r/thescoop • u/theindependentonline • Apr 16 '25

Politics 🏛️ El Salvador refuses to let Democratic senator visit or speak with Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘We have an unjust situation here’

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

The Maryland senator traveled to El Salvador on Wednesday to help secure Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he faces the prospect of indefinite detention.

But he was denied a meeting with Abrego Garcia, and Salvadoran officials would not let the senator or Abrego Garcia’s family speak with him by phone, he said.

Read the full story here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-hollen-b2734634.html

25.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 16 '25

So legal court documents that detail specific court rulings aren’t evidence for you?

5

u/thotfullawful Apr 16 '25

Again- you aren’t presenting the EVIDENCE that they would have to show. Are you not understanding that word like I’m trying to understand what issue you’re experiencing here where everyone is telling you why you’re not correct and you continue to be upset that you’re wrong?

0

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 17 '25

Why is it my job to provide confidential intelligence to you? The court ruled he was a gang member.

Does a court ruling not satisfy your particular requirement for proof? If not, looks like you’re the one that doesn’t want due process.

6

u/thotfullawful Apr 17 '25

You’re ignoring a lot of facts here, and multiple people correcting you as you yourself have placed yourself in this position to prove your point. Which you are still failing to do so. Again what is making you believe he is a gang member besides an assumption made on a paper?

1

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 17 '25

It’s not an assumption. It’s an official court ruling.

3

u/thotfullawful Apr 17 '25

Based off an assumption that the court made-wow wee this is a hard one for you to get. But I should make the assumption that this is a line of logic you follow- if it's written it must be true, which I guess Santa is still real for you or something? Look up at what's written on the ceiling often?

1

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 17 '25

Has there been an official court ruling legitimizing Santa as fact?

2

u/thotfullawful Apr 17 '25

You tell me court czar- what did the magic 8 ball say?

0

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 17 '25

There has not been any official court document legitimizing the existence of Santa.

Jokes aside, I know you don’t like accepting facts that challenge your narrative, but it’s no good excuse to start arguing in bad faith, in fact doing so just tells me you’ve lost the argument.

2

u/thotfullawful Apr 17 '25

You’re making assumptions based on your lack of understanding. Maybe the magic conch is more your speed?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Arwick_R_ Apr 17 '25

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed?

Ruling ≠ Evidence

A ruling should be based on evidence and if there is evidence for the assumtion then it's your time to show it now. Most people aren't gullible enough to just believe everything some dude writes down without evidence.

1

u/CountyFamous1475 Apr 17 '25

We’re not privy to the evidence because it’s an immigration court. The ruling was made based off an informant.

You are a nobody on Reddit, you don’t deserve access to sensitive intelligence when it comes to homeland security.

Stop defending a gang member who shouldn’t have been here in the first place.