Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 45,718
- 19,943
- 2,173
And how did you determine they were in a gang?Everyone in a gang is a criminal. It's not a social club. Gangs are an enterprise. Criminal acts are their business.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And how did you determine they were in a gang?Everyone in a gang is a criminal. It's not a social club. Gangs are an enterprise. Criminal acts are their business.
Yep. Still a liar.
That's because you have a very bad habit of lying to try and win arguments
Still no source from you, despite your claim it would be easy to do so.
From the link:No convictions. No criminal record. No rap sheet.
Strike one.
What about the hundreds of Venezuelans that he sent to the foreign gulag?
Double hearsay isn’t evidence.From the link:
"Contrary to the assertions of Garcia’s lawyers (and many in the corporate press) that there’s no evidence he’s a member of MS-13 and that the cops just made it all up, the police affidavit from Garcia’s arrest in March 2019 shows that he was arrested with multiple other confirmed MS-13 gang members, was wearing clothing associated with the gang, and was identified by a confidential police informant as an MS-13 gang member with a rank and a moniker."
1. He is MS-13
2. He is here illegally and has an existing deportation order, he had his "due process"
A reliable witness said he is MS-13, he has a deportation order, he was sent where MS-13 members from El Salvadore belong.Double hearsay isn’t evidence.
Still no convictions which means he has no rap sheet and is innocent.
The informant never testified. The detective never testified.A reliable witness said he is MS-13, he has a deportation order, he was sent where MS-13 members from El Salvadore belong.
Most leftards are.You're NUTS.
I don’t mind it that much. But I’m curious as to the rationale behind making the limit of 2 years. I mean, why not five years or ten?Which may be one of the most stupid laws on our books yet. People who break the law the longest get the most opportunity to keep breaking it. What kind of sense does that make?
I have already posted several links. You have posted none. So post your evidence from credible source or sources that they are not.So are you going to provide a verifiable and non-partisan that all the people sent to the gulag are vicious and violent criminals?
None of your links substantiate your claim with verifiable facts.I have already posted several links. You have posted none. So post your evidence from credible source or sources that they are not.
Or again just admit you're trolling and don't have a clue.
You type words with no proof.The informant never testified. The detective never testified.
Moreover, the detective was indicted and convicted for corruption, so even if he did testify, his credibility is completely shot.
That’s double hearsay, totally inadmissible.
you’re a liar.
Or are you still a liar?
The only logical explanation is that you’re a liar.
It’s double hearsay. It may be in a police record, but it’s meaningless according to rules of evidence.You type words with no proof.
The informant told someone, its in the record.
Illegals don't get trials, they get hearings, Garcia gets deported, end of story.
Why not just substantiate it?Ok, prove my claims are lies then...![]()
There is one law on the books that if the CBP catches an illegal less than 100 miles from the border or fewer than 14 days, that illegal can be deported immediately. But if he/she makes it further into the country then 'due process' (whatever that is) has to apply. Of course if they made it across the border, then the Biden Administration did deport a lot. More than Trump did the Democrat controlled media is happy to say.I don’t mind it that much. But I’m curious as to the rationale behind making the limit of 2 years. I mean, why not five years or ten?
The judge decides what to allow in or out.It’s double hearsay. It may be in a police record, but it’s meaningless according to rules of evidence.
Since when is double hearsay evidence?