Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We still have an American held by Hamas. Why is Van Hollen silent? Don’t tell me it’s because that man isn’t from Maryland because either is Garcia.

Because they weren’t denied due process by the US Govt. I think this guy probably isn’t quite the angel the left is painting him to be but everyone should be concerned about the lack of due process.

The complicating factor is that he is an El Salvadoran citizen so he’s under their jurisdiction.

He wasn't denied due process. He already had been judged as someone who can be deported. Maybe they made a mistake of sending him to El Salvador(now being disputed).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garcia is an evil, CONVICTED wife beater.

Who defends this kind of scum?

DEMOCRATS.

Garcia has never been convicted for a crime. Who lies and slanders and claims otherwise.

Gang leaders in MS-13 frequently don't have criminal records as they use juveniles to commit many crimes.
He was put in removal rather than put on trial for marijuana possession.
Which they couldn't really prove because two people were observed throwing something under a car, and they would have trouble proving possession.

I am all for getting El Salvador guy to get released ASAP but this was such a publicity stunt.

I mean - he's a foreigner flying to a country who has gone on the record saying no can do getting guy released. He will have to abide by that - no way does he get preferred treatment to visit and he had to know that. This kind of thing only gets results by working back door channels and politics - like a ton of it.

Publicity stunts like this only backfire. It does nothing to move the case forward only makes El Salvador more likely to anger and push back that we think we can do whatever we want in their country.

This is exactly why Dems lost. I don't know this official but I actually am turned off by him. He's not sincere in his beliefs at all. He knows how the game is played and if he doesn't he has zero political savvy and sucks at his job, so no, I'd think twice voting for him.

It's all about him he does not care about getting this guy released. Prob more of a domestic battle really but other options if v El Salvador is def not to silly land in their country and make demands!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

So much for the never committed a crime mantra.

I mean, we know that people here illegally committed the crime of being here, illegally. No one is arguing that.

But we don't send them to concentration camps, with no due process. The process was not followed with this man.

You have to follow the law and do things the right way. And sending people to out of country concentration camps isn't the right way.

I am 100% certain we are paying the president of El Salvadore money for this, too. It should be easy enough to find that information, right? There must be some kind of record of government spending.

If we are paying money to El Salvador for these prisoners? That needs to stop immediately. That's not right at all.

There's also all the financial crimes associated with the cash economy. Would love to see his 1040s...

Is it the position of these posters saying leave him there that SCOTUS didn’t consider the evidence and arguments from both sides, or just that SCOTUS, and thereby checks/balances, can be ignored?

A little bit of both. Now the government is saying they are not paying for him to be held in El Salvador, which is not the assumption the Supreme Court had.
Also, the Supreme Court has not been ignored because they told the judge to clarify the order and to facilitate release from custody. Supreme Court did not say return to US, and strongly suggested that is not something that can be ordered by the judiciary.

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

The sweatshirt(I thought it was a hat) had pictures of money. The faces are covered up separately, ear, eyes, mouth. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, as in don't snitch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

So much for the never committed a crime mantra.

I mean, we know that people here illegally committed the crime of being here, illegally. No one is arguing that.

But we don't send them to concentration camps, with no due process. The process was not followed with this man.

You have to follow the law and do things the right way. And sending people to out of country concentration camps isn't the right way.

I am 100% certain we are paying the president of El Salvadore money for this, too. It should be easy enough to find that information, right? There must be some kind of record of government spending.

If we are paying money to El Salvador for these prisoners? That needs to stop immediately. That's not right at all.

There's also all the financial crimes associated with the cash economy. Would love to see his 1040s...

Is it the position of these posters saying leave him there that SCOTUS didn’t consider the evidence and arguments from both sides, or just that SCOTUS, and thereby checks/balances, can be ignored?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

So much for the never committed a crime mantra.

I mean, we know that people here illegally committed the crime of being here, illegally. No one is arguing that.

But we don't send them to concentration camps, with no due process. The process was not followed with this man.

You have to follow the law and do things the right way. And sending people to out of country concentration camps isn't the right way.

I am 100% certain we are paying the president of El Salvadore money for this, too. It should be easy enough to find that information, right? There must be some kind of record of government spending.

If we are paying money to El Salvador for these prisoners? That needs to stop immediately. That's not right at all.

There's also all the financial crimes associated with the cash economy. Would love to see his 1040s...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

So much for the never committed a crime mantra.

I mean, we know that people here illegally committed the crime of being here, illegally. No one is arguing that.

But we don't send them to concentration camps, with no due process. The process was not followed with this man.

You have to follow the law and do things the right way. And sending people to out of country concentration camps isn't the right way.

I am 100% certain we are paying the president of El Salvadore money for this, too. It should be easy enough to find that information, right? There must be some kind of record of government spending.

If we are paying money to El Salvador for these prisoners? That needs to stop immediately. That's not right at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigrants are not owed any Constitutional rights. They are invaders, not citizens

F. He has never been convicted of a crime in El Salvador OR in the U.S., so sending him to PRISON in El Salvador makes no sense
.

That is not true. Stop lying.

He was convicted of a restraining order for domestic violence. His wife admitted he abused her for THREE YEARS. Get your facts straight!

That is not a conviction my friend and it doesn’t negate someone’s right to due process. You can be a shit person and still deserve due process, just like every shit person is entitled to a robust defense in court. And it matters for us all that we don’t just say due process doesn’t matter.

Chris Van Hollen is prioritizing bringing one really “shit person” (who is probably a former gang member) to the USA even though he is a citizen of El Salvador, and not a U.S. citizen.

That’s the gist here.

No, he’s prioritizing due process, rule of law, checks and balances, and the US Constitution.

Not by going to El Salvador to grand stand for himself. The Supreme Court is the venue now for prioritizing due process.

The Supreme Court is being ignored by the executive branch, so of course the legislative branch needs to figure out what it can do to get compliance. Van Hollen isn’t the reason we are on the brink of a constitutional crisis; he’s one of the people trying to stop the spiral.

The way politicians solve the constitutional crisis is for Trump to sink himself, which he was doing a great job of. Not to make an individual who will be perceived negatively by many Americans into the leftist cause celebre.

The people who will prejudge the value of the visit weren’t going to listen anyway, but maybe he learns something while there that he can reach across the aisle with to dispel falsities with moderates. Maybe that stops whatever else might happen if SCOTUS is ignored. That’s a good thing. I would rather there be less damage and a new party in the WH in four years than more damage and a new party in the WH then.

I'm still trying to understand what the hoodie was that Garcia was accused of wearing that showed he was a gang member. Was it this one?

https://www.fashionnova.com/products/bank-rolls-sweatshirt-black

Anonymous wrote:The report says he was wearing a "sweatshirt with rolls of money covering up the faces of the presidents". Later it says he had about $1,100 in "funds" on him, Are they talking about the rolls of money? Why doesn't it say that? He was wearing a cap and a hoodie, and we found rolls of money on him, proving gang affiliation?

I don't really see anything in this report that is criminal? Am I missing something?

I also don't think $1100 in cash means you are a gang member? Illegal immigrants usually can't have bank accounts, right? They get paid in cash...

So much for the never committed a crime mantra.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a Maryland father looking for work at Home Depot who is now in El Salvador because he was wearing a Bulls jersey.

Ignore that he had $1100 and threw away containers of drugs as police were approaching.

And still the government admitted it was an error to deport him.

If Garcia had drugs as you allege here, then the government can bring that into evidence in a court of law, and prosecute him. Our country should not just disappear people with no trial, no evidence.

Imprisonment in CECOT, with the US government claiming it can do nothing since it's in another country, is a terrible system, for any criminal or non-criminal.

*did* he have drugs?

The only "case" against him that I can see is he was hanging around with some known gang members, and a guy who has provided reliable information in the past said he knew he was a gang member.

But even that informant didn't accuse him of any crime.

If there was evidence at the time he was picked up at the Home Depot that he had drugs or had committed a crime, wouldn't that evidence have been submitted? That's how it works on the crime TV shows anyhow.

Isn't that how gang members get arrested? They commit a crime, are accused, judged, and sentenced. Then they have a criminal record and then they can be deported.

What happened with this case? They didn't have a court case because there was no evidence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal immigrants are not owed any Constitutional rights. They are invaders, not citizens

F. He has never been convicted of a crime in El Salvador OR in the U.S., so sending him to PRISON in El Salvador makes no sense
.

That is not true. Stop lying.

He was convicted of a restraining order for domestic violence. His wife admitted he abused her for THREE YEARS. Get your facts straight!

That is not a conviction my friend and it doesn’t negate someone’s right to due process. You can be a shit person and still deserve due process, just like every shit person is entitled to a robust defense in court. And it matters for us all that we don’t just say due process doesn’t matter.

Chris Van Hollen is prioritizing bringing one really “shit person” (who is probably a former gang member) to the USA even though he is a citizen of El Salvador, and not a U.S. citizen.

That’s the gist here.

No, he’s prioritizing due process, rule of law, checks and balances, and the US Constitution.

Not by going to El Salvador to grand stand for himself. The Supreme Court is the venue now for prioritizing due process.

The Supreme Court is being ignored by the executive branch, so of course the legislative branch needs to figure out what it can do to get compliance. Van Hollen isn’t the reason we are on the brink of a constitutional crisis; he’s one of the people trying to stop the spiral.

The way politicians solve the constitutional crisis is for Trump to sink himself, which he was doing a great job of. Not to make an individual who will be perceived negatively by many Americans into the leftist cause celebre.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy thing is how many people are just BUYING he was in a gang. There’s no proof or record of this. He went before immigration court and provided compelling documentation and testimony that was found internally and externally consistent and credible that he was *not gang affiliated* but the Trump admin literally just says he was- just says it!- and suddenly people think it’s ok for someone with legal status to be shipped to a foreign prison. You think you’re safe because YOU have never been in a gang? This is the whole point: if Trump gets away with this, you don’t ever have to done anything wrong in your whole life for him to just SAY you did and off you go to foreign prison. You don’t HAVE to have a criminal record or any charges- they’ll just say you did and that’s now good enough. It’s unreal people can’t see how dangerous that is to allow.

Share the link to compelling documentation and testimony, por favor.

No, go find it yourself. It’s easy to do if you actually care anything about the situation.

I tried, but nothing is found. Can you share them since you assured that the documents were compelling, you must have seen them. Thank you.

Nothing? Was not posted in this very thread already? How hard did you look?

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crazy thing is how many people are just BUYING he was in a gang. There’s no proof or record of this. He went before immigration court and provided compelling documentation and testimony that was found internally and externally consistent and credible that he was *not gang affiliated* but the Trump admin literally just says he was- just says it!- and suddenly people think it’s ok for someone with legal status to be shipped to a foreign prison. You think you’re safe because YOU have never been in a gang? This is the whole point: if Trump gets away with this, you don’t ever have to done anything wrong in your whole life for him to just SAY you did and off you go to foreign prison. You don’t HAVE to have a criminal record or any charges- they’ll just say you did and that’s now good enough. It’s unreal people can’t see how dangerous that is to allow.

Share the link to compelling documentation and testimony, por favor.

From page 18 of this thread:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl?inline