Van Hollen slams Rubio in contentious exchange over deportations and Abrego Garcia
Rather than a warm homecoming, Rubio was quickly on defense, with several Senate Democrats pressing the secretary on the State Department's reorganization and spending cuts, as well as Middle East policy and El Salvador detentions.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., spent much of his allotted time criticizing Rubio on a number of issues, including his coziness with El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele and the Trump administration's failure to "facilitate" in returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant who was erroneously deported to El Salvador, to the United States. Abrego Garcia was living in Maryland at the time he was deported.
"In the case of El Salvador, absolutely, absolutely, we deported gang members, gang members -- including the one you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gang banger, and that and the evidence is going to be clear," Rubio asserted, referring to Van Hollen meeting with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador in April.
MORE: Van Hollen describes dramatic meeting with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador upon return to US
"Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that," Van Hollen protested. "Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath!"
Van Hollen has said neither man drank from the glasses that he said officials put on the table during the meeting that appeared to have liquid inside with salt or sugar rims.
"No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy," Rubio shot back. "No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them, and if I do reach that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch. Diplomacy doesn't work that way."
"You're just blowing smoke now," Van Hollen said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, R-Idaho, had to intervene in the at-times contentious conversation as Van Hollen compared Rubio's policy on deportations and the El Salvador detentions of migrants to the "shameful era" of McCarthy-era witch hunts and the red scare, saying the administration's "campaign of fear and repression is eating away at foundational values of our democracy."
"Back then, it took one voice, attorney Joseph Welch, to cut through the hysteria with a simple question that marked the beginning of the end of that shameful era: 'Have you no sense of decency?'" Van Hollen said as he concluded his line of questioning. "And I would ask you the same, Secretary Rubio. You have shown, with your words and your actions what your answer is. I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you as secretary of state."
Van Hollen slams Rubio in contentious exchange over deportations and Abrego Garcia originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough reveals DC journalist privately shared concerns about crime while publicly denouncing Trump's plan
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough suggested that some liberal media figures blasting President Donald Trump's federal takeover of Washington, DC were not being entirely honest about their concerns over crime in the nation's capital, on Tuesday's 'Morning Joe.' Scarborough said he found it 'interesting' that some reporters critically covering the Trump takeover have privately expressed concerns about their own safety. Advertisement 'This is interesting,' Scarborough said. 'I actually heard from a reporter when this happened, going, 'Well, you know, if he doesn't overreach, this could actually be a good thing for quality of life,' etc, because in DC right now, I had this happen to my family and I had that, and they go down the list. And then I saw him tweet something completely different.' Scarborough, who said he's lived in DC for more than three decades, added that crime isn't as bad as it was two or three years ago, but it still was not a safe city. 'It's certainly not as safe as the nation's capital should be.' Advertisement Trump announced Monday that he would place the city's police department under direct federal control and deploy National Guard troops to 'reestablish law, order and public safety.' Top Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, criticized the move as unnecessary, pointing to a reported decline in homicides. Liberal media personalities such as CNN's Dana Bash and NBC's Jonathan Allen argued that the most violent day in recent DC history was January 6, 2021, during the Capitol riot. 3 MSNBC host Joe Scarborough suggests liberal media figures calling out President Trump's federal takeover of Washington, D.C., are not being truthful when it comes to crime occurring in the nation's capital. Getty Images for Global Citizen Advertisement 3 President Trump has considered deploying the National Guard to the nation's capital to 'reestablish law, order and public safety.' Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto/Shutterstock During the 'Morning Joe' segment, MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend pushed back, saying she has lived in DC for the past decade and believes rising crime fears are largely about perception, not reality. 'The way I've heard DC being described this morning, is like it's a city under siege. Like it's a dangerous place, clutching your pearls, got to keep your bag under your dress when you leave the house and that is just not true,' she argued, while acknowledging 'instances of juvenile crime.' She argued that more police on the streets would not address the root causes of juvenile crime and accused Trump of amplifying public fears. Advertisement 3 Multiple liberal media figures, including CNN's Dana Bash and NBC's Jonathan Allen, still say the violence in D.C. is nothing compared to what happened during the Capitol Riot on January 6, 2021. Jemal Countess – CNP 'We need to rethink what makes cities safe in America,' she added. Scarborough countered that even lifelong Democrats are worried about their safety in Washington. He read a message from a liberal resident who refused to walk outside past 8 p.m. and whose friends had been carjacked or shot at, calling it 'a change from a decade ago.' 'I guarantee you that's a person that has never voted for a Republican in their life,' Scarborough said. 'This isn't imagined. People you know, that I know, that they love, they and their friends don't feel safe in Washington, DC.' During a press conference on Monday, Trump challenged liberal journalists to be honest about crime concerns in the city. 'I understand a lot of you tend to be on the liberal side, but you don't want to get — you don't want to get mugged and raped and shot and killed,' Trump said. 'And you all know people and friends of yours that that happened. And so you can be anything you want, but you want to have safety in the streets. You want to be able to leave your apartment or your house where you live and feel safe and go into a store to buy a newspaper or buy something. And you don't have that now.'
CNN
3 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump gets what he wants in DC crackdown as Democrats fumble response
Donald Trump FacebookTweetLink President Donald Trump's militarized crime crackdown in Washington, DC, is a clarifying political moment. It's again exposed Democrats' struggles to combat Trump's hardline law-and-order rhetoric and splits within their party that the president exploited to win two elections. Party leaders who keep citing statistics showing crime coming down are hardly consoling residents of a relatively small city that has seen 100 homicides this year. Trump might be better at recognizing fears of violent crime. But as usual, he's adopted an extreme position, declaring a state of emergency when one doesn't exist. He has few ideas to tackle the underlying causes of crime. He demonizes the homeless, but his economic policies could make the problem worse. Like his peace deals and trade agreements, his crime purge may be mostly for show. Residents of the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have a right to feel unsafe. Trump's surge of federal officers and soldiers onto the streets might fill personnel shortages in the police department. But the move is likely temporary, and the same dangers will return once the city is no longer Trump's prop. This all points to a big problem with the vicious politics of the Trump era. Every issue gets boiled down to partisan fights that forestall solutions and good governance. The fight against crime is nuanced. Three things can be true at once. Namely, that Democrats are hopeless at coining winning messaging; Trump's drastic measures do fit into an increasingly chilling turn toward authoritarianism; and while crime may be down, DC can be dangerous. The city in many ways falls short of what Americans might want for the capital of a great nation. Trump's bombastic White House press conference on Monday, when he announced his takeover of DC's Metropolitan Police Department, was characteristic demagoguery designed to appeal to his hard-core voters. It also underscored how Democrats are hampered by the lack of their own powerful figurehead. Nine months after the last election and 14 before the next one, the party has no one with the skill to parry Trump's flood-the-zone presidency. Once-in-a-generation communicators like presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had the capacity to shape language and positions appealing to multiple constituencies at once. Party lawmakers and candidates then adopted the messaging as their own. Great politicians are teachers; they intuit the electorate's emotions and fears and shape persuasive arguments and policy. But such linguistic dexterity was missing in initial Democratic reactions to the Trump crime surge. Most party leaders raced to proclaim yet another power grab by a wannabe dictator rather than touching on the perils of violent crime. 'For all the talk Republicans give about giving their localities their rights, where are they now?' Senate House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X, saying the crackdown was merely an attempt to detract from Trump scandals. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote on the same site that 'the crime scene in D.C. most damaging to everyday Americans is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.' Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin told CNN's Kasie Hunt on Monday that Trump wasn't reacting to a 'real emergency' but was instead trying to deflect from his past ties to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'He doesn't want to release the Epstein files. So, he wants everybody to look in another direction,' Raskin said. And a group of Democratic lawmakers from Maryland and Virginia warned of the 'soft launch of authoritarianism.' They noted that crime was still too high for those victimized in the final sentence of a long statement. None of these arguments are necessarily wrong. But by focusing first on Trump's repressive motives, they do not immediately address voter concerns over safety. This recalls the last election. When Democrats failed to meet Americans' worries about high immigration rates and high prices, they opened a lane for Trump and his extreme solutions. Saving democracy is great. But people need to feel secure first. Some Democratic strategists want their party to do better. 'Democrats, listen to me, please. Talk about wanting a safe street and lean into wanting safe neighborhoods, while at the same time saying we shouldn't have federal officers in our streets,' Chuck Rocha, one Democratic consultant, told Audie Cornish on 'CNN This Morning.' Democrats have long struggled to make convincing arguments on crime and justice — issues that tease out divisions between the party's right and left flanks and societal and racial themes that are central to its heritage and ideology. The most recent example was over the murder of Minnesota man George Floyd in 2020 by a police officer. Nationwide protests pushed the party to the left amid outrage at police brutality and a justice system that often fails Black Americans. But when some progressive activists demanded the defunding of the police, they handed a priceless political weapon to Republicans and alienated many moderates and independents. This is not a new problem. President Bill Clinton and then-Sen. Joe Biden seemed to have found the answer to the left's vulnerability on law and order in the 1990s by writing crime bills that boosted law enforcement funding, expanded the death penalty and mandated life in prison for criminals with three or more felony convictions. This insulated Democrats from conservative claims that they were weak on crime. But the bills had unintended consequences. They ushered in an era of mass incarceration in which Black Americans were disproportionately condemned to life in overcrowded prisons for comparatively minor offenses. The political impact was corrosive, haunting then-candidate Hillary Clinton in her 2016 primary campaign and Biden in his 2020 White House bid. This week is a reminder that Democrats are still vulnerable to the classic GOP law-and-order gambit deployed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and most ruthlessly by Trump. It's far easier to demonize criminals than to produce real solutions. But Democrats need to come up with something before 2028. Their position is similar to that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a political communicator on the same plane as Bill Clinton. As opposition leader, Blair needed to win over Britons who wanted more law enforcement while reassuring core Labour Party voters concerned with the socioeconomic origins of crime. He became known for a slogan — 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' — that positioned him as a new kind of progressive politician with a strong appeal to the critical center. It stole the Conservative Party's tough-on-crime mantra and helped win the 1997 election. The Democrats' best hope of a similar act of triangulation might lie with its governors, some of whom may run for president in 2028, and who are already experienced at the executive level of the nuances of addressing crime. One of their number, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Tuesday that Trump was using the military 'as a cudgel and as a tool to be able to advance his political purposes.' Moore said Trump should emulate methods which he said had reduced homicides and other violent crimes in Baltimore. 'I did it without ever having to once operationalize our National Guard to do municipal policing,' Moore said. While Democratic responses to Trump were politically ineffective, they were often based in truth. Raskin, for instance, pointed out that the Trump's claim to be a champion of the law was absurd. The largest mass crime event in recent years in Washington, DC, was precipitated by the president — the mob assault by supporters he incited against the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Maryland Democrat argued that if Trump were serious about law and order, 'he would not have pardoned 1,600 insurrectionists and violent cop beaters.' By sending National Guard soldiers into the streets in the absence of a crisis, Trump really is adopting the intimidatory tactics of strongman leaders. Some critics worry that his federalization of the capital police force is a test run for a later authoritarian takeover of the city. And the president may also foment lawlessness with his warning that cops could 'do whatever they hell they want.' If Trump really wanted to improve conditions in Washington, he might reverse the GOP-led Congress's $1 billion budget cut to the city that local officials warn will hit public schools, public safety and an overstretched police department. And does the White House have any long-term plans beyond window dressing and shows of force? White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday said that homeless people in the city had a choice of shelters, addiction and mental health services, 'or jail.' She had no specifics on any new administration housing or social services options or long-term care and solutions. But Trump already has what he wants. Military vehicles lined up Wednesday night near the Washington Monument in a striking image that captured his obsession with military projection and the challenges to US founding values his actions represent.
UPI
4 minutes ago
- UPI
Texas files motion against O'Rourke in fight over redistricting maps
Texas on Tuesday filed a contempt motion against Beto O'Rourke, alleging he is violating a court order by continuing to fundraise for state legislators who fled the Lone Star State earlier this month. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo Aug. 12 (UPI) -- Texas filed a motion for contempt Tuesday against Beto O'Rourke, accusing him of violating a temporary restraining order barring him from fundraising for Democratic lawmakers who fled the state earlier this month amid a deepening fight with Republicans over redistricting maps. In the motion, filed in the District Court for Tarrant County, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton alleges that O'Rourke -- a former U.S. House legislator and potential Democratic presidential candidate -- violated a court order that was handed down Friday by continuing to solicit donations for Texas Democrats through the Democratic Party's ActBlue fundraising arm, specifically at rallies in Fort Worth and Abilene that were held over the weekend and online. "Beto is about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said on X. "It's time to lock him up." Democrats have come out in force since their Texas colleagues fled the state earlier this month to deny Republicans a quorum to pass redistricting maps that would give the GOP five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Critics and Democrats argue that the maps draw lines that dilute the voting power of Latino and Black people, while serving as a power grab by President Donald Trump through rigging the GOP representation in the House ahead of next year's midterm elections. Usually, redistricting occurs once a decade with the publishing of U.S. Census Bureau data. O'Rourke has been at the forefront of the effort to support Texas Democrats and a target of Paxton, who, on Friday, secured a temporary restraining order barring his fellow Texan from soliciting donations for nonpolitical purposes, including to fund "out-of-state travel, hotel or dining accommodations or services to unexcused Texas legislators during any special legislative session called by the Texas governor." The motion filed Tuesday centers mainly on social media posts by O'Rourke that encourage people to donate "to have the backs of our Texas Democrats in this fight," and the two rallies held over the weekend, specifically the Saturday event in Fort Worth, where Paxton in the motion quotes the Democrat as having said, "There are no refs in this game. [expletive] the rules," seemingly to suggest he was openly flouting the court order. O'Rourke responded to the lawsuit by accusing Paxton of purposefully misusing his words in a social media post, that included a clip from the rally the attorney general quoted him from. The clip shows O'Rourke speaking about encouraging all Democratic-led states to redraw their maps as Texas has to "maximize Democratic Party advantage" because "there are no refs in this game." In the Tuesday response, O'Rourke said Paxton was "lying to try to silence us." "We alerted the court that the AG's office blatantly lied in its filing," he said in a post on X. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office." If the court finds O'Rourke in violation of the temporary restraining order, it could fine him up to $500 and jail him for up to six months. The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for Aug. 19. The filing comes the same day the Texas Senate approved the controversial redistricting map 19-2 along party lines, with nine of the 11 Democrats walking out before the vote in protest.
