you were upset with Obama then as well with his extremely controversial and division opinion?
Or was his federal education funding threat/bribe (D)ifferent?
Can you be consistent…..just once?
 
Last edited:
I don't click on Facebook links, but I assume the caption is correct. You posted a pic of that ignoramus Stephen Miller wondering why some Americans are more concerned with MS-13 gang members than the laws of our country. He is a damn fool. The laws of this country are exactly what we are worried about. These clowns took an oath to uphold the constitution, but they are wiping their ass with it. That is our problem. I don't give a crap about MS-13 gang members, but I do care about due process. How come you don't seem to care about that?
Because your side let them flood into this country unvetted for 4 years. Had you "given a crap" about it then, maybe this wouldn't be happening now. Classic case of FAFO.

FB_IMG_1744897415473.jpg
 
Because your side let them flood into this country unvetted for 4 years. Had you "given a crap" about it then, maybe this wouldn't be happening now. Classic case of FAFO.

View attachment 11015
Policy disagreements ( or even agreements) do not justify the suspension or ignoring of fundamental due process rights.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top