What is the Politics of Hypocrisy? Van Hollen, Due Process, and the Democrat Double Standard

American politics are getting stranger and stranger, and spectacle has replaced statesmanship. Often, theater is more important than truth. This was most clear on Senator Chris Van Hollen’s recent trip to El Salvador, which perfectly shows how the Democratic Party’s goals are changing and how they are becoming less committed to basic values like law, order, and national authority.

Maryland Democrat Van Hollen didn’t fly hundreds of miles to speak out for American victims of violent crime or push for border security. Instead, she went to help Abrigo Garcia, who is facing deportation on charges of gang membership and domestic violence. Rob Schmitt deftly exposed the hypocrisy in Van Hollen’s acting politics recently on Newsmax.

This analysis will go into great depth about what Schmitt called a “very alarming but instructive event in American political life.” This event shows how the left is increasingly choosing appearances over justice, foreigners over Americans, and party loyalty over the Constitution.

Different kinds of anger and using weapons for “due process”

Van Hollen’s support for Garcia brings up a lot of important questions, not just about the charges against Garcia, which are serious enough on their own. Democrats who have done everything they could over the past eight years to deny their political opponent that right are being hypocritical when they talk about “due process.”

Democrats often change the law to suit their purposes; they quickly judge conservatives while demanding all procedures be followed to support candidates who support their political goals. They have created a dual-track court system whereby everyone else, including conservatives, is served alongside “protected” classes and ideas.

Van Hollen’s claim that Garcia earned “due process” only makes sense if you don’t know how his party has treated Donald Trump, Supreme Court nominees like Brett Kavanaugh, and regular people who were at the Capitol on January 6. There, the idea of “presumption of innocence” wasn’t given much thought, if any. From the point of view of Democrats, due process is not a part of the Constitution. It’s a political tool that should only be used occasionally and then put away when things get tough.

The Question That Was Never Asked

The talk Van Hollen did with CNN’s Dana Bash was one of the most informative things he did for the media. Van Hollen reluctantly admitted that he hadn’t asked Abrigo Garcia directly if he was connected to the MS-13 gang, which is known for its violent and widespread criminal activities. Why is that? Besides, he “knew the answer.”

This is such an amazing statement that every American should be scared. Van Hollen didn’t want to know the truth, so he didn’t even ask the most important question about the case. He thought the story was very interesting. If Van Hollen asked Garcia if he was in a gang, Garcia might give an uncomfortable answer that would ruin the political show he was putting on. It’s easier to avoid the truth and act sure of yourself than to face hard facts.

In any real legal or investigative process, not asking such a simple question would be seen as either willful obstruction at worst or carelessness at best. But in Van Hollen’s progressive political bubble, these kinds of dodges are not only okay, they’re even praised.

The victims who were forgotten about Rachel Morren and the disappearing American

Schmitt told the audience about the sad and much more important case of Rachel Morren, a mother of five who was killed by an illegal immigrant in Maryland, Van Hollen’s home state. Van Hollen supported a foreigner with a bad track record. Where were the angry senators at the time? Where was his passionate lobbying for an American mother, a real constituent, who died in the worst way possible?

The silence didn’t end.

This clear lack draws attention to something that has become a hallmark of progressive politics: picking and choosing who to sympathize with. Democrats like Van Hollen are willing to help people who are not citizens, especially if their situation can be used to support policies that keep borders open or to show that America is completely cruel. The voices of the innocent Americans who suffer because of these acts are purposely shut down.

One has to wonder who Van Hollen works for. Are Marylanders or the cosmopolitan elite who see country borders and immigration rules as antiquated irritations?

Legal Twists: How Democrats Break the Law to Attack Trump

Van Hollen’s different standards did not stop Schmitt’s probe. He also looked into how Democrats changed the law to punish Donald Trump when he was president. One clear example is New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which briefly threw out the time limit on sexual assault claims from the past. This neatly let writer E. Jean Carroll sue Trump for alleged occurrences decades in the past—claims difficult to refute and impossible to verify.

This law, like many others pushed by the left, wasn’t meant to make things more fair. It was meant to have a certain effect: to make Donald Trump look bad in public and get him in trouble with the law. Laws are being made to get back at people, not to be good. In the law, it’s the same as saying, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

This kind of action sets a bad example. If laws are changed, read, or adapted only to go after political opponents, the legal system stops being a fair way to decide cases and starts being a way to carry out ideas. This is what makes banana republics and authoritarian governments different from constitutional democracies.

A country without borders is a country that is falling apart

All of these problems are linked by one thing: taking away American freedom on purpose. The Democratic fixation on free borders is more about control than it is about charity. It’s about changing the people, getting rid of the idea of citizenship, and making a permanent underclass that needs help from the government.

Millions of illegal immigrants have come into the country since Biden took office, putting a strain on public resources and making border towns a mess. After that, Democrats become very interested in “due process” when it comes to sending known criminals back to their home country. The inconsistency is quite amazing. It looks like the idea of law is only useful when it can be used as a tool to help achieve a progressive goal.

Recent court decisions that don’t allow deportations under the Alien Enemy Act—a law that was made to protect national security—show even more that ideology now takes precedence over law. These rulings are not objective interpretations of the law; they are ideological statements made by judges.

It is against US law for the US to not be able to enforce its visa rules. Should citizenship mean nothing, the Constitution likewise means nothing. We are no longer a republic if the rule of law can be changed to serve political goals. Instead, we are an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy.

Media Complicity and Making People Agree

All of this political theater would not be possible without the helpful media. CNN and MSNBC are like an echo chamber for progressive ideas; they spread the stories that leaders like Van Hollen want to hear and protect them from being criticized.

Even though it was a rare example of good journalism, Dana Bash’s question about MS-13 to Van Hollen was answered. Not looked into, was it? It went down right away. What’s the deal? Because the answer did not fit the plot that was picked. The corporate press’s job today is not to probe, but to teach. They want to hide the truth, not find it.

Rob Schmitt and others in independent media are filling in for a press that has been hacked. They are asking the questions that need to be answered. That’s what the mainstream media does when they refuse to hold strong people accountable. And maybe it is the reason the establishment despises them so much.

Last but not least: a republic in danger and a movement growing

Chris Van Hollen’s egotistical behavior in El Salvador is more than just a political mistake. This is a small part of a bigger ideological battle going on over the heart of America. People who want limits, rules, and citizenship fight against people who want power no matter what.

Van Hollen acted out of calculation, not out of pity. His selective use of due process, refusal to answer tough questions, and clear disregard for American victims are not mistakes; they are signs of a political theory that puts ideas from other countries ahead of those in the United States.

People in the US are still waking up. They saw right through the lies and deception. They are sick of the lies, the hypocrisy, and the use of the law as a tool. With votes instead of guns, they are beginning to rebel. Not with protests, but with beliefs.

Instead of copying the left’s strategies, Schmitt cleverly showed that the way forward is to show them for what they are. When telling the truth during a time when it’s not popular. in following the law, even when things are hard. It’s easier to see this if you remember that the rule of law, not the whims of leaders, made America what it is today.

This is both the problem and the call of the conservative movement right now. And one that we need to face with courage, passion, and clarity.