As I previously said, based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. I'm guessing more will come out in the SDNY hearing today in terms of what the Trump administration is relying…
As I previously said, based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. I'm guessing more will come out in the SDNY hearing today in terms of what the Trump administration is relying upon, which remains somewhat unclear at the moment. I've tried to be careful to stick to what has been reported, and not speculate, while reminding people that his free speech rights are less than those of a US citizen.
Here's good run-down of the actual situation, what has actually happened, and what Khalil has, in fact, participated in. Notably absent is the distribution of pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. It was that assertion that concerned me. There may well be erroneous accusations or reports, particularly from right-wing outlets or the Trump admin itself.
Hard to know what the facts actually are at this point. As you note, Intelligencer is silent on the assertion he distributed pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. On the other hand, the NY Post is reporting that the White House is claiming he "organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas." The NY Post piece also shows a particular flyer with Sinwar's image and an automatic weapon and the words "Sometimes-history needs a . . . flood" which seems an unambiguous reference to the Hamas attack of October 7 (the "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"), and the claim it was "allegedly distributed by Khalil." I'm skeptical of both the Trump administration and the Murdoch owned NY Post. On the other hand. Intelligencer is a left of center publication IMHO and may be minimizing some of his conduct. It also begs the question as to what Khalil's knowledge was about the dissemination of that flyer (which to me seems clearly supportive of Hamas's Oct. 7 attack). Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to that flyer, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen. See https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/ (again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate).
This is no "left media", there is no "right media".
There is simply media that is willing to lie, exaggerate, credulously run IDF talking points, minimize, justify, and euphemise for Zionism, and media that will not.
For example: the "left" MSNBC is just as willing as the "right" NYP to do all these things for Zionism.
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.
As I previously said, based on the reporting I've seen so far it seems the case against Khalil primarily relates to his distribution of pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah literature during the Barnard College sit-in/protests last week. I'm guessing more will come out in the SDNY hearing today in terms of what the Trump administration is relying upon, which remains somewhat unclear at the moment. I've tried to be careful to stick to what has been reported, and not speculate, while reminding people that his free speech rights are less than those of a US citizen.
Here's good run-down of the actual situation, what has actually happened, and what Khalil has, in fact, participated in. Notably absent is the distribution of pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. It was that assertion that concerned me. There may well be erroneous accusations or reports, particularly from right-wing outlets or the Trump admin itself.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-student-pro-palestine-activist-what-we-know.html
Hard to know what the facts actually are at this point. As you note, Intelligencer is silent on the assertion he distributed pro-Hamas/Hezbollah materials. On the other hand, the NY Post is reporting that the White House is claiming he "organized group protests that not only disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish-American students and made them feel unsafe on their own college campus, but also distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas." The NY Post piece also shows a particular flyer with Sinwar's image and an automatic weapon and the words "Sometimes-history needs a . . . flood" which seems an unambiguous reference to the Hamas attack of October 7 (the "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood"), and the claim it was "allegedly distributed by Khalil." I'm skeptical of both the Trump administration and the Murdoch owned NY Post. On the other hand. Intelligencer is a left of center publication IMHO and may be minimizing some of his conduct. It also begs the question as to what Khalil's knowledge was about the dissemination of that flyer (which to me seems clearly supportive of Hamas's Oct. 7 attack). Without a more developed record, I'll have to wait and see. If the gov't is able to tie him directly to that flyer, they may have a stronger case than I originally thought, given Hamas's designation as a terrorist organization and the fact that he is a green card holder, not a US citizen. See https://nypost.com/2025/03/11/us-news/mahmoud-kalil-columbia-anti-israel-agitator-being-deported-over-pro-hamas-flyers-white-house/ (again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate).
This is no "left media", there is no "right media".
There is simply media that is willing to lie, exaggerate, credulously run IDF talking points, minimize, justify, and euphemise for Zionism, and media that will not.
For example: the "left" MSNBC is just as willing as the "right" NYP to do all these things for Zionism.
The NYP? Seriously? Did you say you're a lawyer?
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.