Indeed. If one takes issue with beauty pageants, I must ask—where is the concern for due process?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I hope this commitment to fairness is remembered the next time I refer to Kilmar Garcia as a “wife-beating gangster” deserving of deportation to El Salvador. Thank you.
So what happened to the people smuggling? The problems that he had with his wife form no part of the charges made against him since his return. Absolutely none whatsoever. In fact, he and his wife have worked through any marital problems:
'"We were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling," Vasquez Sura said. "Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him."
So hey, they are nothing to do with you. And nothing to do with anything, even as a comparison, with what Trump has done. Whether he is an 'alleged' gangster will be decided by the courts. Which is what people have been arguing for ever since he was deported
without due process. Trump said he couldn't be returned. He lied. Bondi said it wasn't going to happen. She lied. Miller said he was going to stay there. But they all lied to you (I know...you're astonished). Now he's back he will be granted the due process as the judiciary demanded.
Of course, none of us want to prejudge the result of his court case. That would be, by definition, prejudicial to his case. Any lawyer worth his or her salt would understand that. Oh, except the Attorney General. Who said on record:
MSN
"Upon completion of his sentence...he was a smuggler of humans and women and children...the grand jury found that over the last nine years...etc etc'
First up, a grand jury does not decide on the guilt or the innocence of anyone. They simply decide if there is enough evidence presented by the prosecutor to enable a court to proceed with a case which will then decide whether the person is guilty or not. So the grand jury found nothing. Except that the prosecution had evidence that they would present.
Secondly, and much more importantly,
you can't accuse someone of being guilty before a case has even begun. You can refer to what the person has
allegedly done, but that's the limit. Maybe she was away from law school the day they covered that.