Guilt by association


Senator Marco Rubio’s Brother in Law: A Convicted Drug Trafficker

Senator Marco Rubio has provided generous details about his family, expressing time and again during his successful 2009 U.S. senate campaign that he was proud of his parents’ efforts to build a better future for their four children in this country.

But there is one family episode that the Senator does not want to talk about. Univision Investiga has learned that in 1987, Rubio’s older sister Barbara was caught up in the year’s most significant antinarcotics operation in South Florida.

According to public records, federal prosecutors in Miami ordered the seizure of the home where Barbara Rubio lived with her husband Orlando Cicilia. Prosecutors suspected the home was being used for activities that violated drug laws. Another property owned by the couple, located in what today is an office building, was also subject to seizure for the same reason.

Barbara Rubio was not arrested or indicted. Cicilia was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana belonging to a crime ring implicated in the death and dismemberment of a federal informant, as well as the bribing of several Miami police officers.

I know what you’re thinking. Rubio must have pulled some strings to keep his sister out of prison, right?

At the time, Marco Rubio, just 16 years old, was a student at South Miami High.

Wait, WTF? Are you fucking kidding me?

Is that going to be the new standard? “Are you related by blood or marriage to anyone who has ever committed a serious offense?

I’ll give you three guesses where this shit came from. (Hint: Who specializes in digging up and exposing dirt on political opponents and now controls the FBI and DOJ?)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Guilt by association

  1. WMCB says:

    Twenty five freaking YEARS ago??? This is going to backfire, bigtime.

    And this little tidbit from the earlier article myiq frontpaged is interesting in light of this being UniVision pushing the story:

    Over the last few months, Obama has met several times with Hispanic opinion-leaders, including news, radio and entertainment personalities

    Whatcha wanna bet part of the marching orders was “take down Rubio”?

    • Mary says:

      This is Plouffe and Axelrod “taking care of bidness,” just like did to Hillary. It’s so childish and transparent.


  2. ralphb says:

    This isn’t an attack that will work at all. This just makes Rubio’s stock rise in the community.

  3. yttik says:

    There’s a certain smell of desperation in the air.

    • ralphb says:

      That’s pathetic but not as pathetic as Randi Rhodes calling Bachmann “a freakin dwarf”…

      • yttik says:

        ROFL! That’s what I mean by the smell of desperation being in the air. People are just flailing about calling people ridiculous names, because they no longer have a moral leg to stand on.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Nice to see Wasserman-Schultz defended her. I worry about the safety of all of them since Giffords. If you can get close enough to throw glitter, you’re close enough to throw acid … or shoot a gun.

  4. ralphb says:

    Rubio is very very good at this game!

    • JeanLouise says:

      Rubio’s a good talker but the truth is that a return to Clinton era tax rates would very nearly wipe out the deficit. We don’t need another good talker who doesn’t tell the truth.

      Digging their heels in against any tax increase is irresponsible and elevates Grover Norquist to the head of the Republican Party.

      That said, what Rubio’s brother-in-law did when Rubio was a teenager is a non-story. It has nothing to do with his behavior.

      • WMCB says:

        I agree that a return to Clinton’s tax rates would be good. But you do realize, don’t you, that ALL income taxes were higher under Clinton than under Bush, right? Everyone making $30,000 and up paid more under Clinton. Clinton believed in progressive taxation, but he also believed in a broad tax base as well.

        Perhaps if that was what the current Dems were proposing, they might find more support. But they are not.

        • JeanLouise says:

          Yes, I know that. That’s exactly the sort of issue that should be on the table, not Social Security and Medicare. I don’t have a problem with a broad tax base. I think that people take more ownership of things that they pay for, no matter how little.

          I oppose putting old people who’ve spent their lives working and poor children who can’t work out on the street. Working people can make adjustments to their lifestyle. Those that live hand to mouth don’t have that choice.

          For the record, even though I’ve paid into it, I will not receive any Social Security benefits and the children in my family all have working parents. The GOP’s stance on this issue is wrong for the country.

      • Mary says:

        You really don’t have a clue how small businesses run, do you?

        • JeanLouise says:

          I know that small businesses aren’t going to do to well if the GOP implodes the economy with unrealistic demands.

        • Mary says:

          Translation: No, I don’t know anything about actually running a small business.

          Thank you for playing.

      • WMCB says:

        Also, Bill did not take office in the middle of a monumental recession. The economy was growing at a nice clip when he took office. Bill actually did what one is supposed to do, which is tax and sock away revenue during the good times, so you have some leeway to “take the pressure off” during bad times.

        Raising taxes in the middle of a depression is not going to have the same result as doing it during growth. It’s not as simple as “do what Clinton did”, because you are not facing the same circumstances that Bill did. If we were growing, I’d have no issue with returning to Clinton’s tax rates. I think we need to be cautious right now.

        • WMCB says:

          A good example of this is that Bill raised the capital gains tax during the tech boom. Raised tons of money. But when the economy stalled later in his tenure, he dropped the tax by 8%. That is how this is SUPPOSED to work. Not being married to some utopian ideology about taxes, but using them as mere practical tools. Dropping taxes can have both good and bad effects, as can raising them. A smart leader knows that, and how to get the best benefit depending on the economic situation.

          The R’s are not the only ones who view the economy through a stubborn ideological lens. The D’s do it as well. Obama actually said in a debate that he would not reduce the capital gains tax even if it increased revenue, because of “fairness”. Punishing the rich is more important than actually paying the bills. That’s just as freaking insane as “no more taxes, ever!”

        • JeanLouise says:

          If giving the rich more money created jobs, where are the jobs?

        • JeanLouise says:

          I remember when Obama said that and I thought it was stupid at the time. I’m not saying that there aren’t adjustments that shouldn’t be made to the tax code, including significant simplification of it, but holding the economy hostage to Grover Norquist’s idea of government is an abdication of responsiblilty on the part of Republicans just as making the social safety net part of the debt ceiling discussion is an abdication of responsiblity by any president, particularly one who ran as a Democrat.

        • WMCB says:

          JL, if you are going to challenge me to defend strawmen you’ve constructed for me then I’ll pass, thanks. If you’d like to offer a counterpoint to what I actually said in context, then I’ll be more than happy to engage.

        • WMCB says:

          I agree that SS and Medicare don’t need to be part of the debt ceiling/immediate cuts discussion. They do need to be part of a long-term fiscal responsibility and solvency discussion, but now in the middle of a crisis is not the time.

          And the republican base might not be so stubborn on the idea of tax increases if they had not been repeatedly burned by dems before. “We will okay tax increases now in return for real spending cuts somewhere down the road” always turns into “taxes got increased, but the spending just kept getting bigger and no cuts ever materialized in reality”. Do that to someone several times, and they get pretty damn “line in the sand” about your next offer. You keep framing it as “they are just selfish”, when the reality may just be “they don’t trust the fuckers to keep their word”.

          And I’m frankly mystified at how Grover Norquist came into this. Is he just a convenient evil symbol? It would be lovely if it were as simple as pinning it all on a not-much-liked windbag. But the conservative base that is pushing their politicos into holding the line on taxes could give a shit about Grover fucking Norquist. He’s not their leader.

          Most Americans, not just rabid conservatives, think the govt spends too damn much money. If your argument is going to be “frame them all as selfish bastards”, then you WILL lose this battle. If, however, the left took the first step, and actually did REAL spending cuts, they might be able to come back to the people and say: “Okay, we’ve proven that we were not just scamming you. But there’s still a big gap. And we can’t close it without some tax increases” At that point, all but the most ideological would likely be willing, because the govt showed a little good faith. .

          The American people are not in the mood to hand more money to a govt that has in the past shown no inclination whatsoever to use the money to get us onto sound fiscal footing. And that is both parties. They rightfully fear that this will be a repeat, the money will all be spent on yet more programs – and we will be right back where we are now in 4 years, with the govt having learned absolutely nothing, and with their hand out again.

          I’m in favor of higher taxes – I’ve already said that. But if we frame this as “You selfish fucking fucks are just fucking selfish!!!” we are GOING TO LOSE the argument. The public needs tangible contrition the part of their govt, reassurance and guarantees that they are not being played, and a recognition that their anger is entirely justified. You are not getting a thin dime out of them until you give them that. And they are saying to the govt – “This time YOU go first in being responsible, with no guarantees from me. Because that’s what you’ve repeatedly asked the taxpayer to do.”

        • Three Wickets says:

          Fact is 80% of the federal budget is medicare, social security, defense, debt service, so when we say spending out of control, these non discretionary areas are part of the equation. On the revenue side, our top marginal tax rate is 35% today, it was 70% during Reagan’s first term, even higher the decades before. The average *effective* corporate tax rate is around 25%, many of the largest companies pay less than 10%, some write-off enough and pay nothing. Our largest companies and high net worth individuals are sitting on $2.0 trillion or more in cash via the Fed/Treasury than they had before the financial collapse, and for the most part they’re not investing in our people and growth. That’s not even counting the additional trillions the largest banks are sitting on following the bailouts. So it’s a little difficult feeling sorry for the wealth class being burdened with too much taxes and too much regulation. Seriously.

      • ralphb says:

        What part of more people working brings in more taxes is not understandable? You must think he’s wrong when he says jobs are the number one problem we face. For the record, I don’t think that’s debatable.

        • votermom says:

          I agree. Unemployment is the problem. It would be worth getting into more debt in the short-term if it meant getting more jobs. But what the Obama WH is doing is getting into more debt and losing jobs at the same time. That’s what happens when the focus is siphoning money off to cronies.

      • ralphb says:

        A return to Clinton era tax rates with our current unemployment situation wouldn’t come near to wiping out the deficit. It might if we rolled spending back to 2008 levels first but wouldn’t even do it then.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    Here’s Marco himself trying to make me look bad for saying he should be the VP nominee:

    Rubio: I’m not going to be the Vice Presidential nominee

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

    • WMCB says:

      He did not say he would refuse. He basically said “I don’t think that’s gonna happen”, which could mean “I don’t think I’ll be asked” or whatever you want it to mean.

    • Three Wickets says:

      The way the electoral map looks, anyone who can take OH, FL, VA is a lock for next year’s general.

      • ralphb says:

        IMHO OH and FL are gone for Obama now. The GOP could run almost anyone. Conditions may change and YMMV.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    I gotta go stand outside Walmart and beg for money. I’ll be back in a few hours.

    You kids behave

  7. Erica says:

    Very slick smear on the part of 0 and co. They’ve got this down pat. Hope it explodes in their faces. They deserve it for dredging up something that’s decades old and has nothing to do with Rubio himself.

    Come to think of it, Obama himself may have indulged in some of Cicilia’s product. Wasn’t 0 a hip, disenfranchised toker? 6 degrees and all that.

    • Erica says:

      I acknowledge there’s no proof this is 0’s minions at work, but the play by play is identical to what he’s done in the past.

  8. Three Wickets says:

    The president narrates a myth about the creation of the world, and the end of it. Not sure what Dave Weigel and Slate are up to here, but this is weirdness.

  9. timothy2010 says:

    Bet Rubio could make some fine lemonade from this non-story. Strikes me as a testament to his character.

  10. DeniseVB says:

    The Rubio Family, sweet:

  11. angienc says:

    I have an uncle (my dad’s youngest brother — dad was 13 years old when he was born) who’s a CONVICTED felon. Drove the getaway car for a Rx robbery in the 70s (at least it wasn’t armed robbery, but whatevs). He did prison time too. I was 6 years old at the time. Somehow that incident with my uncle hasn’t defined me as a person, prevented my security clearance when I worked for my state’s Supreme Court (and yes, we had to go through a pretty extensive a back ground check for that). It is like it doesn’t have anything to do with me AT ALL. Funny.

    • Elliesmom says:

      If I’m going to be responsible for all of the shit that my brother’s first wife has gotten herself into, I’m just going to quit now. My paying for his divorce will probably get me put in jail along with her if anybody finds out outside the family. Just get the shovel, hit me over the head, and dig a hole. Or let me dig the hole for you first.

  12. catarina says:

    *If giving the rich more money created jobs, where are the jobs?*

    “giving the rich more money?”

    don’t you mean letting them keep the money that’s theirs?

Comments are closed.