Why in the hell is Trump clearing the way for the Tate brothers to come back to the US?
FWIW, the only acceptable answer is that law enforcement will meet them immediately upon their entry and take them into custody pending charges.
If the goal of the Trump administration is to keep sex offenders out, then let's keep them all out.
Oh, and what in the hell is the house doing with their budget proposal? Why would they even bother to propose a budget that increases the deficit/debt while Trump is trying to lower it. Do they understand how out of touch they look? If nothing else, start from the opposite extreme, negotiate as needed, then blame the Dems for all the spending.
Oh, and what's up with all the idiots who don't understand that this is the first step in the budget process and not the final budget.
11 comments:
I never heard of these guys, but a little research suggests they are pretty scummy. Imagine what that means for all their social media followers! But a couple articles I've read trying to get a bit up to snuff on the case suggests they are simply accused. In the meantime, Romania has released their passports to them as well as their property. The Romanian gov't hasn't dropped charges, but I would think if they had a strong case, they'd not have done this. That Rick Grennell was involved with their release...or in negotiations which included that...may simply be because they're Americans held on suspicion alone, rather than any love for the Tates specifically. (Just speculating here as I've seen no details regarding the negotiations.) Grennell won the release of other Americans held elsewhere and it could be simply to get Americans in foreign custody released as a general rule, sorting out the details later. The Tates, in the meantime, are expected to return to Romania should the investigation demand it. We'll have to wait and see what that happens should that demand be made.
There is a pending civil case against them here brought by four women, so perhaps your speculation has some merit. The UK has their own problems with these guys and they deny everything. Thus, it's still in the "innocent until proven guilty" stage, and certainly is for me, scumbags or not.
As to Trump, we'll have to wait and see about that, too.
They wouldn't be on their way here if Trump hadn't signed off on it. Look, if the goal is to keep scumbag/sex offenders out of the US it seems counterproductive to arrange to bring some of them back in.
It's not like they were being held in Romania for some political reasons, they or something, there's no reason for them to be back here.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't justify special VIP treatment.
I guess pissing off a bunch of MAGA women/influencers isn't something Trump is concerned about.
You seem eager to inject your own preferences for what's happening here. Neither bro has been found guilty of sex offenses as far as I've been able to ascertain thus far. Perhaps you have links to that which shows otherwise. Once again, they are accused, not convicted. That's a big difference I thought only lefties didn't understand. Self-identifying as a misogynist doesn't guaranteed sexual abuses ever took place. If the Romanians had some hard evidence of guilt for some crime, I doubt they'd not have presented it to Grennell, after which I doubt Grennell would push for their release...unless as you say there are better cases which would result in a guilty verdict here. I haven't yet found or seen any mention of specific grievances by any of the women in the civil case, but given how Trump was treated in the civil case against him after E Jean Carroll failed to prove she was raped, I don't think the boys are likely to get off scot-free.
But given the Romanians didn't have a case strong enough to convince anyone they were guilty of anything, the reason for them being back here is because they're Americans.
"Innocent until proven guilty doesn't justify special VIP treatment."
Was that dude just brought back from Russia for medical weed a VIP?
I get questioning this move. But it's no different than any other story where full details are absent. You chose to decide whether the move is good or bad on the basis of unproven accusations. I prefer to hear more before passing judgement. You do you.
Honestly I've been watching the response from a bunch of MAGA social media accounts and how people (especially women) are responding.
Given the video evidence I've seen, it seems likely that something illegal went down with them. Even so, it's obviously a good look for Trump (who gets called a sexual predator) to pull strings to get two more released and bring them back.
Yeah, I do find them reprehensible human beings who don't deserve any special treatment. But beyond that, the optics on this are horrible. There's no upside to Trump to spring these guys.
Given that the weed guy wasn't a popular social media influencer, and who was involved in something that's hardly a crime here, probably not. Was the WNBA woman a VIP, probably. Are these right and famous guys getting VIP treatment, yeah.
You're right, I should absolutely give people who are a negative influence on young men, credibly accused of sexual assault, and rich influencers the benefit of the doubt that the full faith and credit of the US government was appropriately used to spring them from Romania.
Whether it's good or bad, the optics are shit and there are a lot of pissed off conservative women out there.
So if the case against them in Romania is crap...and I don't know how strong or weak it actually is...then you're good with leaving them to be unjustly persecuted just because they're scumbags in your eyes? That doesn't seem like good "optics" to me. The other two were Americans believed to be unjustly held by a foreign government. From what little I've learned about this particular case, it seems likely it's the same thing. As to "optics", the WNBA chick is an America-hating, racist dyke. Despite the fact that it was Biden who handled that, I'm sure Trump would have, too, but without releasing an arms trader in the process. Anyway, I'll wait until I hear or learn more about this to say anything else. I don't wish to judge without details. But you do you.
I have no idea what the case in Romania looked like. I'm simply pointing out that for someone who's been painted as a sexual harasser to facilitate this for others who've been accused of the same is shitty optics.
I'm not "judging" their guilt or innocence. I'm pointing out that it's not a good look for Trump to do this, and that these guys are scum regardless of whether or not they're convicted.
Call me crazy, but if I'd run on a platform of keeping "rapists" out of the country (many also not charged or convicted), I'd avoid going out of my way to bring accused rapists into the country. Also call me crazy, but those who prey on young women are some of the most vile humans in existence, and I'll respond accordingly.
Am I suggesting that they not get due process, no. Am I suggesting that they not get special treatment, yes.
It's NOT "shitty optics". It's judging without all the details. If Trump isn't the sexual harasser he's accused of being...or even if it's only him who believes he's not...why should he give a flying rat's ass about optics if these guys aren't guilty of what they're accused of doing...if that's the reason his guy got them released?
What's most heinous is that this last comment of yours is a totally leftist perspective, in that you're treating "accused" as "guilty beyond any shadow of doubt". That's not just unAmerican, Craig. Until they're proven guilty, they're innocent. And if they're innocent, it's not "special treatment" to negotiate a release.
As I said, I'm not familiar with these guys. If you know they've "preyed" upon young women, as opposed to merely talking stupidly about abusing women, then bring the receipts.
Until you do, or if you can't, let's wait until we get more details instead of acting like Dan.
You don't think it's "shitty optics" because you're predisposed not to. Anyone who's done the research knows Trump's situation, yet it's still a narrative despite the facts. In a world where perception is a thing, the perception that one sexual abuser is helping another is a thing. It's not about being fair, or liking it, it's just a narrative that gets traction.
No, I'm not in any way presuming that they're guilty. Roman Polansky, famously, left the US to avoid being charged with sex crimes, I'd argue that most agree that it's likely that he did what he was accused of. In this case, based on what I've seen, I'd argue that if/when Tate is tried he'll be convicted.
But none of that matters. The image of a white, "conservative" rich, influencer getting treatment from Trump that normal people wouldn't get is the problem. It's not about the legal process, its about giving them treatment that the vast majority of people would not get. That Tate is likely guilty and is a horrible influence on "conservative" young men just adds to the perception of special treatment.
Again, it seems strange to give special treatment to people charged with sex trafficking and sex with a minor. Maybe that's the kind of people you want Trump to allow into the US, I''ll pass.
You are aware of the fact that it is OK to disagree with individual actions Trump takes, and to do so for reasons that might not be as persuasive to some as to others? Call me crazy, but if Trump's immigration policy is built on keeping criminals or potential criminals out of the US, then allowing criminals/potential criminals/charged criminals in via some special deal looks bad.
That's OK, people do bad/stupid stuff all the time.
We can't be arguing "potential" when "potentially" the person suspected shouldn't be. That's incredibly shameful.
I say again, that if any nation holds the crimes alleged against these suspects to be heinous, suspects would not be let go if the case against them for the heinous crimes is solid. If the case is not solid, then maybe there is no case. Being scumbags isn't enough. Being scumbags isn't illegal. Being scumbags does not mean the scumbags would break the law. There's no such thing in our legal systems as "potential" criminals. Either one is a criminal...which means guilty of having broken laws... or one is not. "Optics" based on insufficient evidence is a bullshit basis for how a decision should be judged, and thus, bullshit "optics" is an unjust reason for allowing innocent Americans to remain in foreign custody.
Why not? We argued potential with Hunter Biden. We argued potential with Hilary. We argue potential all the time. Hell, Trump's border policy is built on deporting criminals and potential criminals first. The problem is that we're not talking about the legal process, we're talking about a choice that was not required. We're talking about perception and optics (as frustrating as it is, both are real things).
Look, argue in favor of giving these guys special treatment, that's your prerogative. I firmly believe that facilitating these guys exit and return to the US has absolutely zero positive benefit for Trump.
Post a Comment