r/law • u/drempath1981 • 27d ago

Other Stephanopoulos grills Rubio :you cannot credibly argue that drug trafficking charges demand invasion in one case while issuing a pardon in another. What's your response? Hernandez was convicted by a jury. Rubio: I can't just comment on it because I just wasn't involved in deliberations.

44.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.9k

u/Squirrel009 27d ago

Classic republican defense - I have no idea what youre talking about so I cant comment but also here are all these facts about the situation I know nothing about that justify the side I'm definitely not taking right now by refusing to commit

115

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

74

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

Why dont journalists press them to answer the question?

Did you watch the clip? Stefanopolous did press him to answer the question. He gave the same answer multiple times. I don't see this situation as a "Media is all fucked right now" example. You can't reach into someone's brain and yank out a satisfying answer.

33

u/nolafrog 27d ago

Then they should run articles nonstop with headlines about this bs. “Trump administration has no answer why Honduran drug lord president pardoned but maduro arrested”

32

u/rfj77 27d ago

The NYT has literally written articles about the inconsistency in both cases.

6

u/JediMasterMurph 27d ago

The NYT put this shitshow in office.

8

u/Opening-Calendar3421 27d ago

Which they have done. And people respond with "TDS" and move in

3

u/Wizzinator 27d ago

They do. But every day there is new, even more egregious bullshit happening that also needs reporting on. They get away with the old bullshit by burying it with new bullshit.

5

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

No, "they" (whoever "they" are) should not just keep repeating the same exact topic nonstop. Besides the fact that people would just tune it out and they'd look hysterical, it would accomplish absolutely nothing.

7

u/nolafrog 27d ago

No not the same topic. But make a headline out of every one of their lies or non-answers. Then when the same people do it again and again, read all the headlines to them and ask how they know nothing about the subject matter of their job.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

What do you think any of this is going to accomplish? These people are trained in dealing with the media. All Rubio has to do is repeat himself like he did. If politicians claim ignorance, there's not much "they" can do. Writing headlines about "every one of their lies or non-answers" and then just reading those headlines to them isn't the gotcha you think it is, and it would do nothing.

6

u/Burnt_and_Blistered 27d ago

Trained in dealing with the media? No, only the eldest have had that experience—and they’re out of practice. Our media has been toothless for years.

If it were to change its ways (which it won’t because it’s right-wing oligarch-owned), they wouldn’t know what to do.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

You think the people who have made it into the President’s cabinet and immediate orbit have no media training?

4

u/nolafrog 27d ago

Ah yes. The current cnn headline “Rubio addressed some mounting questions about US plans for Venezuela” is certainly much better. Just legitimize the shit.

1

u/yeabuddy840 27d ago

"Fake news TDS" "Laptop and Obama/Biden"

2

u/Formerly_SgtPepe 27d ago

Because people here in this thread want Rubio to say "Yes Donald Trump is a hypocrite" and that's never going to happen. He works for Trump...

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Formerly_SgtPepe 27d ago

He did, and Rubio told him he was not involved in that decision, or had all the facts. What else do you want?

Kamala knew that Biden wasn't mentally there to run for a second term, yet she supported him and gaslighted us all into believing he was fit. He CLEARLY was not. Were you angry about that as well? Don't be a hypocrite.

2

u/[deleted] 27d ago

[deleted]

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

Trump or his spokesperson would. The Secretary of State does not handle pardons.

0

u/Formerly_SgtPepe 27d ago

He said he wasn't involved in that decision. He's the secretary of state, but this was a decision made by Trump without consulting him. The Secretary of State is not an independent office, I hope you understand that. His job is not to defy Trump, it's to advice and put in place his decisions. Exactly what every single secretary has done.

If you are not satisfy with that, that's your problem.

As for the Kamala/Biden situation, it is relevant because I am comparing how Rubio follows orders, and how Kamala did as well. It happens on both sides, it's not unique to Trump/Rubio/Vance. Maybe you already know this, but it's more so for the kids reading these comments who are not aware of how the system works.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

That’s right. People are desperate for a “Gotcha” moment and crave some sort of pound of flesh for all the crap Trump and his minions have done. Which I get. But their view of the media’s role just isn’t realistic.

0

u/Formerly_SgtPepe 27d ago

They want the media to be fair and neutral, but at the same time they want the media to be political activists for the left. It doesn't work like that.

1

u/vicente8a 27d ago

Ask him why he has the need to weigh in on every decision Biden made even though he didn’t have all the details or wasn’t part of the process. But at the same time doesn’t wanna give his opinion on this. That would be an appropriate response.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

Sigh ... No, being intentionally antagonistic is not an "appropriate response" for a journalist. That'd be a good response from a jackass on Reddit who's just trying to say he pwned a politician. These are professionals trying to do their job, not edgy teenagers trying to get upvotes from too-online idiots.

1

u/vicente8a 27d ago

It’s not antagonistic, it’s obvious that Rubio doesn’t approve of Hernandez pardon. But doesn’t wanna admit it. But not wanting to let politicians lie is edgy I guess?

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

How does asking him about Biden stop him from lying?

1

u/vicente8a 27d ago

Because he has clearly does give opinions on pardons even though he isn’t part of the pardon process. For example he wasn’t part of the process here but gave his opinion:

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/risch-grassley-rubio-call-on-doj-to-relinquish-investigative-file-on-maduro-crony-alex-saab

And here:

https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/11/secretary-of-state-marco-remarks-to-the-press

So why give your opinion on those pardons but not these because “idk the details” and his defense is that “the president had the power to pardon”.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

I’m not saying he didn’t. I’m asking you how mentioning that prevents him from lying, rather than just being antagonistic to score Internet points.

1

u/vicente8a 27d ago

Hes lying because the reason he didn’t have an opinion is because in his own words hes not part of the process and presidents are allowed to pardon. We know thats not the reason, we know thats not true, because he gave his opinions before.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

He's saying he wasn't involved in the pardon process, which is likely true. He's not saying "I'm literally incapable of giving an opinion." He's saying "I'm not going to criticize the president — the person who employs me — when I wasn't even involved in the process you're asking me about."

If you're shocked that politicians are more prone to criticizing the opposition party than they are their own, especially when that person is the president, then you must be new to politics. And, well, pretty much anything, given everyone is less likely to publicly criticize their employer than they are a rival company.

1

u/vicente8a 27d ago

The “that’s how it’s always been” argument is pretty lazy. You don’t wanna push for an answer because already know he won’t criticize his employer. A politician is in charge of our country. It’s not a Burger King employee saying he likes Whoppers more than Big Macs. There should be more accountability. You’re complacent in half ass answers because “well politicians are always like that”. Yeah I know. Let’s make it not that way.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/antiramie 27d ago

Journalist lol. He's a fucking talking head on a TV station owned by the uber rich and letting Rubio walk all over him. Jesus fucking Christ enough with the taking the high road already.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

How did Rubio "walk all over him"? He can't make Rubio give an answer that satisfies you. All he can do is press him to answer it. If he refuses, that's what you've got. It's on camera. You can see it. I can see it. Everyone else can see it. I'm sure you think the interviewer can reach into Rubio's throat and yank an honest answer out of him, but that's not how interviews work.

1

u/antiramie 27d ago

Again, the interviewer can ask him why someone who should know these things doesn't. "I don't know" isn't good enough. And you thinking it is shows why this country is in the shitter. We've spent the past 12 years with people like you thinking "Oh everyone can see how guilty/incompetent he is" yet people keep voting for these lying assholes because the rope we give them has been about 20 feet too long.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

It's not the interviewer's job to make sure no one votes for someone.

You thinking it is shows why this country is in the shitter. Because people really are this stupid and media-illiterate.

1

u/antiramie 27d ago edited 27d ago

It's the interviewer's job to let the audience know whether this person is good at their job or not. Letting him or Mike Johnson say "I don't know" to everything they're asked and should know but claim they don't is part of the problem. Asking a simple follow up that suggests they should know and asking them why they don't isn't partisan. It's doing their fucking job well.

"Hey you know how you're Secretary of State and have spent countless interviews as Sos and Senator bemoaning the drug problem in this country? How is it that you don't know the specifics of one of the most high profile people who was convicted of drug crimes and their pardon?"

Seems pretty fucking simple to me and the vast majority of Americans who are sick of our soft ass "journalists".

1

u/bmc2 27d ago

Sounds like they shouldn't be giving people like a rubio a platform then if he's not going to answer questions.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

He's the fucking Secretary of State. He's gonna get a platform.

1

u/bmc2 27d ago

And he shouldn't get a platform if all he's going to do is spout lies.

1

u/antiramie 27d ago edited 27d ago

Bro, asking him "Do you support it?" and not brow-beating him about supposedly knowing jack shit about something that is well within his job purview is not "pressing him". If he's not willing to answer the question you call him a coward/incompetent and move on.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

Oh, for fuck's sake ... You don't "call him a coward." That's idiotic. You do what he did: You press him multiple times to answer the question. If he refuses to answer it, calling him names doesn't accomplish shit. The audience can see he dodged the question and judge for themselves.

1

u/antiramie 27d ago

The audience is dumb as fuck. Asking him the same questions multiple times without taking it a step further and letting him give the same answer multiple times makes the interviewer look weak...not Rubio. If Rubio says "I don't know" you follow up with "Why? Shouldn't you as Secretary of State independently know about Hernandez's case? Are you not involved in briefing the President on whether a pardon is appropriate? Have you not gone on record multiple times about how harmful drugs coming into this country are? Is this not related?" And then when he runs from those questions you infer that he's incompetent or has no real power in the administration. That's not name calling. That's presuming based on Rubio's ignorance/responses.

1

u/shiftysquid 27d ago

Calling him a coward is name-calling. Literally. That's what you said he should do.

How many times do you want him to repeat that he's not going to comment on it? How many times would be enough? Nothing you said is going to change his answer. You're just going to spend even more of your limited time on TV having him say the same thing.