By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Nearly 40 years ago, Orlando Cicilia, a Cuban immigrant, was convicted for his role in a major South Florida drug ring, storing cocaine in his home and smuggling it across the US. Cicilia was a key figure in the operation, led by Mario Tabraue. Cicilia served just under 12 years of a 35-year sentence before being released. His connection to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his brother-in-law, has become a point of controversy amid the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies and the deportation of immigrants with drug offenses. In 2002, Rubio helped Cicilia obtain a real estate license, recommending approval to the Florida Division of Real Estate.
Read the original article here
A Reminder That Marco Rubio’s Brother-in-Law Was a Prolific Cocaine Trafficker
Let’s be frank: the fact that Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law was deeply involved in the cocaine trade is something that tends to resurface, and for good reason. It’s a detail that, once you learn it, sticks with you. It raises questions, no matter which side of the political spectrum you might be on. We often hear about the connections between politicians and various shady characters, but this particular association hits a little differently because of the sheer scale of the brother-in-law’s alleged activities.
Now, before we go any further, it’s worth stating clearly that this isn’t about blaming Rubio for the actions of a family member. Nobody is suggesting he should be held responsible for what his brother-in-law did. The core issue, however, revolves around the optics, the perception, and the potential for a double standard. After all, politicians are constantly under scrutiny, and for good reason. Their actions, their associations, and their statements are all dissected, analyzed, and debated. When a close family member is involved in something as serious as large-scale drug trafficking, it inevitably casts a shadow.
We should also keep in mind that the brother-in-law’s alleged actions occurred during a particularly turbulent period for drug trafficking. Miami, in the 1980s and 90s, was a hotbed of drug-related activity. It was a time when fortunes were made, and lives were lost, amidst the chaos. The fact that Rubio’s brother-in-law was allegedly operating within this environment adds another layer of complexity to the story.
The issue isn’t so much about guilt by association; it’s about the potential for influence and the appearance of impropriety. Even if there’s no direct evidence linking Rubio to his brother-in-law’s activities, the association raises questions about access, awareness, and the potential for conflicts of interest. The fact that the brother-in-law’s activities reportedly involved a significant amount of money further intensifies the need for scrutiny.
It’s also important to remember the context of Rubio’s own background and political career. He’s been involved in politics for a long time, and he’s risen through the ranks. That means he has cultivated a network of connections, which is natural in any political environment. But those connections can also be subject to examination. When you have a family member involved in such a high-stakes illegal enterprise, it naturally raises eyebrows.
The narrative could also be influenced by how the media frames this information. The terminology used is important. “Prolific” is the word that sticks out. It’s marked by abundant inventiveness or productivity and is a very positive way to portray his brother-in-law’s actions. It would be more accurate to use a more appropriate word such as “Multi-Million Dollar,” “Major,” “Nefarious,” “Harmful,” “Baneful,” or “Big Time”.
Another angle to consider is the hypocrisy or double standards that might be perceived. The fact that the Trump administration has deported many immigrants who have committed far less severe crimes compared to the brother-in-law, who remains in proximity to Rubio, points to perceived inconsistencies in the application of the law. If that’s the case, it’s understandable that people will be asking questions.
Ultimately, whether this matters in the grand scheme of things depends on individual perspectives. Some might argue that it’s irrelevant, that Rubio shouldn’t be judged for the actions of his family. Others will argue that it’s another piece of a larger puzzle, a reminder of the complex web of relationships that often surrounds politicians. It’s also possible that this is just another example of how the media can be manipulated to influence political discourse. However, regardless of where you stand, it’s a detail that adds another dimension to the ongoing discussion about Marco Rubio.