Yes, the media is wackadoodle
Marco Rubio announces deportation of Minnesota man pardoned last month
A Laotian man pardoned by state officials in Minnesota last month has been deported from the country, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has announced.
Tou Lue Vang, an immigrant from Laos, faced deportation for a 2006 conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after raping a young girl between 2002 and 2004. Because Laos initially refused to accept deportees, Vang spent nearly two decades living in Minnesota.
In December 2025, federal authorities detained him during a massive immigration crackdown, and a federal judge later ordered his release from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in February 2026.
What kind of immigrant? Yes, illegal alien
In June, Vang was pardoned by the Minnesota board of pardons after he expressed remorse for his actions and a letter from his victim said she forgave him, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.
In a letter obtained by the Star Tribune, the victim explained that she had “made my peace” and forgiven Vang. “He is not the same person now. I have seen how he has changed,” the letter reads.
But the Trump administration has used the case to accuse Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, and other state Democratic officials of protecting immigrants from deportation.
“This week I revoked his legal status in the United States and, as a result, federal agents took him into custody and, as of today, he has been removed from the United States,” Rubio said, referring to Vang, in a video statement posted on Friday. “Because of our action, this foreign criminal will never pose a threat to any American ever again.”
She can forgive him all she wants, but, he was in the US illegally and he’s a convicted rapist. Why are Democrats so insistent on protecting these people?
And Rimjob weeps…
I guess “Marco Rubio announces deportation of child rapist pardoned last month” wasn’t the headline The Guardian wanted to use.
This is why Donald Trump is a better President than George Bush was. So, Laos wouldn’t accept him back? BFD! Send him to Thailand, drive him across the country, and kick his scanky ass across the border into Laos.
We do not have to accept illegal immigrants from countries because they ‘refuse’ to accept their citizens back. Just haul them over and dump them there, because we can.
Legally, according to Mr Dana, rape is usually considered to involve penetration, such as what your Orange Queen had done to Ms Carroll, at least according to the court, judge and jury.
Mr Vang pleaded guilty to sexual abuse, not rape.
Our angry apologist for abusive aliens wrote:
You mean a civil jury, where unanimity is not required, in a state hostile to Mr Trump, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence?
Mr Vang pleaded guilty in a sweetheart plea bargain which gave him no jail time, because the victim did not wish to cooperate, because her parents didn’t want a fellow Asian put in prison? Fortunately, I was able to actually look up the law/
So, Mr Vang, sometime around age 18, raped a 10-year-old, but got a plea deal which allowed him to avoid prison. Under §609.342 Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degre, Subd. 1a, the penalty for such is up to thirty years in the state penitentiary. There are exceptions which allow non-incarceration, and the victim’s family pressured the then 12-year-old girl not to cooperate with the prosecution; that led to the probationary sentence. The law states specifically that it can include “penetration.”
You might, or perhaps might not, want to review what Minnesota defines as “sexual contact” with a person under 14, as the New York Times story used that euphemism.
Perhaps you could be good enough to distinguish between what sexual contact by an adult with a ten year old you find acceptable and what you do not. Inquiring minds want to know.
Quite frankly, I’m surprised that you were stupid enough to have commented as you did. Perhaps your affection for Oystergruppenführer Platner rattled a few of your neurons.
I did read it: (c) “Sexual contact with a person under 14” means the intentional touching of the complainant’s bare genitals or anal opening by the actor’s bare genitals or anal opening with sexual or aggressive intent or the touching by the complainant’s bare genitals or anal opening of the actor’s or another’s bare genitals or anal opening with sexual or aggressive intent.
Did Donald Trump rape E. Jean Carroll? Or was it JUST sexual contact?
At no time did I suggest that ANY sexual contact between an 18 year old or 10 year old was acceptable – that’s why it’s against the law! Anyway, quite frankly, I’m surprised that you were stupid enough to have commented as you did.
Get a clue, Rimjob.
Everyone understands what a joke you are.
“Did Trump rape Carroll?” You mean the “rape” where she couldn’t remember the date it allegedly happened? Quite convenient, seeing as with a specific date, the accused party could potentially provide proof that he wasn’t anywhere near that location, or her
I mean the “rape” that all of America’s courts say occurred.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a nine-day trial. The jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her in his 2022 statements. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Trump appealed, arguing that the district court made several evidentiary errors, including admitting testimony from two women who alleged past sexual assaults by Trump and a recording of a 2005 conversation where Trump described kissing and grabbing women without consent.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. The testimony of the two women and the 2005 recording were deemed admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, which allow evidence of other sexual assaults in cases involving sexual assault claims. The court also found that Trump did not demonstrate that any claimed errors affected his substantial rights.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the evidentiary rulings were within the range of permissible decisions and that any potential errors were harmless. The court upheld the $5 million award to Carroll.
Donny’s own personal Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of the $5 million jury verdict that found him liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll. By rejecting the petition, the Court allowed the lower court’s ruling and damages to stand.
Is there nothing you will not DENY, Jl?
Ooopsie!
Trump Tower raider by dOyj!
Secret floor safe behind marble panel going and opened.
Hand returned ledger in His Majesty:d own hand writing going containing 878 million in foreign financial disclosures going NOT previously disclosed mandated to be disclosed and in conflict with his sworn statements
2 sets of books.
1 in his own handwriting
Classic !
It is always the cover up that gets them
The fact that this person was not departed… but rather deported means that he will be back. There is only one way to stop predators like him. Citizen style.!
I am against deporting some classes of criminals. They should be executed within a year of being caught. There is always the risk they will return if you deport them, but also you are turning loose a known risk onto his home country.
With modern air travel, you can just put him on the plane here and he gets off the plan in Laos. If he fails to get through customs there, not our problem.
Agreed!
If one is found in court to have sexually assaulted someone, they should be hanged. Without doubt they were caught once, but had probably assaulted as many as 20!
Good one- “Is there nothing you will not ever deny..”? How about you? Do you deny what I said, that she couldn’t remember the date of the alleged “rape”? Because guess what? You didn’t
Jl,
Good one. Do YOU remember the date of every signicant event in your life. I was once carjacked at gunpoint (.32 cal revolver) by a black teenager and remember the events in excrutiating detail. I DO remember wondering about the flash if you got shot in the face. I remember his yellow shirt. He took $23 in cash. The STL police car that showed up minutes later (a woman was looking out her 1st floor window of her condo and called 911. Her name was Anna. Pretty blond). The officer said “hop in”! We made the first right. Another officer reported my 1980 Plymouth minivan abandoned on a street, still running. Another officer was walking 2 persons (teen and his uncle he picked up a block away) out of an alley. The officers were tossing their Taco Bell trash into a dumpster and found both carjackers in it!!! LOL. The date? Couldn’t tell you. The uncle was released (claimed his nephew just picked him up). The teen pleaded guilty and was locked up until 21.
It sounds like you would have acquitted the carjacker since I couldn’t remember the exact date.
As always, you’re grasping at lifelines to avoid facing the godawful truth of your allegiance to your King. You make excuses, not arguments.
More relevant than your “legal expertise”… Don Raper took his case all the way through his own Supreme Court and lost bigly at each level.
Plese read this for once. Thanks.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a nine-day trial. The jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her in his 2022 statements. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Trump appealed, arguing that the district court made several evidentiary errors, including admitting testimony from two women who alleged past sexual assaults by Trump and a recording of a 2005 conversation where Trump described kissing and grabbing women without consent.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings. The testimony of the two women and the 2005 recording were deemed admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, which allow evidence of other sexual assaults in cases involving sexual assault claims. The court also found that Trump did not demonstrate that any claimed errors affected his substantial rights.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the evidentiary rulings were within the range of permissible decisions and that any potential errors were harmless. The court upheld the $5 million award to Carroll.
Donny’s own personal Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of the $5 million jury verdict that found him liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll. By rejecting the petition, the Court allowed the lower court’s ruling and damages to stand.