Quote:More damning information has emerged regarding the Democrats’ most beloved illegal alien and ‘Maryland man.’
As The Gateway Pundit reported, The Tennessee Star broke an explosive story last week, revealing that MS-13 gangster Kilmar Abrego Garcia was allegedly accused of engaging in human trafficking by a Tennessee Highway Patrol (THP) officer back in December 2022 and detained by the officer. The cop alleged that the gangster was transporting seven passengers from Texas to Maryland.
The officer also discovered Abrego Garcia did not have a valid driver’s license. He then detained the illegal.
However, after the officer took Abrego Garcia into custody, the THP contacted the FBI, asking what to do next. Joe Biden’s FBI unsurprisingly ordered the THP to let Abrego Garcia walk free because they valued violent illegals more than innocent Americans. THP then complied with the order.
Now, The Tennessee Star reports that Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle registered to Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, a convicted human trafficker. Reyes previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to transport illegal aliens from across the country and was convicted in 2020. The outlet confirmed this information after obtaining court documents.
It’s unclear how Abrego Garcia obtained the vehicle or whether he ever worked with Reyes.
Reyes was imprisoned for 18 months, but then remanded to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As part of his release, he was barred from re-entering America.
Here are the details from the Tennessee Star:
Hernandez Reyes was convicted in 2020 after he pleaded guilty to smuggling fellow illegal immigrants into the United States following a traffic stop in Mississippi. He was operating a company named Trans Express at the time, according to an affidavit filed by a special agent with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in December 2019.
It was further revealed that Hernandez Reyes was traveling with eight people in the vehicle, the same number as Abrego Garcia, and that he advertised the business on newspaper and social media.
Police said it cost $350 per person to secure a seat in Hernandez Reyes’ Dodge Grand Caravan, and that his illegal immigrant passengers were able to travel from Houston to destinations in South Carolina and Virginia.
Hernandez Reyes apparently made at least five trips from Houston to other parts of the country.
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
For all the people who back the Trump position on Abrego in particular to the end, a really quick question.
What would each or any of you think if the Trump administration engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG? (just as a hypothetical exercise, of course).
Would you change your tune? Get mad? Oppose it? Welcome it? Be disappointed with the Administration?
Using this hypothetical to understand the opposition here, is it a true belief that AG shouldnt be afforded due process in the determination to rendition him? Support Trump no matter what? Hate having anyone not born in the this country being around?
Not trying to bait your individual convictions. Trying to understand why it is so important to deny such due process rights to AG.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025 03:26 PM by tanqtonic.)
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:
(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:
(04-23-2025 09:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Not an opinion. Simple facts.
let me pose them to you. A simple yes/no for each line will suffice.
Did each J6er charged with one or more crimes have:
1. notice of what they are being charged with?
2. the ability to challenge the arrests and charges?
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
4. the ability to present their own evidence?
5. the ability to assert the right to quick trial, if they did not waive the statute?
6. the ability to have a right of trial by jury, if not waived?
7. the ability to be represented by counsel?
You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?
Idiocy
Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate.
Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
The important word is bolded above.
Quote: Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
And again.
Quote:Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.
What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.
Quote:4. the ability to present their own evidence?
The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.
Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.
Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.
Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?
Quote: Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.
Quote: This alleged disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.
Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.
Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 03:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote:
(04-23-2025 12:47 PM)Eldonabe Wrote: You are comparing US Citizens with ILLEGAL Immigrants. They are not the same. Why does the word ILLEGAL still seem to slip through all those cracks?
Idiocy
Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate.
Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
The important word is bolded above.
Quote: Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
And again.
Quote:Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.
What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.
Quote:4. the ability to present their own evidence?
The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.
Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.
Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.
Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?
Quote: Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.
Quote: This alleged disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.
Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.
Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025 04:23 PM by tanqtonic.)
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 03:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:28 PM)shere khan Wrote: Idiocy
Thats all it is. Responding to dei dimestore lawyer is a waste of time.
3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate.
Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
The important word is bolded above.
Quote: Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
And again.
Quote:Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.
What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.
Quote:4. the ability to present their own evidence?
The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.
Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.
Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.
Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?
Quote: Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.
Quote: This alleged disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.
Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.
Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"
They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 03:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 01:47 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: 3. the ability to hear and challenge the evidence presented?
The claim that every January 6 (J6) defendant had the full ability to challenge the evidence presented against them is not entirely accurate.
Some defendants have alleged that they faced significant obstacles in accessing evidence and challenging the prosecution's case. For example, in one case, it was revealed that the government had not provided all body-worn camera footage to the defendants, and key evidence like the "1776 Returns/Winter Palace" document was later found to be fraudulent.
The important word is bolded above.
Quote: Additionally, there were instances where the government was accused of improper conduct, such as destroying evidence and pressuring witnesses, which could have hindered defendants' ability to mount a proper defense.
And again.
Quote:Moreover, the grand jury process, which is a critical part of the criminal justice system, typically operates under a veil of secrecy, and defendants do not have the right to be present during grand jury proceedings. This secrecy can limit the ability of defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them.
Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.
What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.
Quote:4. the ability to present their own evidence?
The claim that every January 6 defendant had full ability to present evidence to counter the government is not accurate. According to an internal email reviewed by POLITICO, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, likened the treatment of January 6 defendants to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, suggesting a lack of fair treatment.
Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.
Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.
Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.
Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?
Quote: Additionally, a coalition of news organizations said in a court filing that video exhibits from a January 6 riot case had "disappeared" from a government platform that provided access to evidence used in court.
And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.
Quote: This alleged disappearance of evidence could hinder defendants' ability to present a full defense.
Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.
Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"
They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.
Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025 05:07 PM by tanqtonic.)
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 03:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 02:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: The important word is bolded above.
And again.
Lol. Every defendant has the absolute full ability to challenge every bit of evidence against them that the state presents against them in their trial.
What is presented at a grand jury may or may not be part of the case *at trial*. of that portion presented to the GJ is presented at trial, the defendants have full ability to counter it. Full stop. Evidence presented *only* in the GJ has zero weight on the determination of guilt or not guilty. Full stop.
Martin, also the attorney *for* numerous J6ers, you forgot to add.
Great, we have some attorney who has skin in the game to aid J6ers, write a broad-based email likening the prosecution of J6ers to Japanese Internment.
Thats like the attorney for GM writing a letter saying how GM is always being unfairly treated. Imagine that.
Second, while it as a broad email, it literally has no specific basis to that analogy. Just a conclusory statement. Are you seriously proffering that as *proof* of the bolded above?
And funnily, no defendant ever claimed any harm from that.
Fixed one portion, and highlighted another.
Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"
They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.
Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?
You answered your own question above.
"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:41 PM)TripleA Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:30 PM)TripleA Wrote: Which makes my original point.
unless one is the deciding jurist, is why it's pointless to 1080 'disco' with a lawyer ...
#noMasNorMussWithZohan
Old men get a pass to be grumpy now and then.
lol ... seriously, lol ... you know we're good ... I'm in a zone right now ... and I made a pact to not go into yonder as crotchety ... call me an arseho' ... I am perfectly fine with that ...
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025 05:47 PM by stinkfist.)
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 03:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"
They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.
Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?
You answered your own question above.
"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
"Nope"
Nope.
If *you* want to state there is a due process issue, show it up. My saying anything on the subject doesnt do that. *I* dont have a clue as to everything in the world. Which is what was asked.
You made an assertion, then you prove your assertion. Easy peasy.
Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass.
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:30 PM)TripleA Wrote: Which makes my original point.
it really does not.
*You* squawked about all this violation of due process -- *you* prove it up.
Can you read English? My saying *anything* about the issue doesnt prove anything. it just means that RBD misconstrued what the issue is, and is trying to gave me say something I did not. I cannot say anything about *all* J6ers mind you - I dont have first hand knowledge, nor specific knowledge about *all* cases.
Still looking for *your* citations (or *any* citations) to your broad ass rhetorical and conclusory statement.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025 05:52 PM by tanqtonic.)
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:16 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 05:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:
(04-23-2025 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Nope. Showing your comments are full of supposition, speculation, coulds, and mights.
The record is full of three things.
The state showing video of them in the trial setting. Which each defendant has the full right, and ability, to challenge that proffered video.
Them asking for all video that the government has of that particular defendant. No surprise video has been sprung on a defendant. And to the opposite, if you have particularized knowledge of video that the government has, was not revealed at the trial of a defendant, was asked for by a defendant, and not turned over to a defendant -- I am all ears.
Thanks for answering the question. "Nope"
They didn't have access to all the videos but just the ones the government wanted to present.
Care to prove up that assertion/ conjecture/ assumption bolded above?
You answered your own question above.
"Are you saying that all J6er's had access to all the videos of that day for their Hearings?
"Nope"
Nope.
If *you* want to state there is a due process issue, show it up. My saying anything on the subject doesnt do that. *I* dont have a clue as to everything in the world. Which is what was asked.
You made an assertion, then you prove your assertion. Easy peasy.
Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass.
"Or simply say that you are pulling that assumption and assertion out of your ass"
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:
(04-23-2025 10:24 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:
(04-23-2025 09:37 AM)hoopfan Wrote: Illegal aliens are not Americans. Blindly throw them out at will.
It’s as simple as that
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Its as simple as *that*, champ.
I find it really odd how the people who complain about others not following the Constitution, how others are trying to destroy the Constitution, how others ignore the Constitution -- are now too stupid as not understand that simple quote above, and seemingly champion not following the Constitution.
They *wrap* themselves as the champions of the Constitution -- then seemingly go out of their way to piss on it, most notably and currently the above. lmao.
I’ve demonstrated on several occasions it’s actually not simple.
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-23-2025 03:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: For all the people who back the Trump position on Abrego in particular to the end, a really quick question.
What would each or any of you think if the Trump administration engaged in diplomatic discussions with El Salvador to bring back AG? (just as a hypothetical exercise, of course).
Would you change your tune? Get mad? Oppose it? Welcome it? Be disappointed with the Administration?
Using this hypothetical to understand the opposition here, is it a true belief that AG shouldnt be afforded due process in the determination to rendition him? Support Trump no matter what? Hate having anyone not born in the this country being around?
Not trying to bait your individual convictions. Trying to understand why it is so important to deny such due process rights to AG.
Is this an exercise in futility?
Either way! He comes back just to be deported again.
Hypothetically he is an American citizen that has no ties to El Salvador nor MS 13.
This is a fun game
Hypothetically there are no cartels in Mexico and no drugs nor human trafficking is happening.
I see your angle it’s like in an alternate world where hypotheticals exist and we can agree and be likeminded. NOT
/
[NEWS] Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
![[Image: trump-dance-ymca.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/kZrd0Zxo1zIAAAAM/trump-dance-ymca.gif)
