(05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR".

I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Yep I understand the OR. None of what you note above gets it into the definitions of war, invasion, or incursion relayed by the opinion --- let alone by a foreign nation or government.

Quote:It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful.

To the italicized, that is quite the conclusory thing you just made. Ill get back to that.

Does overseen ... by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does It was intentional and purposeful get you to the historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Under the historical framework and language and use of the language in statute, and in the statutory record as well -- yeah, these are all bad things. None of them, alone or in conjunction get to the conclusory statement you just made under that historical definitional analysis.

Quote:I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Maybe you should draft a memo to the lawyers handing the case to do that.

Based on the words of the Act, the caselaw of the Act, and the words in the Proclamation -- the government failed to make their case that the AEA applies.

I think the statutory record is clear, the Act deals with war, or warlike events. One Senator in the drafting process said he wanted to make sure than 'incursions related to major actions with organized troops or the equivalent of troops.'

Training a gang doesnt come fing close to that level. Not promoting or defending either the gangs, nor any Venezuelan responsibilities in coordination or such -- but there simply hasnt been a 'major action involving organized troops'. End of story.

If they are baddies (and I will even assume they are), there are other tools to get them. The AEA is reserved for events like, Pancho Villa's raid, Indian raids in the 1780s to 1850s, an invasion by foreign power troops without a declaration of war, and an actual declared war.

Not for loose facilitation like TdA, not for loosely affiliated cartel activities like the Juarez cartel being aided by the Mexican government in some loose manner, and all the other style of examples.

When you show that large action with organized units -- yeah, Ill be there. Not the jibber jabber lets stretch bad gangs that have some relationship to some foreign government like this Adiminstation is trying to tango and cha cha cha their way into.

Look, the AEA is a *tremendously* powerful act. It actually allows the ****** fing act of almost no oversight in its power. And no, Im dont want to let some tinpot authoritarian ******** who wants to control universities get anywhere near it -- unless he can show the large scale, direct action by organized troops operating for another country that the authors of the AEA intended that it be used on and for.

And nowhere near it for a bunch of shitbird gang members that can be addressed in literally a dozen of other ways under the law.

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

(05-03-2025 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR".

I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Yep I understand the OR. None of what you note above gets it into the definitions of war, invasion, or incursion relayed by the opinion --- let alone by a foreign nation or government.

Quote:It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful.

To the italicized, that is quite the conclusory thing you just made. Ill get back to that.

Does overseen ... by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does It was intentional and purposeful get you to the historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Under the historical framework and language and use of the language in statute, and in the statutory record as well -- yeah, these are all bad things. None of them, alone or in conjunction get to the conclusory statement you just made under that historical definitional analysis.

Quote:I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Maybe you should draft a memo to the lawyers handing the case to do that.

Based on the words of the Act, the caselaw of the Act, and the words in the Proclamation -- the government failed to make their case that the AEA applies.

I think the statutory record is clear, the Act deals with war, or warlike events. One Senator in the drafting process said he wanted to make sure than 'incursions related to major actions with organized troops or the equivalent of troops.'

Training a gang doesnt come fing close to that level. Not promoting or defending either the gangs, nor any Venezuelan responsibilities in coordination or such -- but there simply hasnt been a 'major action involving organized troops'. End of story.

If they are baddies (and I will even assume they are), there are other tools to get them. The AEA is reserved for events like, Pancho Villa's raid, Indian raids in the 1780s to 1850s, an invasion by foreign power troops without a declaration of war, and an actual declared war.

Not for loose facilitation like TdA, not for loosely affiliated cartel activities like the Juarez cartel being aided by the Mexican government in some loose manner, and all the other style of examples.

When you show that large action with organized units -- yeah, Ill be there. Not the jibber jabber lets stretch bad gangs that have some relationship to some foreign government like this Adiminstation is trying to tango and cha cha cha their way into.

Look, the AEA is a *tremendously* powerful act. It actually allows the ****** fing act of almost no oversight in its power. And no, Im dont want to let some tinpot authoritarian ******** who wants to control universities get anywhere near it -- unless he can show the large scale, direct action by organized troops operating for another country that the authors of the AEA intended that it be used on and for.

And nowhere near it for a bunch of shitbird gang members that can be addressed in literally a dozen of other ways under the law.

Your nopes are your bias. On a couple of those you reference they are yes for me. I've been involved with the actions of TdA for the last three years. And quite a bit of dealing with implications of the acts of the Maduro regime when they started working with Iran to trade illicit oil movements before the catastrophic actions of the Biden regime to include Lebanese Hezbollah's role in Venezuela and it's association with TdA.

The AEA EO implementation was implicitly and narrowly limited to TdA and TdA only.

I appreciate your prior thanks, so I think I will leave it at this. We've beat this dead horse and killed it a second time, so I think I'm going to sit back and watch what happens next with appeals and likely onward to the SC.

Cheers.

(05-03-2025 02:35 PM)shere khan Wrote:  The assumption that the law is the final say is a false premise.

Not to the likes of tanq...

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

(05-03-2025 02:57 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:35 PM)shere khan Wrote:  The assumption that the law is the final say is a false premise.

Not to the likes of tanq...

"When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty"
-Beauregard Cullpepper Shere Khan

My people have done it for centuries.

(05-03-2025 03:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

Having an impartial tribunal determine that? Yeah, that is the exact meaning of justice. Imagine that.

Sorry you are so afraid of that.

Is your definition of justice is to let any old goombah pinhead with a predisposed bias make the decision? Lolz.

Or maybe lets do our justice system based on the idiot staple of America's Got Talent? Cool cool. Call 1-888-IMA-NIDIOT if you think Pancho is a member of MS-13, and call 1-888-IMA-PINHEAD if you think Pancho isnt a member a member of MS-13?

Does the risk of having your Fox News regurgitation fest being shown to be less than completely forthright weigh more than actually having a unbiased tribunal actually come to an unbiased answer? Neato.

Hey Three, do us all a big favor, and continue to add your thoughts. You know more about this than the rest of us combined. It would be a shame to not hear from you.

Tanq is never going to change. He thinks he knows more than everybody, whether he does or not, and his bedside manner belongs in prison.

Most everybody here laughs at him, or just ignores him. I like to aggravate him, b/c he is so arrogant. And I find it funny.

There is no way to stop him from blathering word salad all over everybody, so just ignore him, and say whatever you want to the rest of us.

I don't read anything he says, unless it's very short. Arguing with him is a waste of effort.

I even backed down (again) and tried one more time to have an adult convo with him, and it works, but only as long as you agree with everything he says.

He is a pariah, and has no clue. Just ignore him, but please hang out with the rest of us. Gracias.

Here we have someone that actual works in the Field and knows what he's talking about. And then we have Tanq telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Tanq trying to tell this Board.There is and was no invasion. Gangs are not an organized group etc;

I don't know about anyone else but I'm going to listen to the man out in the Field.

(05-03-2025 02:57 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.

Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.

Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.

If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.

Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.

I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR".

I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Yep I understand the OR. None of what you note above gets it into the definitions of war, invasion, or incursion relayed by the opinion --- let alone by a foreign nation or government.

Quote:It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful.

To the italicized, that is quite the conclusory thing you just made. Ill get back to that.

Does overseen ... by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Does It was intentional and purposeful get you to the historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.

Under the historical framework and language and use of the language in statute, and in the statutory record as well -- yeah, these are all bad things. None of them, alone or in conjunction get to the conclusory statement you just made under that historical definitional analysis.

Quote:I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.

Maybe you should draft a memo to the lawyers handing the case to do that.

Based on the words of the Act, the caselaw of the Act, and the words in the Proclamation -- the government failed to make their case that the AEA applies.

I think the statutory record is clear, the Act deals with war, or warlike events. One Senator in the drafting process said he wanted to make sure than 'incursions related to major actions with organized troops or the equivalent of troops.'

Training a gang doesnt come fing close to that level. Not promoting or defending either the gangs, nor any Venezuelan responsibilities in coordination or such -- but there simply hasnt been a 'major action involving organized troops'. End of story.

If they are baddies (and I will even assume they are), there are other tools to get them. The AEA is reserved for events like, Pancho Villa's raid, Indian raids in the 1780s to 1850s, an invasion by foreign power troops without a declaration of war, and an actual declared war.

Not for loose facilitation like TdA, not for loosely affiliated cartel activities like the Juarez cartel being aided by the Mexican government in some loose manner, and all the other style of examples.

When you show that large action with organized units -- yeah, Ill be there. Not the jibber jabber lets stretch bad gangs that have some relationship to some foreign government like this Adiminstation is trying to tango and cha cha cha their way into.

Look, the AEA is a *tremendously* powerful act. It actually allows the ****** fing act of almost no oversight in its power. And no, Im dont want to let some tinpot authoritarian ******** who wants to control universities get anywhere near it -- unless he can show the large scale, direct action by organized troops operating for another country that the authors of the AEA intended that it be used on and for.

And nowhere near it for a bunch of shitbird gang members that can be addressed in literally a dozen of other ways under the law.

Your nopes are your bias. On a couple of those you reference they are yes for me. I've been involved with the actions of TdA for the last three years. And quite a bit of dealing with implications of the acts of the Maduro regime when they started working with Iran to trade illicit oil movements before the catastrophic actions of the Biden regime to include Lebanese Hezbollah's role in Venezuela and it's association with TdA.

The AEA EO implementation was implicitly and narrowly limited to TdA and TdA only.

I appreciate your prior thanks, so I think I will leave it at this. We've beat this dead horse and killed it a second time, so I think I'm going to sit back and watch what happens next with appeals and likely onward to the SC.

Cheers.

The nopes arent my bias. The nopes are based on the words of the Act, the words of the Proclamation, and analysis of Judge Rodriguez.

I happen to agree with Judge Rodriguez in the scope of of what the AEA means and is intended for.

If they are *more* than what is presented above, then I suggest the Trump administration make a sealed filing (protecting the contents) and inform the judge of those facts.

They didnt. I dont doubt your comments that they are baddies. Until the issues are akin to a war action -- AEA shouldnt be used. Being real baddies isnt that. Being real baddies with ties to governments isnt that. Being really really really really really really bad baddies isnt that.

Again, use the tools you have and can use easily to do the job. Its idiotic to promote and stretch an issue by contortions. But that seems to be the 'way of Trump.'

Sorry, its not a war, its not an invasion under warlike conditions, and its not an incursion under warllike conditions. And while Trump likes the power grab it affords him, its stupid to make a thin based stretch to get there. Judge Rodriguez pointed out the obvious flaws in the grab to use AEA. Bummer.

(05-03-2025 03:25 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Three, do us all a big favor, and continue to add your thoughts. You know more about this than the rest of us combined. It would be a shame to not hear from you.

Tanq is never going to change. He thinks he knows more than everybody, whether he does or not, and his bedside manner belongs in prison.

Most everybody here laughs at him, or just ignores him. I like to aggravate him, b/c he is so arrogant. And I find it funny.

There is no way to stop him from blathering word salad all over everybody, so just ignore him, and say whatever you want to the rest of us.

I don't read anything he says, unless it's very short. Arguing with him is a waste of effort.

I even backed down (again) and tried one more time to have an adult convo with him, and it works, but only as long as you agree with everything he says.

He is a pariah, and has no clue. Just ignore him, but please hang out with the rest of us. Gracias.

He is officially broken.

Im calling it.

Time of being broken 3:40pm May 3.
__x__. Certified by SK

derpity derp de derp...

Doing a fine job three.

(05-03-2025 03:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:31 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  With that logic if ISIS members were found to be illegally in the country by the 1000s, we couldn't remove them via the Alien Invasion Act. No country of ISIS, right? Stupidity at it's finest.

Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

Two courts RULED he was a member of MS-13, thus the reason one idiot judge said he couldn't go to El Salvador. Because a RIVAL GANG was a threat to him. Said rival gang doesn't exist anymore. There is no more 'maybe". Thread closed.

(05-03-2025 03:53 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 03:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

Two courts RULED he was a member of MS-13, thus the reason one idiot judge said he couldn't go to El Salvador. Because a RIVAL GANG was a threat to him. Said rival gang doesn't exist anymore. There is no more 'maybe". Thread closed.

Look at the dates the courts ruled -- look at the date of the declaration. Timing matters.

And glad you now acknowledge there is a stay. But now try to 'splain it away and 'splain why due process isnt needed. Lol.

(05-03-2025 03:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  derpity derp de derp...

I am still in awe of your failure (refusal?) to answer 'what other fundamental rights should we piss on simply because'.

Imagine that.

I guess you will now revert to your whiny version after some non-whiny conversations. Cool cool.

(05-03-2025 03:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 03:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nothing prevents removing them via being part of a terrorist group. Imagine that.

MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

Having an impartial tribunal determine that? Yeah, that is the exact meaning of justice. Imagine that.

Sorry you are so afraid of that.

Is your definition of justice is to let any old goombah pinhead with a predisposed bias make the decision? Lolz.

Or maybe lets do our justice system based on the idiot staple of America's Got Talent? Cool cool. Call 1-888-IMA-NIDIOT if you think Pancho is a member of MS-13, and call 1-888-IMA-PINHEAD if you think Pancho isnt a member a member of MS-13?

Does the risk of having your Fox News regurgitation fest being shown to be less than completely forthright weigh more than actually having a unbiased tribunal actually come to an unbiased answer? Neato.

Their definition of justice is that whatever happens to the brown guy he deserved it because Trump went on TV and lied and told them that he had MS13 literally tattooed on his knuckles. Thats their standard of proof.

Hey Tanq, I am so not in awe of you.

(05-03-2025 04:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 03:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 03:06 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2025 01:21 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  MS13 was designated a FTO on February 29, 2025.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-int...l-cartels/
So, I ask again, what Due Process has this savage not been provided?

The final step -- maybe under that they have to prove to a court or another impartial tribunal that he is an active and ongoing member of that organization.

I mean they are clamoring this to literally everyone *except* the people that can close that loop on it.

Just fing put that in front of a judge, let Obrego answer it. If the judge agrees with the government -- hes out.

That is apparently way too fing hard for the Trump administration to do.

And if the judge disagrees, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against the defendant(s), what then? He/they go free? And you call that justice? GTFO.

Having an impartial tribunal determine that? Yeah, that is the exact meaning of justice. Imagine that.

Sorry you are so afraid of that.

Is your definition of justice is to let any old goombah pinhead with a predisposed bias make the decision? Lolz.

Or maybe lets do our justice system based on the idiot staple of America's Got Talent? Cool cool. Call 1-888-IMA-NIDIOT if you think Pancho is a member of MS-13, and call 1-888-IMA-PINHEAD if you think Pancho isnt a member a member of MS-13?

Does the risk of having your Fox News regurgitation fest being shown to be less than completely forthright weigh more than actually having a unbiased tribunal actually come to an unbiased answer? Neato.

Their definition of justice is that whatever happens to the brown guy he deserved it because Trump went on TV and lied and told them that he had MS13 literally tattooed on his knuckles. Thats their standard of proof.

That might be the dumbest crock of sh!t you have ever posted here, and that's saying something.

(05-03-2025 04:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Their definition of justice is that whatever happens to the brown guy he deserved it because Trump went on TV and lied and told them that he had MS13 literally tattooed on his knuckles. Thats their standard of proof.

Your defending an illegal alien who also just happens to be MS -13 gangbanger, human trafficker and wife beater.

As the saying goes, when your enemy is committing suicide, just get out of their way.

Don't let me slow you guys down.