Georgetown Fellow taken outside his home in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

Fair enough that the Columbia guy is a green card holder (I forgot that part). He’s also the one who engaged in the most egregious behavior.

But, just to be clear, is it your position that a green card holder who takes over university buildings leading to a long disruption of the educational process (which happens to be highly subsidized by the US tax payer) should not face consequences, including to his legal status within the country?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that some of you actually seem to be defending or excusing the behavior or taking issue with the fact that the guy is losing his legal status to be in the country.

I thought the Biden DOJ and then the courts were heavy handed with the J6 rioters, but I also blamed the rioters for being stupid enough to put themselves in that position. But it seems to me like a lot of people who were on a “no mercy” crusade against the J6 rioters (who were citizens!!!) can’t stomach the idea of a noncitizen facing consequences for his actions. This is truly wild to me.

It's not that they support free speech. They support this particular speech and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, where are the pro Palestinian "not gonna vote for Harris because anyone will be better than her" voters now?

The people doing this are the pro Israeli people who humiliated Biden and Harris. Like you.

? People doing what? Also, I'm not "pro Israel", not anymore. And I voted for Harris because I knew the alternative, Trump, was way worse, not just for this country, but for the Palestinian people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

"Marco said so therefore it is . . . "

Is this really what we have disintegrated into? The government is no longer required to support allegations? Fun times are coming!

The Secretary of State can make a representation that someone will be harmful to US foreign policy.
Having students creating a climate of hate on campus against Jews, and occupying buildings, is not good for getting foreign students to come to America for studies.

Oh, please. President Musk did a Nazi salute at a GOP function.

that's different. They are white, backed by Nationalist so-called Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

We have quite enough of our own criminals without importing more. But should really just stop funding the Middle East altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again, where are the pro Palestinian "not gonna vote for Harris because anyone will be better than her" voters now?

Wiping the egg off of their faces in shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the poster who freaks out that any kind of internet moderation is “totalitarian “? She should read this. This is fascism, people.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-deportation-georgetown-graduate-student-00239754

Why are agents wearing masks?

I wish it were because they’re ashamed, but probably just to look when more scary. It’s all about intimidation.

To intimidate also to conceal their identity/make accountability more difficult.

I give it 30 days or less before a naturalized citizen is stripped of their citizenship and deported.

This is some Gestapo level bu!!$h!t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

"According to a report"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From various articles:

A DHS spokesperson claimed the Georgetown student had “close connections” to a senior adviser to Hamas, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined “rendered him deportable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act on March 15.

Yet to be confirmed. But regardless, guilt by association is not a thing in America.

Certainly is. You ever hear of RICO?

Moreover, we informally judge people based on associations all the time. Trump and the Proud Boys, for example.

Devil is in the details.

You cannot be prosecuted under RICO because your father in law is in the mob. Are you actually this dumb?

Obviously. But if you engage in predicate acts, you can be charged with racketeering if those acts are connected to an enterprise.

It’s a form of guilt by association.

Likewise, (in many states) a person can be held responsible for the acts of a co-conspirator even if s/he did not plan, agree to, or even directly participate in those acts.

In other words, yes, guilt by association is a “thing” in multiple areas of the law.

There has been no allegation that any law has been broken here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2 people on the entire planet taken at random are connected by at most 6.6 degrees of separation. Seems to me that guilt by association could convict just about anybody in the country.

Let's see, iI know a Canadian couple with green cards, they've lived in the US for 30 years(he runs a US branch of a Canadian company). When our kids were young we were part of a family support group for families of kids with mental health/neuro atypical stuff--depression, autism, ADHD, what have you. We were all close and had group events weekly for parents and kids. One of the kids from the group is married to a a Palestinian born in the US whose family was displaced to Lebanon in 1948. She has family in the US, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. She supports the people of Gaza. So do our Canadian friends (who have European ancestry, mostly French), and the wife posts on social media about the death and destruction in Gaza. Should she be deported?

According to the current Administration, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where’s the poster who freaks out that any kind of internet moderation is “totalitarian “? She should read this. This is fascism, people.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/19/trump-deportation-georgetown-graduate-student-00239754

Why are agents wearing masks?

I wish it were because they’re ashamed, but probably just to look when more scary. It’s all about intimidation.

So, like the Hamas supporters intimidating Jewish students on college campuses? Like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

Fair enough that the Columbia guy is a green card holder (I forgot that part). He’s also the one who engaged in the most egregious behavior.

But, just to be clear, is it your position that a green card holder who takes over university buildings leading to a long disruption of the educational process (which happens to be highly subsidized by the US tax payer) should not face consequences, including to his legal status within the country?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that some of you actually seem to be defending or excusing the behavior or taking issue with the fact that the guy is losing his legal status to be in the country.

I thought the Biden DOJ and then the courts were heavy handed with the J6 rioters, but I also blamed the rioters for being stupid enough to put themselves in that position. But it seems to me like a lot of people who were on a “no mercy” crusade against the J6 rioters (who were citizens!!!) can’t stomach the idea of a noncitizen facing consequences for his actions. This is truly wild to me.

+ a million
ALL OF THIS.

[Anonymous]

So I guess we have thought police now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we have thought police now?

Can you affirmatively state your position?

1. Do you believe that a green card holder who leads the take over of university buildings and disrupts education for thousands of people should not face the maximum consequences for his actions?

2. Do you believe that a visa holder who attends the funeral of a high level Hamas leader and who also expresses sympathy for Hamas on a religious level should be allowed reentry into the country?

3. Do you believe that people with close family ties to Hamas leadership cannot be excluded from the country?

This is just so wild to me that people seem to sincerely believe that the government cannot have ideological reasons for excluding noncitizens.

Let’s flip this around: do you believe that other countries should be required to admit Candace Owens or Richard Spencer as foreigners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

Fair enough that the Columbia guy is a green card holder (I forgot that part). He’s also the one who engaged in the most egregious behavior.

But, just to be clear, is it your position that a green card holder who takes over university buildings leading to a long disruption of the educational process (which happens to be highly subsidized by the US tax payer) should not face consequences, including to his legal status within the country?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that some of you actually seem to be defending or excusing the behavior or taking issue with the fact that the guy is losing his legal status to be in the country.

I thought the Biden DOJ and then the courts were heavy handed with the J6 rioters, but I also blamed the rioters for being stupid enough to put themselves in that position. But it seems to me like a lot of people who were on a “no mercy” crusade against the J6 rioters (who were citizens!!!) can’t stomach the idea of a noncitizen facing consequences for his actions. This is truly wild to me.

+ a million
ALL OF THIS.

they were heavy handed with the j6 rioters?!!! no. no they werent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is always more to the story.......

I don’t understand what is supposed to be wrong with that quote. He’s not praising them or anything or the sort. What is the issue exactly?

Read the artcile. There was more than just that.
He is a Hamas sympathizer. No need for more of those in this country.

NP. I read the article and if this is the evidence against him there is nothing here. I see a writer making all sorts of interpretations and stating them as facts. The journalist interprets the guy's post about how Hamas "dealt" with children, which at worst is ambiguous and more likely sounds critical to me, as support for Hamas?? How?! And just because because a random article calls it a defense/justification of Hamas, we accept it?

Here is another passage:

In another post, he stated that Palestine’s elected government must sustain its resistance, legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions. Years ago, he expressed support for Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, posting a video saying, “This is what Hamas argues. Sheikh Yaseen giving the reasons why his group is fighting for their land which was stolen,” legitimizing Hamas’s violent actions.

Again... what? The quote in no way "legitimizes Hamas's violent actions" or even "expresses support." It reports what Hamas has said.

I have no clue whether this man is a Hamas sympathizer or not but one poorly written article, full of assumptions and illogical leaps, only proves that people didn't like him.

Insane that anyone could use that article as evidence. What is wrong with people's critical thinking skills?

Why are people with sketchy associations and ambiguous social media presence being allowed to remain in the country? Out of 8 billion people on the planet how hard could it possibly be to find grad students, doctors and teaching fellows who are not sympathetic to Hamas and/or its tactics and/or directly related/connected to Hamas?

We do not need to be nuanced about this or get it perfectly right.

1) Because the son-in-law of a terrorist is not against the law
2) because the First Amendment protects freedom of association
3) because individuals cannot be punished for the actions of someone else, and also the Due Process clause
4) because Green Card holders have first amendement rights and if he didn't incite violence (did he?) , "ambiguous" doesn't cut it.

For goodness sake, this isn't nuanced. It shouldn't be in question.

What kind of a country do you want to live in? One without due process, led by impulsive law-breaking billionaires??

1. These people are on visas. Not green cards. Please tell me you understand the difference. Hint: green cards are much more powerful while visas permit temporary entry for a specific purpose.

2. Visa holders have extremely, extremely limited rights in this country and visas can be revoked for very, very modest reasons to the point that they are almost fully discretionary.

3. Visas are a privilege, not a right. So even if you are engaged in activity that would otherwise be constitutionally protected for a citizen (speech, association) the visa may be revoked for things like national security concerns or even a DUI.

4. NOBODY has a right to a visa, even if things like speech and association are constitutionally protected. The right to exclude noncitizens is the basic building block of national sovereignty.

Eventually, you need to grapple with the fact that people have different rights and privileges based on legal status (citizen v green cardholder v visa holder). What is okay for a citizen is not necessarily okay for a visa holder. For example, Candace Owens is officially barred from
entering New Zeland and Australia because as a noncitizen, her speech in those countries does not enjoy the same protections as those of a citizen of those countries. It is perfectly consistent with all international norms for a country to say “no” to noncitizens for whatever reason that country wants to say “no”.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the USA to say, “nah, we aren’t even going to bother with the son-in-law of a Hamas advisor; we’ll allow in a different teacher.”

Please educate yourself on the difference between citizens, green card holders and visa holders. Then come back.

Trump is working to deport a green card holder.... who is married to a US citizen days away from giving birth. You must have missed that. There are differences but this Administration is just doing whatever it wants, including detaining US citizens and people attempting to enter the country legally.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/us-citizen-hispanic-detained-ice-questions-vote-trump-rcna195406
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/world/europe/german-tourists-detained-deported.html#:~:text=Chained%2C%20detained%20for%20weeks%20and,and%20deport%20people%20en%20masse.

Fair enough that the Columbia guy is a green card holder (I forgot that part). He’s also the one who engaged in the most egregious behavior.

But, just to be clear, is it your position that a green card holder who takes over university buildings leading to a long disruption of the educational process (which happens to be highly subsidized by the US tax payer) should not face consequences, including to his legal status within the country?

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that some of you actually seem to be defending or excusing the behavior or taking issue with the fact that the guy is losing his legal status to be in the country.

I thought the Biden DOJ and then the courts were heavy handed with the J6 rioters, but I also blamed the rioters for being stupid enough to put themselves in that position. But it seems to me like a lot of people who were on a “no mercy” crusade against the J6 rioters (who were citizens!!!) can’t stomach the idea of a noncitizen facing consequences for his actions. This is truly wild to me.

+ a million
ALL OF THIS.

they were heavy handed with the j6 rioters?!!! no. no they werent.

They almost gave them a tour

Too bad they weren't black, then we would have seen guns out.