The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Back in the United States
The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.

Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia—illegally deported by the Trump Administration to imprisonment in El Salvador without any due process—is now back in the US. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration had to "facilitate" his return, the administration repeatedly insisted they had no power to do so, and otherwise verged on defying court orders. But as Trump admitted, in reality the administration could have secured his return any time they wanted to. Salvadoran President Nayeb Bukele was keeping Abrego Garcia in prison only because of arrangement with Trump, under which the US paid him to detain Garcia and hundreds of other migrants deported without due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act are also victims of an illegal invocation of that law (see my recent amicus brief on that subject); most have never been convicted of any crime, and many (possibly a majority) entered the US legally.
As the Abrego Garcia case shows, Trump could easily return these people to the United States simply by asking the Salvadoran government to release them, and making clear he means it. Courts should tolerate no more excuses on that subject!
The outcome of this case also shows that the administration is susceptible to judicial and political pressure, even in the immigration field. The lawyers, activists, and others who pursued this matter—initially against seemingly insurmountable odds—deserve great credit. The rest of us should learn from their success, and build on it.
ABC reports that Abrego Garcia will now face charges for supposed involvement in a scheme to illegally transport "thousands" of undocumented migrants. We shall see whether those charges have any merit. Perhaps I am too cynical. But I suspect that if the Administration actually had strong evidence of extensive illegal activity by Abrego Garcia, they would have revealed it a long time ago, rather than keep on suffering legal and PR setbacks. The prosecution may be a face-saving maneuver. We shall see when it gets to court. At any rate, even a possibly questionable prosecution in a court with proper due process is far better than deportation to imprisonment with no due process at all.
Elsewhere, I have argued that the sort of activity Abrego Garcia is charged with should not be a crime at all, because most of our immigration restrictions are unconstitutional and deeply unjust. But even those who differ with me on these points have reason to oppose deportation without due process, especially when it is deportation to imprisonment, of the kind inflicted on Abrego Garcia and hundreds of others.
If left unchecked, such policies can become a tool for deporting and imprisoning anyone the administration chooses to target, including even legal immigrants and US citizens. As prominent conservative Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson pointed out in his concurring opinion in the Abrego Garcia case:
The facts of this case thus present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done. It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.
The best way to decisively close that loophole is for courts—and the rest of us—to compel the return of all those illegally deported without due process, and ensure that such a thing can never happen again.
UPDATE: ABC reports that a high-ranking prosecutor in the Nashville, Tennnessee US attorney's office, where Abrego Garcia will be tried, recently resigned because he believes the indictment against Abrego Garcia was brought for political reasons. That doesn't definitively prove the charges are bogus. But it should heighten our suspicions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Annnnnnd … he’s been indicted.
He might soon wish that he was in El Salvador.
Why would he rather be in a Salvadoran concentration camp as opposed to an American prison?
Because the track record of staying alive in CECOT regardless of the conditions is far greater than in a US prison.
How do you figure that?
CECOT is way more competent than USBOP.
E.g. Whitey Bulger, Jeffrey Epstein, etc…
What exactly do you think you know about CECOT?
Maybe he could file a habeas corpus petition to the El Salvador court and get out.
Evidently he wasnt actually in CECOT before.
The irony is that if convicted, he might actually go there for his prison sentence. No easy American prison for him!
If the man is worried about retaliation for his crimes – way more gang activity in US prisons.
Because he has been indicted for human trafficking, many of his victims were minors and females at the time, and he will ultimately be placed in Gen Pop, where human traffickers of, esp, kids don’t live very long.
Besides, the only way for him not to spend the rest of the time he spends in this country outside jail/prison is when the Dems retake the White House and reverse Trump’s immigration policies. That’s at least 3 1/2 years out, and likely 7 1/2 years. The Executive Branch obtained an order of deportation. He was not deported due to a Biden Administration policy, that’s been reversed by Trump. He’s been determined to be a member of a criminal gang, by the Article II with jurisdiction, and that determination has been has been affirmed by an appeals court. That determination was key to him not having been deported. Instead, he got Temporary Protected Status, based on his alleged fear of death at the hands of a gang. Except that TPS hold was Biden Policy, reversed by Trump. Plus, there is evidence that the gang he supposedly feared has been d3stroyed by the new government in ES.
Even if he can keep his TPS (I think unlikely), it won’t help him, since the determination whether to allow aliens with orders of deportation to bail out of prison/jail is discretionary on the part of the Executive. And if it goes to a hearing, the DOJ just has to trot out the evidence of his human trafficking, while protected by the TPS program.
He has not. Boy are you people gullible. The Inflation Reduction Act was not about reducing inflation, the USA PATRIOT Act was not about patriotism, and “human trafficking” is not human trafficking. He was indicted for driving aliens around. That’s it.
You omitted “illegal” aliens.
Why?
“driving aliens around sounds so inocent “
Well, if he is acquitted, we can always deport him somewhere besides El Salvador. South Sudan is probably lovely.
His final deportation order is very much still active.
Cynicism of the Trump Administration on this matter is quite well earned. He won’t be back!
We can’t bring him back! Look at his tattoo! Oh, wait, here’s something else. Deport (wrongly) first, find a reason after.
The guy should be back with his family.
The guy was found to be a criminal by the immigration judge *who issued a deportation order* – the only ‘illegal’ thing was the order included a restriction to not be deported to El Salvador.
However the situation on the ground changed between the time the order was issued and then our ‘Maryland man’ was deported.
The deportation was not illegal, it was an administrative error where the state failed to seek a review of the restriction on the original order.
Cops are given a free pass (‘good faith error’) in far more egregious situations than trying to protect an admitted member of a violent gang from potential retribution by other members of that gang.
1) That’s not a thing; and
2) No, he wasn’t.
“Oops, we forgot to follow the law” does not actually make an unlawful act, lawful.
I don’t know why MAGA feel the need to lie, other than that it’s impossible to tell the truth and be MAGA. He was not an “admitted member of” anything. Even if you’re dumb enough to believe a photoshopped picture, that’s still not an “admission.” At no point has Abrego Garcia ever “admitted” anything, other than being in the country without authorization.
+100
Actually, the immigration judge made the error in the with holding order by inserting Guatemala, instead of El Salvador. Hence, the reason why Garcia was sent to El Salvador. Due to changing circumstances, it amounts to pure harmless error. The main point here is a Article III court has no jurisdiction over an El Salvador citizen in the custody of the El Salvador government. Moreover, a Article III court cannot order the US government to exercise its diplomatic powers. They remain exclusively within Article II jurisdiction. There cleared up your misunderstanding of the facts and law. Your welcome!
That is not in fact the main point. The main point is that an Article III court has jurisdiction over the U.S. government.
Limited authority. It’s that pesky Separation of Powers issue. For example, the federal courts have very limited authority over the conduct of foreign policy. And the US Supreme Court reminded the lower court of just that, in their decision on Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Thats part of the reason that they distinguished between “facilitate” and “effectuate” in terms of what the judge could order. Yet, the judge threatened contempt when the US govt didn’t produce him. Maybe one way to view this is that he can/could order AG Bondi to do what she could, but couldn’t order President Trump, SecState Rubio, or SecDef Hegseth to do whatever they could.
And, in the end, she did what she could: the DOJ built a case against Garcia, got a federal grand jury to indict him on two felony counts, then took that indictment to the government of El Salvador, requesting extradition, which was granted. And she was likely convinced them that Garcia would be deported back to El Salvador after he served his sentence here, or was acquitted (with the indictment and the facts underlying it, sufficient to make Garcia ineligible for Withheld Removal status).
No. Do not send him back to El Salvador. Do what his Dem boos want — send him to South Sudan. That place is NOT El Salvador and that was the issue, it seems.
He can be back with his family , but it shouldn’t be in the United States.
Maybe, maybe not. But now the law will dictate if he stays rather than the whim of ICE.
Not going to happen. With his record and the evidence behind the indictment, he won’t be bailable. Moreover, it’s likely that it will kill his Withholding Removal status. Which means that when he either serves his prison term, or is acquitted, he’ll be deported right back to El Salvador. Unless he can convince Guatemala (where he lived before the US and where his family lives) or Mexico (from which he entered the US) to take him.
BTW, what’s ambiguous in the 10/19/19 ruling that gave him that status, it was not clear which country he couldn’t be deported to. He’s native to, and a citizen of, El Salvador, but the judge ended his decision talking about the dangers of deporting him to Guatemala. Then didn’t specify which country he couldn’t be deported to. A rival gang (Barrio 18) apparently chased the family from their native El Salvador to Guatemala, and continued their extortion of the family business there.
Then don’t be a member of a criminal gang. It astounds me that regular people don’t have the right to immigrate to the United States, but join a criminal gang and come here illegally and you cannot be deported because their might be harm that comes to you because of your illegal actions.
This whole affair is puzzling. The argument for immigration was rather strong previously. Pedro just wants a better life for his family and he is willing to come here and do jobs that Americans don’t want to do. He is a sympathetic figure. These guys are not at all sympathetic. If you want to change immigration laws don’t tether your horse to guys like Garcia. Nobody wants someone like him to live in this country.
He claims that he isn’t a member of a criminal gang, and there hasn’t been concrete evidence presented that he is a member of a criminal gang.
I don’t think anyone is trying to hitch their wagon to Garcia. Rather, people will fight for someone who they think is being oppressed in violation of the law. Its why lawyers fight for people on death row. That doesn’t happen because they are perceived as being nice people.
He admitted being a criminal gang member in 2019. That’s why he claimed he couldn’t go back to El Salvador.
Plus they found him outside a Home Depot hanging out with known gang members, with currency in his pocket consistent with gang members, and yes, with tattoos consistent with being a gang member.
So other than all the evidence in the world, plus his own admission, there is no evidence that he is a gang member.
I don’t know if you’re stupid or dishonest or both, but he did no such thing. At any point. Ever. That is not why he claimed he couldn’t go back to El Salvador.
Any real lawyer would know that “consistent with” is a joke that means nothing. Eating Cheerios is “consistent with” being a gang member. So is wearing underwear, owning a phone, and watching TV. None of those indicate being a gang member, and neither do having random tattoos (of the non-photoshopped variety), carrying a week’s salary in cash, or standing in a parking lot.
I see you’re still a “lawyer” who has trouble with the concept of evidence.
You are big on personal insults but light on experience. When did you try a case before a jury?
You want to set up a divide and conquer strategy. Sure, one piece of evidence might MIGHT be coincidental but when taken together they add up to a jury.
So maybe you were just outside of Home Depot having a conversation with a stranger. Unbeknownst to you, the friendly citizen you thought was just looking at lawn mowers turned out to be an MS-13 gang member. Never happened to me, but you just got unlucky that day.
But you also had currency with the eyes of the faces colored out. And another guy said that you were MS-13. And you have tattoos that indicate gang membership. Are you illegally in the country? Does that all happen to you? Do I not understand how evidence works?
Apparently you do not. Or maybe he is just an unlucky victim of circumstances. What do you believe a jury might think?
And then he says “Judge, don’t send me to El Salvador. A rival gang might kill me.” The judge agrees and orders that he not be sent to El Salvador because he might be killed by rival gang members. But that is also a troubling coincidence. See he was protecting his mother.
How many troubling circumstances must you see before you conclude the obvious facts?
No.
Joe,
They can visit him in prison.
No, the administration did not claim it could not do so. It claimed no court could compel it to do so, in part because it was something beyond administration’s authority to accomplish unilaterally, AKA a matter of foreign relations requiring the cooperation of another sovereign it did not command.
Honestly embarrassing to read that from a competent attorney. Just a flat-out refusal to engage with the actual facts of the case.
This is the kind of stuff that authors at the Volokh Conspiracy used to make fun of. Now it’s almost expected.
So very many people are proving themselves to be unreliable fools.
I know lots of folks are taking notes… as fast as everything is happening, you have to if you want to avoid hiring, working for, or breathing near one of them in the future.
Well, if the court had jurisdiction over conduct of foreign relations, then the Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have cautioned the trial court from intruding there. NOEM v. ABREGO GARCIA, No. 24A949, April 10, 2025:
If your understanding of the law were correct, then SCOTUS probably would have said that the district court could not do that, rather than just telling the district court to clarify its order, and probably would have said ‘lacked jurisdiction’ rather than ‘deference.’
You are wrong.
Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-CV-00951-PX, 2025 WL 1014261 (D. Md. 2025) (“The Defendants’ redressability argument, simply put, is that their placement of Abrego Garcia in an El Salvadoran prison deprives them of any power to return him. Thus, they say, even if Abrego Garcia succeeds on the merits, Defendants are powerless to get him back.”).
Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1345, 2025 WL 1021113 (4th Cir. 2025) (Thacker, J., concurring) (“The Government avers that it no longer has authority over Abrego Garcia after it placed him in Salvadoran custody. But as the district court explained, the Government has not provided any evidence to support its claim that it lacks the authority to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.”).
J.G.G. v. Trump, No. CV 25-766 (JEB), 2025 WL 1577811 (D.D.C. 2025) (“Michael G. Kozak, who serves as the Senior Bureau Official with the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department . . . avers that ‘the detention and ultimate disposition of those detained in CECOT and other Salvadoran detention facilities are matters within the legal authority of El Salvador in accordance with its domestic and international legal obligations.'”).
You say that they are incorrect – and then post three excerpts that support their assertion.
Is English your native language? MaddogE and JonBlack said that the administration didn’t say that it couldn’t get him back. Kord posted evidence that the administration did say that it couldn’t get him back. So MaddogE and JonBlack were wrong.
The administration did not get him back.
They asked nicely if El Salvador would do so.
Still not wrong, because the context of “couldn’t get him back” was on the government’s exclusive authority, like releasing him from domestic custody. The administration did not make an absolute epistemological declaration, like he was lost in another dimension of spacetime and therefore out of reach.
Having to ask El Salvador for its cooperation made it beyond the government’s power. It was impossible for the government to get him back, because they would have to ask for that cooperation which might not be granted, and no court could order it to ask in the first place. Perhaps a legal fiction, but the ultimate decider was El Salvador, not the United States.
I would have thought that people who play at being lawyers would understand such distinctions. If it was within the power of a court to order, a court would have already set a deadline for his return and threaten sanctions for a failure to comply. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court forbade.
the context of “couldn’t get him back” was on the government’s exclusive authority, like releasing him from domestic custody
Nope. The context was functional, not your artificial parsing.
You’re lying, but I think mostly to yourself.
The administration did not make an absolute epistemological declaration, like he was lost in another dimension of spacetime and therefore out of reach.
Maybe one of the weirder strawmen I’ve seen. The administration (and you claimed inability. That was a lie.
Having to ask El Salvador for its cooperation made it beyond the government’s power
Asking for things is well within the power of a government.
It was impossible
Getting epistemological here….
I would have thought that people who play at being lawyers would understand such distinctions.
Your mix of strawmen and moving goalposts has failed to actually create any concrete distinction.
If it was within the power of a court to order, a court would have already set a deadline for his return and threaten sanctions for a failure to comply.
You seem quite certain of this, with zero experience or special knowledge.
That’s exactly what the Supreme Court forbade.
That was not the Court’s holding.
Prof. Adler’s summary shows what the actual holding was. It wasn’t good for the Administration:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/10/supreme-court-upholds-order-telling-trump-administration-to-facilitate-return-of-armando-abrego-garcia-from-el-salvador/
All I see is you trying to defend your past statements and self-image.
It’s not going very well.
Is it “beyond my power” to rent a car because I “have to ask” Hertz for one?
The Supreme Court forbade nothing. Did you read its opinion?
If Hertz says no – are you gonna invade? Because you really mean it?
No invasion was required, turns out. So your hypothetical is just off topic weirdness.
“Is it “beyond my power” to rent a car because I “have to ask” Hertz for one?”
It is actually a good analogy. Hertz has the power to deny you service for any reason or no reason (except for protected characteristics). Just because we could likely assume that Hertz would rent you a car, assuming you are properly licensed and insured, are above a certain age, don’t have a bad driving history, etc. it doesn’t give you a right to affirmatively demand a car.
A court ordering you to get a car from Hertz would be directing you to do something that you have no right to demand.
I have every right to demand it. The first amendment gives me such a right. Of course, Hertz in turn can reject my demand, but that in no way means that I don’t have the right to demand it, and absolutely in no way means I can tell the court “No” if it issues such an order.
Did you read the opinion?
“As the Abrego Garcia case shows, Trump could easily return these people to the United States simply by asking the Salvadoran government to release them, and making clear he means it. Courts should tolerate no more excuses on that subject!”
You want the courts to order Trump to mean it? How would that work?
It is a defense to a contempt charge for violating a court order that one was unable to comply. But in order for that defense to be successful, one must show that one tried in good faith to comply.
Gee, Judge, I really tried to mean it…
It’s telling that you think it ridiculous that the US President should actually want to follow the law.
A pardon of all people and usage of prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute anybody held in contempt by those judges would end the process quite nicely.
You don’t get it. Fundamentally, the Judiciary can order the DOJ to do a lot things, but cannot interfere with the operation of the State and Defense departments, in their primary missions. This is Separation of Powers 101. I quoted earlier, in response to one of your comments, the section of the Supreme Court decision warning the district court not to interfere in the conduct of foreign relations.
That’s very likely why the Supreme Court told the district court that they could order the Executive Branch to “facilitate” bringing Garcia back, but “effectuating” was maybe too much. AG Bondi could indict Garcia for multiple felonies, and get him back through extradition. That’s “facilitating”. But dropping the 82nd Airborne on the prison he was being held in would have been “effectuating” his return, and that was going too far. Similarly with cutting off foreign aid to the country until he was returned.
The term effectuate is problematic because it basically means “make it happen”. But if El Salvador doesn’t want to give him back, then the US might have to use the military to bring him back to the US. Obviously a court can’t order that to happen. So facilitate is better because it only required to DOJ to try to get him back.
TDS, that is all that needs to be said
he was brought back because they got an indictment and an arrest warrant for him.
I don’t really expect spin from a law professor.
It’s Somin.
I guess Ilya hasn’t been paying attention:
“We shall see whether those charges have any merit. Perhaps I am too cynical. But I suspect that if the Administration actually had strong evidence of extensive illegal activity by Abrego Garcia, they would have revealed it a long time ago, rather than keep on suffering legal and PR setbacks.”
Just what on the in body cam footage was enough to support an indictment.
I’m pretty sure I’m correct but if I’m not someone can correct me, but GJ proceedings are secret, and it sounds like there was a lot of evidence, so it was a long one investigation, they can’t talk about the evidence in the indictment before it’s unsealed.
but GJ proceedings are secret, and it sounds like there was a lot of evidence,
If the grand jury proceedings are secret why do you think there was a lot of evidence?
To me, if there was a lot of evidence the prosecutor wouldn’t have resigned because he thought it was a politically driven prosecution.
Either way, it sounds like a key piece of evidence here is a jailhouse informant. It’s a not unlikely scenario that an existing inmate figured they could shorten their sentence by falsely implicating Garcia in a bunch of stuff and the DOJ was happy to play along.
“To me, if there was a lot of evidence the prosecutor wouldn’t have resigned because he thought it was a politically driven prosecution.”
Activists quitting because they are pissy is quite a unique phenomenon.
A career prosecutor is not normally considered an activist.
There are also voluminous cell phone cell tower records, going back for years, showing Garcia regularly going back and forth, mostly between TX and MD. That’s a huge number of records to dig through.
Nothing. As I noted, it has to be based on the bought testimony of the guy in prison.
You think that is not enough evidence to convict someone? I’ve got a hundred guys in prison based on co-defendant bought and paid for testimony.
No, he just likes to assert things based on really awful logic — see also below. The indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of making over a hundred human-trafficking trips, but Nieporent really wants us to believe the serial domestic abuser, MS-13-member, large-scale human trafficker is Saint Kilmar.
What’s that third word there?
Yes, and the indictment was issued by a grand jury. Who saw the evidence. This isn’t like the Trump cases where Smith and Bratt likely got their indictments by selectively excluding critical evidence to their grand juries, since if the grand jury here said in their indictment over 100 trips, there is likely evidence in the evidence they saw of over 100 trips.
No, it’s like the Abrego Garcia indictments where Bondi and her flunkies likely lied to the grand jury.
Remind me never to hire you as my lawyer. Both because you don’t seem to do a very good job representing your clients and because you don’t read: I didn’t say that the manufactured testimony wouldn’t be sufficient for a conviction; I literally said exactly the opposite: that it would be necessary for a conviction, because the body cam footage by itself is meaningless.
Feeling is mutual. Luckily, you can’t hire me, because I’m retired.
While I don’t think anything of your legal acumen or honesty, that comment was directed as wvattorney, not you.
So now we’re doubting the veracity of federal grand juries?
It’s like the whiplash between:
1. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism
2. Dissent is racist
The earliest recent boundary of course being the change of administration from George W Bush to Barrack Obama.
WTF are you talking about? Who accused a grand jury, federal or otherwise, of lying?
You essentially did by highlighting the word “accuses”.
You essentially do not understand our legal system.
1) A grand jury decides whether there’s probable cause, not whether someone is guilty.
2) A grand jury’s accusation is based on the evidence presented to it by a prosecutor.
Nothing on the body cam footage reflected any crime beyond a traffic offense.
Couple the body cam footage with the owner of the vehicle’s admission that he was transporting illegals all over the country. Garcia worked for the owner of the vehicle that is already convicted of human trafficing. I know it is hard for some of you to connect the dots.
Connect the “dots” ?
he is pretending the ‘dots’ dont exist
They have his GPS and phone records showing his travels from Texas to Maryland. And also his call to a known gang member during the traffic stop. He was never in St Louis as he said on the body cam. I encourage you to read the actual indictment. People are rotting in prison based on a lot less evidence.
1) An indictment is not evidence.
2) Some of what you wrote isn’t in the indictment at all.
3) Nobody is in prison based on nothing more than records showing that he traveled around the country.
4) None of what you said is responsive to my statement, which is that what’s on the body cam footage did not reflect a crime.
Its all in the indictment. What’s on the body cam is proof of human smuggling: the passengers in the car were not “workers.”
I know, I know. Garcia is just an innocent man caught up in the outrageous Trump deportation machine!
Can you explain what, in the video, shows that they weren’t workers? Also, why do you think that “human smuggling” and them being workers is incompatible anyway?
3 assertions; no support.
1) An indictment is not evidence.
Technically, it is evidence, just not admissible evidence. It’s evidence because it is presumably based on evidence seen by the grand jury. It increases or decreases the likelihood that a fact (that D is guilty of human trafficking, etc) is true. One reason that it’s not admissible is because it is Hearsay.
3) Nobody is in prison based on nothing more than records showing that he traveled around the country.
Well, you can’t say that. You have no way of knowing that. You are just assuming it. Maybe just the 100+ trips back and forth don’t prove that he was a human trafficker, beyond a reasonable doubt, but doing so along with (other) human traffickers does strongly suggest his guilt.
4) None of what you said is responsive to my statement, which is that what’s on the body cam footage did not reflect a crime.
“Reflect” is the problematic word there. It implies certainty. Essentially, you are requiring a smoking gun. “Suggest”, or maybe even “Strongly suggest” may be more accurate. And that’s how a lot of cases are built, by string together a number of “suggests” and “strongly suggests”. And when the coincidences required for the alternative conclusion accumulate enough, you hopefully have overcome the Reasonable Doubt threshold.
1) Reflect does not imply certainty.
2) Do you understand that crimes have elements that must be established? And that without establishing all of those elements, there’s no crime? And that the body cam video by itself doesn’t come close to showing any elements other than driving? (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that the accusations can’t be proven with the addition of other evidence, such as the testimony of alleged co-conspirators. I am saying no more than what I said: that the body cam footage does not establish any crimes.)
You want to lob personal insults but it seems that as a client you would have unreasonable expectations. That body cam video was incredibly incriminating. I don’t know why you believe it only reflects a traffic offense. As a client, you would be in incredible trouble based upon that video.
You neglected to specify any particulars about what on the video was so incredibly incriminating.
It is head scratching that anyone has to explain it. The officer at the end told his buddy what was going on. He could testify that based on his knowledge and experience that Garcia’s actions had the indicia of human trafficking.
Do you feel it is normal and non-criminal behavior to be in the country illegally and drive 2,000 miles and add an extra row of seats in your van to transport 9 guys from Texas to Maryland? Were they just his friends going to Ocean City to have a few beers on the beach?
Maybe you wouldn’t hire me as a lawyer but good luck getting one who could explain that away.
You climbed down from ‘incredibly incriminating’ to ‘office could testify there were indicia of human trafficking’
Then you added a vibes check followed by a failure of imagination to explain what was going on.
This weak nonsense is about what I expected.
You may not be aware, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal proceeding; the defense doesn’t need to explain anything.
And does the body cam video depict any of those things? (I like how people swallow the “add an extra row of seats” thing w/o questioning. A third row of seats comes standard on a Suburban.) It depicts nine guys traveling in a vehicle. Where they came from, whether they were here legally or not, and what they were doing of course is not there.
If you want to argue that the video raises suspicions, fine. But proves a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? Without establishing that any of the passengers in the SUV were undocumented — and obviously the video does not depict that — you’ve got no evidence of any crime at all.
I do this for a living and I am well aware of the standard of proof in a criminal case. I would say that if you came to my office with that evidence against you and I blithely asserted that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be guilty of malpractice.
The jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences based upon their observation of the facts. Garcia gets convicted 99 times out of 100 in any court I have ever been in. Once the government puts on a prima facie case, a jury expects to hear something from your side.
I know you didn’t hear that in your eighth grade civics class or on your podcast, but that’s how it works in the real world.
Said much better than I could. But then, as is obvious from my comments, I rarely practiced anything approaching Criminal Law. I expect, from his comments, that David is in a similar position.
Hmmm…
https://bsky.app/profile/philinvestigates.com/post/3lqxuthbf6c2w
I don’t see how, if the evidence is correct, and the guy has done all they said he did, it’s a political prosecution.
if for example before the election Trump was indicted for the same things this guy is alleged to have done, I’m not calling that a political prosecution.
There is certain level of criminality when those considerations become irrelevant.
As I wrote on the open thread, I anticipate that there will be a pretrial motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution in retaliation for the accused’s exercise of his constitutional right of access to the federal courts. A criminal prosecution which would not have been initiated but for vindictiveness is constitutionally prohibited. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27-28 (1974); Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2000).
The defense to which would be to show the corrupt failure to prosecute earlier — hence the Schrader resignation.
What admissible evidence do you have that this prosecution is vindictive? That we just know that Trump is orange man bad?
The government will bring up the obvious counterfactual: Just because your case is high profile doesn’t mean that you have purchased immunity from your criminal acts that a grand jury found probable cause to believe you committed.
The obvious implication is that the evidence is not correct, and that’s why he believes it’s a political prosecution.
I don’t see how, if the evidence is correct, and the guy has done all they said he did, it’s a political prosecution.
Gee. I wonder if there’s a way, some kind of process, that would let us find out if all that’s true.
Guess not, so we have to take Trump’s word.
Replying to add Ben Schrader’s statement, which I found compelling: “It has been an incredible privilege to serve as a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, where the only job description I’ve ever known is to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.”
I am speculating here, but if as I predict there will be a defense motion to dismiss for prosecutorial vindictiveness, I would not be at all surprised to see Mr. Schrader called by the defense as a supporting witness.
There is a good group of District Court judges in the Middle District of Tennessee.
that motion if made is going to be denied, zero chance. I don’t even think this would even constitute vindictiveness within meaning of those cases. This is not a case where he was charged with something lesser and then bumped up after an appeal. Furthermore, from the day one, the executive has accused the defendant of being a major human trafficker. people have said there was no evidence, that the government decided to use that information to get an indictment and use the indictment as evidence can’t be said to be vindictive.
I will say he is probably only being prosecuted because those democratic senator kept saying there was no evidence of wrong doing, so but for the senator he would be probably be free living in El Salvador at some point, now he is facing a massive prison sentence here if convicted, and probably a lengthy detention in El Salvador if he is convicted here, since they will probably decide he is a Gang member if is convicted of human trafficking here. friends like those
The senator did him no favors for sure.
False. From day one (measuring not from the day of deportation but from the date that they had to try to publicly justify it) they argued he was MS-13; the trafficking thing came weeks later, after the Tennessee Star post about the traffic stop.
Are you unfamiliar with CECOT?
Of course, he is almost assuredly MS-13. Maybe not in 2019, when he was granted Withheld Removal status. He might have just been a wanna be MS-13 member back then. But when he was arrested and deported? Very likely. Likely, because the evidence the grand jury saw apparently was that he regularly hung out with MS-13 gang members and regularly drive back and forth with them, across the country, most often, it appears, between TX and MD. Over 100 times.
Prosecutorial vindictiveness is indeed hard to prove. As I wrote on the open thread, a defendant may establish prosecutorial vindictiveness through one of two approaches. First, a defendant may demonstrate “actual vindictiveness,” i.e., he may establish through objective evidence that a prosecutor acted in order to punish the defendant for standing on his legal rights. This showing, however, is “exceedingly difficult to make.” Bragan v. Poindexter, 249 F.3d 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2000), quoting United States v. Meyer, 810 F.2d 1242, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Second, a defendant may establish that, in the particular factual situation presented, there existed a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” for the prosecutor’s action. A court may only presume an improper vindictive motive when a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists. The accused must establish that (1) the prosecutor has “some stake” in deterring the accused’s exercise of his rights and (2) the prosecutor’s conduct was somehow “unreasonable.” Id., at 481-482.
Once a court has found that a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness exists, the government bears the burden of disproving it or justifying the challenged governmental action. In the Sixth Circuit, “only objective, on-the-record explanations can suffice to rebut a finding of realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.” Id., at 482, quoting United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 456 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied by, Brooks v. United States, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).
The federal government was on notice of the traffic stop of Abrego Garcia since November 30, 2022, the day of the stop. The DOJ did not indict until May 21, 2025. A 16 year veteran of the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Middle District of Tennessee, chief of the criminal division, announced his resignation on that day. ABC News reports:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mistakenly-deported-kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-face/story?id=121333122
Multiple alleged co-conspirators have not been charged. Abrego Garcia was himself not charged until several weeks after he initiated and pursued an action for writ of habeas corpus in Maryland and embarrassed the DOJ before every court that considered the matter, up to and including the Supreme Court. The Attorney General has taken to national media airwaves to taint the prospective jury pool by bringing up allegations of uncharged misconduct which may not be admissible at a jury trial.
These facts are plainly sufficient to establish the existence of at least a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,” and they may well be sufficient to show actual vindictiveness.
You explained exactly why it is not a vindictive prosecution. You had a previous president who didn’t care all that much about illegal immigrant related crimes. Now you do. His actions came to light because of the media exposure and the executive made a choice to prosecute.
When should he have prosecuted? Obviously not before he took office and the video tape just recently came to light. Isn’t that exactly when one prosecutes? And so what that one guy resigned? He doesn’t set policy by his personal decisions. That doesn’t bind the administration.
Uh, according to the indictment, the conspiracy charged in Count One existed throughout the entirety of President Trump’s first term in office. One of the apparent co-conspirators was arrested in the Southern District of Mississippi on December 4, 2019, while Trump was in office as President. https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/USA-v-Hernandez-Reyes-et-al/JUDGMENT-as-to-Jose-Ramon-Hernandez-Reyes-1-Count-s-1-2-3-6-Dismissed-on-motion-of-the-Government-Count-s-4-Defendant-sentenced-to-the-Bureau-of-Prisons-for-18-months-three-years-supervised-release-and-100-00-special-assessment-Signed-by-District-Jud/mssd-1:2020-cr-00015-106999-00057 Mr. Hernandez-Reyes was initially charged with conspiracy to transport an illegal alien and with transporting an illegal alien. (The conspiracy charge was dismissed upon his pleading guilty to the substantive charge.)
I don’t know whether Abrego Garcia will succeed in getting the indictment dismissed for vindictive prosecution. I am confident, however, that if such a motion to dismiss is made, the facts I recited above will warrant an evidentiary hearing thereupon.
Googling, I see that Aleta Trauger is still there. If she is typical then they definitely have a good group.
Judge Trauger is indeed a good judge. The Abrego Garcia matter is assigned to Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who is also quite good.
…and if that happens, Maryland dad will STILL be deported. This time to someplace REALLY unpleasant.
Again, South Sudan is an option.
Why, BlueSky feels that the guy is “highly respected”.
Well, that sure settles it.
Boo! Hoo! Harmeet Dhillon, in her Civil Right Division, is apparently losing 70% of her prosecutors, after tasking them to prosecute gross CRA violations by elite colleges, instead of DEI and transphobia.
Biden FBI said to release him, Trump FBI indicted him. as indictments go, months is speedy. Some indictments take years.
The first statement is unsupported, and the second is wrong. (The FBI doesn’t indict people.)
Stop lying. It was reported in the original Tennessee Star story, and the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that.
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/bidens-fbi-ordered-tn-highway-patrol-to-release-maryland-man-recently-deported-to-el-salvador-after-he-was-detained-in-2022-traffic-stop-on-suspicion-of-human-trafficking/tpappert/2025/04/16/
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/tennessee-highway-patrol-confirms-biden-era-fbi-told-officers-to-release-kilmar-abrego-garcia-during-2022-traffic-stop-despite-speeding-and-license-violations-to/tpappert/2025/04/17/
Gotta wonder if Schrader made a phone call to the cops themselves and learned he’d been lied to.
I am aware of those stories. One claims that the FBI “requested” that they be released; the other says that the FBI “made the decision not to detain them.” Neither cites any source, and neither one says that the FBI “ordered” them to be released, as this website has claimed. (Notably, none of the stories have explained why THP would call the FBI rather than ICE.)
So you agree that it was the FBI? Why were you whinging on about it before then?
Apparently, reading isn’t your strong suit.
Correct! Grand juries indict people, in the federal justice system.
Well, yes, he should have said that the Biden FBI apparently told the TN officials to let him go, and the TRUMP DOJ indicted him. Which is what you get with the White House switching parties.
“Biden FBI said to release him”
Supporting facts?
Arf, arf.
Outside the effete chattering-class bubble that Somin lives in, no one was shedding any tears over Abrego-Garcia. The only people taking PR hits over this were the Democrats (and their lapdogs like Somin) who were openly championing Abrego-Garcia, a member of a violent gang, a wifebeater, and human trafficker. He has been ordered deported twice to any country other than El Salvador. (The reason for that exclusion is that Abrego-Garcia would be in danger there because he allegedly participated in the murder of the mother of the member of a rival gang.)
Reading Somin’s posts, I truly wonder if he actually ever practiced law. The Trump administration likely didn’t bother to waste time on a criminal trial, when it was much easier just to deport him, something that happens often with aliens. At the conclusion of his trial and/or sentence, regardless of the outcome, he will be deported again, unless, of course, there is another pro-crime, open-borders Democrat in office by then, in which case, he will be free to continue his life of crime in this country.
Congratulations to Abrego-Garcia’s attorneys and the lawless judges of the D.C. Circuit, tirelessly working without jurisdiction or legal authority to frustrate the Trump administration in this case. Without your efforts, this indictment never would have happened.
Um, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court judges’ rulings in this case.
Upheld her order so squarely, she changed it within hours of remand. *snort*
Ha! Ha! Amazing lack of reading comprehension from someone who claims to be an attorney. You totally missed that the Supreme Court instructed the judge that ordering the government to “facilitate” Garcia’s return was fine, but maybe not “effectuate”, and to respect the President’s (Article II that you so despise with Trump in the WH) power over the conduct of foreign relations.
F. D. Wolf, what do the judges of the D.C. Circuit have to do with Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit, which was filed in Maryland and appealed to the Fourth Circuit?
And the criminal case against him presumably will now be tried in TN.which means that Garcia’s freedom is no longer in the MD judge’s hands.
What the ever living fuck are you talking about? That isn’t even wrong; it’s just completely fabricated. Every single word of it. Nobody has ever “alleged” that, and it was most certainly not “the reason for that exclusion.”
As a leftist, I realize complete ignorance of a topic never prevents you from loudly commenting and opining upon it, but it’s right in the government’s motion for pretrial detention (pp. 8-9), filed May 21. I can’t link it, but you can read it in PACER.
As I said, I couldn’t find a direct link, but it is mentioned here:
https://www.aol.com/kilmar-abrego-garcia-back-us-195025453.html
Normally, being accused of “completely fabricat[ing]” something might offend me, but as you are just an overly emotional, noisome buffoon, and, frankly, an as*hole, it doesn’t particularly bother me. But, more to the point, you, like Somin, are a naive, sheltered child. You haven’t the slightest inkling of how evil MS-13 or its members are. I, unfortunately, do. Oh, and it turns out your latest crush likes to watch kiddie porn too. But, hey, maybe one day you’ll get a chance to chat and sip margaritas with him too.
Oops, I guess I didn’t try hard enough to find the link, as a commenter tylertusta shared one below.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622.8.0_1.pdf
First, I believe you have as much familiarity with MS-13 as you do with 17th century Swahili poetry. Second, you claimed that the reason for the exclusion of El Salvador was that he “would be in danger there because he allegedly participated in the murder of the mother of the member of a rival gang.” But that is of course a lie. The reason for the exclusion of El Salvador was that he would be in danger there because Barrio 18 wanted either his family’s business or to force him to join their gang. That is the actual judicial finding. Obviously no judge would have granted withholding of deportation to El Salvador based on your fanciful allegations.
David Lieporent is working extra hard today.
Indeed!
Michael P is a shitposter. You are not. I expect better of you.
Show your work.
The important thing is, DMN is a leftist.
Careful
DN gets pissed when you point out when exposes himself as a leftist
You’re an idiot. He’s no more a leftist than you are.
vty –
Dn exposed himself as a leftist a long time ago
That cat is out of the bag
Ya think that tribunal had the recently-discovered facts in front of them at the time of that finding, Sparky, or did they just have his own self-serving tear-jerking cover story? You’re shameless.
You can think the finding is wrong because the factual record was incomplete — though it’s awfully convenient that they only came up with this new evidence now — but that doesn’t change what the finding actually is.
Oh, is this just one of those “Nieporent needs to be right about something, however irrelevant, to distract from the egg streaming down his face” moments? A stale judicial finding made without the benefit of a full record has zero bearing on this discussion.
No. Reading the 10/19 decision granting Garcia Withheld Removal status, his mother had a business selling puposas (El Salvador pancakes). His brother was delivering them to customers. Members of the Barrio 18 gang showed up and demanded “rent”, for her to continue in business. And if they refused they would kill his older brother. So, he fled the country. Kilmer started doing the deliveries, and the gang made the same threat, that her son would be killed. And, as with his brother, he fled the country. Only they had moved to Guatemala by then to avoid the gang (after several moves in El Salvador for the same reason). That is why the decision is a bit murky at which country He couldn’t be deported to: his native El Salvador (where he is a citizen) or Guatemala, where he fled from. And, throw in Mexico, from which he crossed into this country. But only if they were willing to take him. Mexico, no doubt, didn’t want another dirty Salvadoran gang (MS-13) member (they apparently don’t think much of their southern neighbors).
To forestall deportation, Garcia filed a request either for Asylum or Withheld Removal. The former is usually easier to get, but his request was rejected as time barred (~6 years late). That left Withheld Removal. The 10/19 decision granting him that status did so on the grounds that his life was in danger, if he was deported because he belonged to an immediate family that the Barrio 18 gang was trying to extort, by threatening to kill their sons.
The judge determined that he was “unable or unwilling to return to her home country because of persecution, or a well-founded fear ofpersecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”, and that his family (parents and siblings) constituted such a “particular social group”.
What’s confusing is that there were an Immigration trial court and appeals court decision earlier that year concerning bail. Weak evidence was introduced that he was a member of MS-13, a rival gang. And it wasn’t seriously contested. Bail was denied, apparently assuming MS-13 gang membership, but based on him being a flight risk.
We frankly don’t know if was actually a member of MS-13 at that time, or maybe he was a wanna be. Maybe to protect himself from the Barrio 18 gang. But his recent indictment asserts that he was an active MS-13 gang member while engaged in human trafficking of illegals across the country. That assertion appears to be based on testimony of informants and co-conspirators, as well as cell tower records showing him making numerous trips across the country with other MS-13 gang members.
>The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.
The Trump administration did no such thing. *El Salvador* allowed Garcia to return to the US. All the US could have ever done was either as nicely or . . . invade? Tariffs? Both things you demand that Congress approve, *not* the Trump administration.
Or, for instance, ask not nicely. Threaten to cut off all funds to El Salvador if they didn’t, for example. Given how much the U.S. was paying them to keep him there, after all.
….yeah, I don’t think the courts should be unilaterally issuing diplomatic sanctions to other countries.
Whatever the executives prerogative in foreign relations, the judiciary’s powers there are zilch.
You didn’t read what I wrote (or what the courts wrote). Nobody was telling the administration how to comply. It could choose how it did so, as long as it did.
It’s clear that you didn’t read what Judge Xinis wrote, and I’m not sure you knew what you wrote either (a nice trick for a lawyer, but in the LLM era a sadly more common one!)
What part of the word “all” is hard to understand?
Judge Xinis’s order left no wiggle room and was an intentional choice on her part. Her tirades against the government for not taking “all steps,” suggesting heavily- but not outright saying- that the government must use all available means, which includes diplomacy. She evidently wanted the government to use both the carrot and the stick.
The cutesy little games that you and Judge Xinis are playing fool absolutely no one.
Let us remember that extraordinary rendition by means of a black-bag squad is an “available step” — or at least it was available from the Clinton administration through the Obama administration. Why does Judge Xinis hate El Salvador’s sovereignty?
I would guess that, like most self-styled “progressives,” she sees her bench as a means of effectuating and facilitating policy preferences. Like an evangelical that proselytizes, she seeks to set forth to create a utopia where alien gang members are free to frolick around, plucking daisies and terrorizing normal people.
Oh, my bad. I forgot that the new talking point is “undocumented citizen” and not “alien.”
“Oh, my bad. I forgot that the new talking point is ‘undocumented citizen’ and not ‘alien.’”
Who is referring to Abrego Garcia (or anyone else) as an “undocumented citizen”? Please be specific.
The elaborate fan fiction MAGA uses to explain people not doing what they want.
Given that our nation’s wonderful Democratic Party used the term “latinx,” continues to use the term “undocumented immigrants,” and in other areas has played merry rebanding games for all kinds of political topics, I’m amazed that your first thought was this was just fan fiction.
Or as the kids like to say, your comment is just cope.
Is she a “self-styled progressive”?
“Policy preferences” like “follow the law”?
How can a judge follow the law by breaking it? Do two wrongs make a right?
How can a judge telling administration officials to follow the law constitute breaking the law?
Still waiting, tylertusta. Who is referring to Abrego Garcia (or anyone else) as an “undocumented citizen”?
Are you getting your information from that reliable source, Otto Yourazz?
Bakari Sellers of CNN for one
https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/06/scott-jennings-triggers-cnn-panelist-after-calling-him-out-over-illegal-immigration/
Here is a book where “undocumented citizen” is literally part of the title
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062851357/reasonmagazinea-20/
And not quite exactly the same the term used by the author for the of this book included “undocumented Americans”
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-undocumented-americans-karla-cornejo-villavicencio/1135275236
Remember that the official legal term is illegal alien.
Still waiting, tylertusta.
Henceforth, whenever I see you demand a reply on your timetable like this, I will refuse to give you an answer. I’m done playing your stupid games.
You get an answer when I get around to replying, or not at all.
Notice that in 16 hours he hasn’t responded to my examples of use of the term and I have been waiting patiently. Obviously he is a bit of a hypocrite.
IOW, you will run away like a scalded dog whenever you lack responsive facts.
When you can’t answer a question, man up and admit it.
No.
Don’t think that I haven’t noticed your own unanswered threads. Does this mean you are skulking away? Does that mean you lack responsive facts? Are you also unable to answer questions but are unable to admit it?
The new standing rule: Whenever Mr. Guilty demands an answer of me through a follow-up reply, I will not do so. I will just link to this comment to remind you of your impatience and immaturity. I will do this every time, even if I have the facts or answers you want.
You can either wait like a grown-ass man or you won’t get a reply.
“Extraordinary rendition” is what Trump did to Abrego Garcia a few months ago; bringing him back is the opposite.
Does it also include declaring war? How much power does a judge have to compel action?
Is that something a judge can order the Executive to do?
In a rational world? No. Article III would stay in its lane.
But in the bonkers pants-on-head world we find ourselves in where judges are asserting universal equitable jurisdiction despite Congress telling them they didn’t have it, who knows anything anymore?
“Or, for instance, ask not nicely. Threaten to cut off all funds to El Salvador if they didn’t, for example. Given how much the U.S. was paying them to keep him there, after all.”
That sounds an awful lot like foreign policy.
UPDATE: ABC reports that a high-ranking prosecutor in the Nashville, Tennnessee US attorney’s office, where Abrego Garcia will be tried, recently resigned because he believes the indictment against Abrego Garcia was brought for political reasons. That doesn’t definitively prove the charges are bogus. But it should heighten our suspicions.
When Jack Smith was pursuing his absurd prosecution(s) against Trump – likely the only prosecution in history Somin has enthusiastically cheered – he repeatedly stated in court filings that “political” prosecutions were impossible, given all the legal safeguards.
But Somin is correct in suggesting this prosecution would not have been brought under normal circumstances. While I have no doubt that left-wing darling Abrego-Garcia is guilty of human trafficking and many other crimes, the Justice Department was obviously content with his removal from this country, but its hand was forced by the meddlesome, unlawful conduct of D.C. federal judges on behalf of Abrego-Garcia. This will finally remove the case from them. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if a deal is worked out, in which Abrego-Garcia agrees to deportation. If the judiciary insists on playing silly games, it forces the executive to do the same.
Technically, in this case it’s the meddlesome, unlawful conduct of a judge in Marlyland, not D.C.
Fair enough.
Even more technically, there was neither meddlesome nor unlawful conduct by anyone but the Trump administration at any point in this saga.
Of course it wasnt meddlesome when the Biden administration policy of no arrests for transporting illegal aliens
Whatabout combined with a completely fictitious claim.
Prof. Somin loves him some gang-banger immigrants. Can’t get enough of them. Even just one more in-country is cause for celebration.
For these people who are disloyal to their own country, the browner and less assimilable an immigrant is, the better.
That’s why they refuse to support the immigration of whites from Eastern Europe. They’ll assimilate too easily.
Somin himself is a Russian Jewish immigrant.
Yes, but most of the progressive left oppose immigration from Romania, Poland, and so forth. They don’t want white conservative Christians.
Yes, Prof. Somin is a known opponent of immigration from Ukraine.
personally, I love living under the rule of law, with due process, where even the President can’t just snap his fingers and disappear someone to a black site in a foreign country in the middle of the night. where it doesn’t matter if you’re an angel or a devil, the law binds us all the same. sounds like you’re envious of how Argentina and Chile could disappear people without all that fuss.
Like Clinton through Obama?
Can’t you just call him a gang member? I know you think gang-banger is much more scary and insulting, but there are plenty of gang-bangers on Pornhub who don’t seem scary at all, although perhaps somewhat misguided.
You wanted him back in the U.S., professor? Well, you’ve got him, and he’ll be here for the next 75 years rotting in the supermax in Florence, CO. And you helped put him there.
Congrats, Ilya!
Maryland Man is going to be in a federal detention center in Tennessee.
He’s going to get convicted of human trafficking.
He’s going to get a federal prison sentence.
And then he’s going to get deported to El Salvador where he will definitely go to CECOT.
Take a bow!
Is it time to ask whether his attorneys actually had his best interests in mind?
Touche!
Meanwhile, the government’s motion to keep Garcia confined until trial:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622.8.0_1.pdf
– Accused of participating in a human smuggling ring for years
– Accused of abusing women that he was trafficking
– Accused of trafficking drugs and guns from Texas to Maryland
– Accused of soliciting child pornography
Yikes. What a swell guy.
I look forward to reviewing the evidence for the charges brought against him, to reading the transcript and the jury’s verdict after deliberating. you know, the the civilian judicial system, not Guantamo 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Tylertusta was a human smuggler for years; he abused women he was trafficking; he trafficked drugs and guns; he solicited child pornography.
There. Now you’ve been accused of all those things, with precisely the same amount of evidence that Abrego Garcia did.
I thought that even David Lieporent would not lower himself to casual libel. I was wrong.
Given that he has openly has wished for the death and suffering for his political enemies in these threads, I should feel lucky that he only sought to defame me.
You lot are doing the exact same thing to Abrego Garcia!
Except DMN was doing so for illustrative purposes.
Y’all are doing so because the less evidence there is for a scurrilous accusation the more fervently you will believe for dear leader.
You aren’t shocked. You hate DMN, but not because of any accusations he made against you.
I see.
You think that this fellow is an altar boy.
Michael P, never underestimate how low Lieporent can go.
What Ilya fails to realize is that in their off hours when they weren’t killing Jews, the Nazi SS played with their children too.
There are some really creepy photos and home movies of Christmas parties, circa 1942.
This is what happens when people pretending to like and help you — get their way. Now he faces sht like it was a storm.
“Later, as part of his immigration proceedings in the United States, the defendant claimed he could not return to El Salvador because he was in fear of retribution from the 18th Street gang. While partially true – the defendant, according to the information received by the Government, was in fear of retaliation by the 18th Street gang – the underlying reason for the retaliation was the defendant’s own actions in participating in the murder of a rival 18th Street gang member’s mother”
LMAO. I am mostly against bringing Garcia back. Its a waste of resources. But now I see why they did it. Garcia is the gift that keeps on giving.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622.8.0_1.pdf
Ah yes, the old murder someones mother to claim asylum trick. And the Democrats fell for it.
The Trump admin will milk this for ages.
I’d predict that Garcia will get shanked in Federal prison, but I suspect the admin will go to great lengths to prevent him from getting Epsteined. They will want a big show trial during 2026 midterms.
“They will want a big show trial during 2026 midterms.”
Good prediction. And Somin and his fans will de facto be helping DJT.
Maybe not, as to getting shanked. The indictment claims that Garcia was a very active MS-13 gang member, and there are already plenty of his fellow gang members in federal prison to protect him. With more to come under Trump/Bondi who are cracking down on the human trafficking and gun and drug trafficking he was alleged to have been heavily involved in.
Also, the evidence goes way beyond co-conspirator testimony. They have his GPS and cell records, including proof he lied during the traffic stop to the officers that pulled him over.
For those slamming this as a political prosecution: of course it is! They have overwhelming evidence against Garcia and brought him back to embarrass the shit out of the Dems for the next two years.
I can’t wait for the mid term ads.
DWB68 — You are easy to please. You liked it when Garcia was stuck in El Salvadore. You like it when he came back. When Trump says, “Like it,” you like it. Give some thought to that.
I said: “I am mostly against bringing Garcia back. Its a waste of resources. But now I see why they did it. Garcia is the gift that keeps on giving.”
Respecting someone’s strategy is not the same as liking it. I think that’s the problem with progressives these days: they live in a bubble where counterpoints are canceled so they don’t understand how the other two thirds of the country thinks.
dwb68 — I suggested giving thought. To number yourself among a made-up majority is not thoughtful, even if the majority gets tested and turns out real. Voting is not the right test of due process.
Mr Garcia will get his day in court. All should be pleased at that.
But reading this set of comments, I have the impression that half do not want him standing before a judge.
idk. I’d predict he gets shanked in prison, because that’s what tends to happen to MS 13 rats, but I think the DOJ has a strong incentive to keep him alive, probably in solitary confinement until trial.
I love people who watched a few episodes of The Wire and think they’re experts, but even if you were right about that, what makes him a “rat”? The people testifying against him — if any exist — would be the “rats.”
Note that David Nieporent hates witnesses for the prosecution in criminal trials, tries to intimidate them by calling them rats.
Smugly predicting someone will get murdered in prison a tell you’ve got some moral screw loose somewhere.
These sadistic MAGA cultists are horrible people. They wear their cruelty as a badge of honor.
Remember that it was Meritless Garland that botched or dropped this prosecution.
That’s not what was claimed in his 10/19 immigration case. Rather, that his family had been being extorted back in El Salvador, then Guatemala, by a gang there. His mother made a popular type of local pancake, and the rest of the family helped her out, with the boys doing deliveries. The gang demanded “rent” from her, and if she didn’t pay, would kill the boys doing the deliveries, so they fled. Garcia appears to have joined a different gang, MS-13, but it isn’t clear if that was before or after he left Guatemala for the US.
He got Withheld Removal status based on the threats to his family, which was considered a small closely knit group, under the statute, instead of his gang membership, which was not.
Regarding the update: the prosecutor believing the Garcia indictment was brought for political reasons…
Gee, that’s so unusual! Breaking: ALL prosecutions are ultimately political decisions. Why in America most prosecutors are elected. At the federal level, why the Justice Department is not “independent”. To the consternation of some. Possibly including this resigned top prosecutor.
Oh yes, this Garcia prosecution was definitely political. Whereas the Jan 6 prosecutions absolutely were not. Ditto the various Trump cases brought by the Biden Justice Department.
It’s like no one thinks before the speak publicly anymore. (That goes in triplicate for the current administration too FYI.)
the Justice Department is not “independent”. To the consternation of some.
Formally no, functionally it was right until this administration.
Revenge prosecutions are a new thing in America, despite the right caterwauling how persecuted they’ve been since Regan, probably earlier.
These persecution narratives required conspiracies where Biden or Obama or Clinton secretly coordinated prosecutions.
You get thin reeds…meetings on tarmac spun into coordination…the word ‘wingman’ bespeaking slavish devotion…Jeffrey Sessions being a secret Democrat.
Now, no conspiracy needed; this is pure revenge. This resignation is not normal. The DoJ is not acting normal.
You want to believe this persecution narrative; so you act as an apologist.
But all you manage is to ipse dixit stuff with great authority but no actual experience or sources.
So this is the first time ever, that a case was brought or dropped by the DOJ when the president of the other party was elected?
So your counterargument is that any case being dropped with the change of administration is proof the DoJ is taking orders from the President.
I do not believe your thesis is correct, any more so than a Supreme Court Justice being ruling differently than their predecessor shows they lack independence.
It’s like no one thinks before the speak publicly anymore.
MaddogEngineer — To prove a vice exists, you need not make yourself an example.
Of course there are valid political prosecutions, unavoidably so, for political crimes, such as treason or insurrection. To require otherwise would make it impossible to enforce laws against those crimes.
The notion of an independent prosecutor applies elsewhere, to avoid turning non-political crime into political fodder for would-be office seekers (or office holders currying favor). The example of elected prosecutors does not furnish evidence against the wisdom of that distinction, it furnishes confirmation of it. As does your own advocacy.
Turns out, there was apparently plenty of actual crime here, with Garcia, apparently an active MS-13 gang members in heavily involved in human trafficking, as well as drug and gun smuggling. This isn’t like walking in and out of the Capital after a couple minutes, on 1/6/21, but the type of crime where people end up raped and murdered. But apparently that’s political for the left.
Or, you know, the indictment is BS. Most of the evidence is based on an immunity deal they gave to the person who owned the car and was already in prison. Sometimes prisoners lie. We won’t know either way until the case goes to trial.
“Apparently!”
Naturally Somin leads with a photo of this guy hugging a child. How about a photo of his wife, after he had beaten her? Nope, that would definitely not fit with the narrative being pushed.
Or the women he apparently traded transportation tin for sex (after they had already paid. In cash), or maybe the guns and/or drugs he allegedly transported, along with his human trafficking, etc.
The indictment claims that he was an active MS-13 gang member involved for years in over 100 instances of human trafficking, as well as gun and drug smuggling.
fwiw – the wife’s first husband/partner was also abusive. Somewhat common that women in abusive relationships have an attraction to abusive partners. I dont have information if this is the case with this relationship, only noting that it has indices of that type relationship.
No, your argument is that no case has ever been brought or dropped for political reason before Trump.
Plenty of cases change stance with a new administration, your argument is claiming not a single one was for a political reason.
That’s just not true.
I thought that the move by AG Bondi was masterful. It gave the left what they claimed to have wanted (Garcia back in the country), but not what they probably really wanted (Garcia free, with his family in MD, and their spouses Trump Administration humiliated). Instead, he appears to be in federal lockup in TN, essentially out of reach of the judge in MD. Meanwhile the MD judge’s Contempt case collapses, since Garcia is back in the country, as demanded, and the delay and secrecy explained by the time that the grand jury spent in deciding to indict Garcia. And AG Bondi got him back without allowing the MD judge to interfere with the President’s powers to conduct foreign relations and as Commander in Chief of the military.
My prediction is that Garcia will remain incarcerated until he is deported back to El Salvador (where he’s a citizen), Guatemala (where he was from before he came here), or Mexico (from where he crossed the border into this country). He may be able to avoid being deported to Guatemala (because it’s too dangerous to him) and Mexico (because they don’t want him), but not El Salvador. They likely expect him back, after he serves whatever sentence he gets for the crimes alleged in the indictment, have a new President, and the power of the gang extorting his family (Barrio 18) has been broken in, at least, El Salvador. On the flip side, his heavily alleged MS-13 membership, along with his indictment for being a part of a conspiracy by that criminal cartel for human, drug, and firearms trafficking, and the evidence supporting that indictment should be sufficient to invalidate his Withheld Removal status, as well as preventing his release on bail.
This is cope.
President Newsome (or president Walz) will give him a pardon.