TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2025
Blue journalists said quite a few others: Tomorrow, we'll be back to full services.
For today, here's something we noticed. We'll start with something Pam Bondi said at yesterday's Oval Office event.
Presidents Bukele and Trump were there. Asked about the bungled rendition to El Salvador of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the attorney general said this:
REPORTER (4/15/25): President Trump, do you plan to ask President Bukele to help return the man who your administration says was mistakenly deported?
TRUMP: Which one is it?
REPORTER: The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?
TRUMP: Well, let me ask. Pam, would you answer that question?
BONDI: Sure, President. First, and foremost, he was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country. And in 2019, two courts—an immigration court and an appellate immigration court—ruled that he was a member of MS-13 and he was illegally in our country.
Right now, it was a paperwork—it was additional paperwork had needed to be done. That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him, that's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if, as El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
For whatever reason, Bondi always seems to address President Trump as "President" (full stop). Go figure!
Also, is it possible that Trump actually didn't know who the reporter was talking about? Sadly, everything is possible!
Concerning what Bondi said:
On the whole, her statement doesn't parse extremely well. Also, she massively finessed the fact that Abrego Garcia was rendered to El Salvador through "administrative error."
Her overall statement was flimsy. That said, we're going to focus on the part of the statement we've highlighted:
In 2019, two courts—an immigration court and an appellate immigration court—ruled that he was a member of MS-13.
So said the attorney general, as you can see thanks to Rev. Now for a possible dirty little secret:
A person could quibble about the word "ruled." Aside from that, and based on what we've read in court documents, it seems to us that the highlighted statement by Bondi is basically accurate.
Tomorrow, we'll link you to the court documents to which we refer. For the record, the fact that two courts (i.e., two judges) did seem to "rule" that way doesn't mean that their finding was actually accurate.
The two judges seem to have based their assessment on limited evidence. But based on what we've read in the relevant court records, it seems to us that that specific part of Bondi's statement could be scored as basically accurate.
Elsewhere, we've seen fuzzier representations all across Blue America's dial. For example, here's the summary offered on the front page of this morning's New York Times:
El Salvador’s Leader Says He Won’t Return Wrongly Deported Maryland Man
Mr. Bukele, who has positioned himself as a key ally to Mr. Trump, in part by opening his country’s prisons to deportees, sat next to the president and a group of cabinet officials who struck a combative tone over the case, which has reached the Supreme Court.
“Of course I’m not going to do it,” Mr. Bukele said when reporters asked if he was willing to help return the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three who was deported last month. The Trump administration has acknowledged that his deportation was the result of an “administrative error.”
[...]
Mr. Trump invited some of his top officials to Monday’s meeting, much of which was held in front of news cameras. Ms. Bondi and Stephen Miller, who is the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang.
Mr. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with or convicted of being in a gang. In 2011, Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say, he fled threats and violence in El Salvador and came to the United States illegally to join his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. He later married an American citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge prohibited the United States from deporting him to El Salvador, saying he might face violence or torture there.
For starters, riddle us this: Has Abrego Garcia ever "been charged with or convicted of being in a gang?"
To some extent, it all depends on what the meaning of "charged with or convicted" is! In our view, a sensible person might choose to quibble with that choice of words.
That said, the second highlighted statement is perfectly accurate. In 2019, a third judge did, in fact, "prohibit the United States from deporting [Abrego Garcia] to El Salvador, saying he might face violence or torture there."
That statement is perfectly accurate! By all accounts, that court order should have kept Abrego Garcia from being shipped to the hellhole in question.
That said, the New York Times, for whatever reason, omitted any specific mention of the two court proceedings Bondi cited. Elsewhere, we've seen liberal commentators seem to finesse the basic facts, in various ways, about those court proceedings.
We're speaking about some well-known people. Tomorrow, we'll show you what we mean.
Full disclosure! We know of no particular reason to think that Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, has been living and working as a member of MS-13, let alone as a "gang leader" or as a "terrorist."
That said, we also don't think that Blues should play reindeer games with respect to matters like this. At times like these, the inclination to do so can be very strong. For those of us in Blue America, we don't think it's a good look or a winning play.
We think it's obvious that Abrego Garcia should be returned from the hellhole into which he was rendered. We also think that Blue Americans should build their church on the rock of clear, concise, accurate statement.
We're prepared to be wrong about this matter in some way or other. That said, tomorrow afternoon, we'll link you to the pair of "rulings" to which Bondi referred—and we'll show you some of the fuzzy statements made in our own Blue land.
Tomorrow morning: New language from David Brooks
The statement "a judge did, in fact, "prohibit the United States from deporting [Abrego Garcia] to El Salvador" is true, but possibly misleading. Some who read that statement might think that prohibition was based on Garcia not being in MS-13, a terrorist gang. In fact, it's almost the opposite. The prohibition was based on the idea that Garcia would be at risk because other criminal gangs were so strongly opposed to MS-13.
ReplyDeleteDavid, the prohibition was based on Garcia's early threats by gang members in El Salvador, but not MS-13. He was being threatened by Barrio 18. There has never been any hearing that determined that Garcia belonged to MS-13 anywhere. The informant who accused him claimed Garcia was a member of MS-13 in New York, a place Garcia has never lived (he is from Maryland).
Delete"When he was a boy [in El Salvador], a local gang [Barrio 18] extorted his family, tried to indoctrinate him and threatened to kill him, according to his immigration case. He fled to the U.S. at 16." The entire story of those threats is described here:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-salvador-maryland-abrego-garcia-7b17b702b77a24d92a28dd4be5755fdd
He was the son of a police officer growing up in El Salvador, making those gang affiliation accusations even more dubious. In the US, he was initially illegal but applied for asylum and received protection, checked in regularly with ICE, has held a full-time job, married a citizen and raised a family of children born in the US. There is no concrete evidence or suspicion of gang activity to back up the informant's statement at his bond hearing in 2019.
The govt has tried to justify its mistake by conflating Garcia with other illegal aliens who have committed crimes and who were justifiably deported. This case is not the same.
When Garcia lived in El Salvador, he had no MS-13 gang affiliation. The local gangs targeted their family business for extortion in a protection racket, attacking Abrego's older brother when he refused to pay, then Abrego. This idea that David posits about Abrego and MS-13 being rival to Barrio 18 and other El Salvadoran gangs is made up. Like the story that he joined such a gang in NYC, it has no facts to support it, no evidence, and has not been presented in a hearing contesting his protection order to the courts.
David needs to get his facts straight, not just listen to the specious arguments the right is using to cover up its mistake.
In his court filings Garcia's counsel has said Garcia and his family feared MS-13. Your post assumes Garcia was in some gang, a statement for which there zero evidence has been provided other than some vague accusation from years ago that a subsequent judge has discredited.
DeleteHave you no shame?
David has no shame.
DeleteShame?
DeleteDavid has spent the last decade acting like he's never seen a grifter before, just because he's getting the bigotry from Trump he craves.
"The statement 'a judge did, in fact, "prohibit the United States from deporting [Abrego Garcia] to El Salvador"' is true, but possibly misleading."
DeleteIt's not misleading. It is correct. A judge issued a withholding of removal order that said Garcia was not to be deported to El Salvador. The sentence you quote says nothing more than that.
A statement does not become misleading when the writer fails to add your preferred spin.
"We also think that Blue Americans should build their church on the rock of clear, concise, accurate statement."
ReplyDeleteThat's the Somerby Manifesto in a nutshell. He thinks it's not "a winning play" for Blue Americans to do otherwise. The commenters here who like to make shit up about what he says seem to think otherwise.
He should practice what he preaches.
Deletehttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/15/did-us-courts-back-kilmar-abrego-garcias-el-salvador-deportation
DeleteYou seem to just accept whatever Somerby says at face value. Others here do not necessarily accept Bondi's assertions as clear, concise or accurate, especially in the face of other facts important to this situation, as discussed in the above article.
No one knows what Somerby thinks except Somerby. When he writes unclearly, any interpretation is as valid as another, depending on support for arguments offered by different commenters. Dogface seems to be saying that we should just accept Somerby's views, no matter how unclear or non-concise and non-accurate (i.e., muddled and false) we think they are, because Dogface is the expert on what others are making up. If Somerby were to participate in discussion, we might be able to clarify things, but that never happens. Given Somerby's often murky statements, no one here is going to agreed that Blue Americans must "build their church" on Somerby, much less his trolls, especially when they think they alone can tell us what "he thinks" beyond his own statements.
Bondi is not providing clear, concise, accurate statement. If we are to build upon any church so based, it won't include Bondi's version. Given that the truth conflicts with Somerby's evaluation, what is a commenter to do? George doesn't say because he never considers whether Bondi is right or not -- Somerby said she is, and that's good enough for George.
The rest of us are not so easily conned.
I am easily conned.
Delete"You seem to just accept whatever Somerby says at face value. Others here do not necessarily accept Bondi's assertions as clear, concise or accurate"
DeleteYou may be surprised to learn that, among those others who don't accept Bondi's assertions is your whipping boy Somerby, who in the very post you're commenting on, characterized Bondi's assertions as "flimsy", not parsing well and "massively finessed".
And yet he called her accurate in his earlier post today. Did he change his mind?
DeleteObviously, he is playing more reindeer games. How do you assess the veracity of someone when the true value of each sentence out of their mouth flip flops back and forth? Somerby should know how to form a overall opinion of someone's truthfulness based on all of his experience. When he makes a statement about a person, it should be an overall one. Only individual statements can be parsed one-by-one the way Somerby seems to be doing here today. And if Bondi makes one true statement about some aspect of the Garcia case, does that mean every word out of her mouth is similarly accurate? Of course not, especially when her strongest motive is to lie in defense of Dear Leader's orders to make an example of that poor guy.
DeleteReindeer games, as used by Bob's detractors, seems to mean here that he questions her questionable statements and accepts as true, her true statements.
DeleteNope
Delete"Dogface seems to be saying that we should just accept Somerby's views, no matter how unclear or non-concise and non-accurate (i.e., muddled and false) we think they are"
DeleteNot even within a country mile of what I'm saying. Not even in the same county. Or state. Or country. Or continent. Or planet. Or solar system. Or galaxy. Or universe.
Here's a clear, concise and accurate statement:
Delete"Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago."
Is it winning?
In the words of our Somerby, "Anything is possible."
Somerby likes to muse about what kinds of county/ world we'd have if the media wasn't Right-wing.
DeleteIt's a waste of time, but he must be getting some amusement from it.
" ... we've seen fuzzier representations all across Blue America's dial. For example, here's the summary offered on the front page of this morning's New York Times:"
DeleteSomerby still beating off to this ridiculous trope.
I'd be tired of Somerby pointing out the Defense Department Signal scandal was dropped in a day, while Hillary Clinton's email protocols stories were front-page news throughout 2016, if he ever did that.
DeleteYour argument has fallen apart.
Delete"No one knows what Somerby thinks except Somerby."
DeleteOh, not so! The comments section here at TDH are chockablock with mindreaders who know Our Host's every thought and hidden motive. They spare no effort to share their special knowledge with all of us on the daily.
Here is a thorough discussion of those two 2019 rulings that preceded the order NOT to deport him, that was disobeyed by Trump:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/15/did-us-courts-back-kilmar-abrego-garcias-el-salvador-deportation
As explained, the initial ruling was a bond hearing that denied Garcia release on bond based on a statement by an informant that he was a gang member, denied by Abrego Garcia's attorney and not substantiated by evidence. The judge denied the bond but did not rule that he was a gang member (as Bondi incorrectly claimed).
"In immigration bond hearings, detainees have the burden of proof to show they are neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Abrego Garcia “failed to meet his burden to show that he was not a danger,” Bier said. That’s not the same as the government proving affirmatively that he was an MS-13 member.
“The immigration judge is only taking at face value any evidence that the government provides,” Bier said. “It is not assessing its underlying validity at that stage.”
Abrego Garcia later received an immigration protection called withholding of removal. Granting that protection required the Department of Homeland Security to decide Abrego Garcia was not “a danger to the security of the United States”, Bier said, citing US immigration law.
“The Trump administration did not appeal these determinations or the granting of withholding of removal,” Bier said. “So at that time, it did not consider him a threat and no new evidence has been presented since then.”
The "withholding of removal" order was the most current and recent order, the one in effect when Abrego Garcia was removed and sent to El Salvador, against the order of the court.
..."It’s inaccurate that the US government’s February designation of MS-13 as a foreign terrorist organisation automatically revoked Abrego Garcia’s protection from removal, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said.
People who are proven members of a terrorist organisation are ineligible for protection from removal. But in Abrego Garcia’s case, to revoke his protections, the US government “would have been required under law to reopen his immigration court proceedings and prove to the judge that he was a member of MS-13 and therefore no longer eligible for withholding”.
“The government certainly could have sought to prove that (Abrego Garcia) was not eligible for any form of immigration relief, but it did not do so,” Bier said."
Somerby then says:
"A person could quibble about the word "ruled." Aside from that, and based on what we've read in court documents, it seems to us that the highlighted statement by Bondi is basically accurate."
It is not a quibble to point out whether a court has ruled or not. Somerby has not taken Abrego Garcia's arguments into account, not listened to his lawyer's case. For Somerby to support Bondi in her blatantly false explanation shows the kind of propensity on Somerby's part that gets him labeled a right winger here (across many issues, not just this case). He invariable supports the tenuous statements of Trump and his cronies. In this case, it doesn't appear he has made much effort to obtain a more balanced view of the situation. That too suggests bias toward the right, the Fox News versions of current events.
I usually skip over the long posts, but thank you for this one. This stuff is hard, and for folks like DiC and soros bot man it is all huff and puff, no substance.
DeleteAnd it is not even this fucking hard. All the Felon admin had to do is follow due process. Stuff we were arguing about weeks ago and now this deepening attack on Democracy, and more of the same BS from them. Once you ignore rule of law, and the Congressional party & courts in control largely go along; it is over. You win DiC. Happy fascist day!!! Homegrowns are next in line!!!
The April 2019 bond hearing: "the evidence shows he is a verified member of MS-13"
DeleteThe December 2019 appeal: "We adopt and affirm the Immigration Judge's danger ruling . . . . [T]he Immigration Judge properly considered allegations of gang affiliation against the respondent in considering [the danger ruling]."
I agree @5:52 that they should have brought Garcia back.
DeleteNo, you agree with 5:52 that it is Happy Fascist Day!
DeleteA clear, concise, accurate statement: The immigration judge found that he was a gang member, and that finding was adopted and affirmed on appeal.
Delete(Personally, I believe that this finding is possibly, maybe even likely, to be wrong because it was based on the word of a secret informant.)
Dogface, you may need to check the bond hearing and see whether the quotes you present are from the govt's case to deny bond (an assertion rather than a conclusion of the judge or court hearing) or whether the judge found that as the result of hearing evidence against Abrego.
DeleteAffirming the danger ruling means that the court let stand the previous denial of bond. It does not mean that it affirmed Garcia's membership in MS-13, because no evidence was heard on that matter in either hearing (beyond the govt's assertion based on the informant). The later protection order superseded these two bond hearings. It was based on the evidence that Abrego would be in danger if deported to El Salvador, allowed him to remain the US on asylum, and protected him from being removed. If he had been proven to be a gang member and a danger in the US, the court would not have issued such a protection from removal order.
This is akin to quoting one side's arguments as if it were the court's ultimate ruling in a case. Yes, those words are part of the hearing transcript, but they were not what the judge ruled, largely because the judge did not hear evidence on whether Abrego Garcia was in MS-13 or not.
Yes, this is complicated. You need to read more widely to avoid getting played by Trump's people (Bondi, Leavitt, Noem, etc) especially when those people lie more often than they tell the truth.
I quoted from the rulings themselves. You can find them on emptywheel.bsky.
DeleteHow can the evidence show he is a verified member of MS-13 when he has never been part of the gang and there has never been evidence presented on that matter in either of those two hearings or any other hearing?
Delete5:35 -- "The judge denied the bond but did not rule that he was a gang member"
DeleteHere's the quibble about "ruled." The immigration judge "ruled" that he would not be released on bond because he was a danger, and "found" that he was a danger because he was a gang member. So in that semantic respect, Bondi's statement was inaccurate.
Somerby is the expert on reindeer games. That is all he ever plays. Calling someone accurate because they quote the letter of some ruling, entirely ignoring its meaning and the larger context, is a massive reindeer game of the type that Somerby has played here in order to call Bondi accurate when she is not.
DeleteHow can a ruling in 2019 have bearing on Garcia's current status as a danger? Does that make sense to you? The more recent ruling took precedence, the one in effect when the court order was violated.
Delete6:44 - "Somerby is the expert on reindeer games. That is all he ever plays."
DeleteThis is the polar opposite of a clear, concise, accurate statement.
It is my assessment of Somerby after reading him for 25 years. I state it as an opinion not a fact. I can tell one from the other, unlike you.
DeleteSomerby has a tendency to engage in “reindeer games”, or “word games” as Wittgenstein called it, allowing the obfuscations of right wingers to derail discourse.
DeleteThis is getting exciting.
DeleteWhat do you think Putin is going to make Trump do next?
Donald J Chickenshit has issued a threat to take away Harvard's tax-exempt status. Because you just don't say no to dear leader.
DeleteIs everyone getting over their phobia of dictatorships yet?
"He (Somerby) invariable (sic) supports the tenuous statements of Trump and his cronies."
DeleteLaughably inaccurate. He regularly roasts Trump and his cronies. You're hopeless.
10:02,
DeleteWe're not so great over here, either. And Somerby isn't going to let the Republican Party ending a 250 year experiment running a representative democracy, distract you from that.
6:39 -- Weird, right? First, we just don't know, one way or another, whether he was a member of MS-13. Second, in immigration hearings, which are specialized forums with super-lenient rules of evidence, secret informant evidence seems to be allowed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue wasn’t heard in court.
DeleteBondi is trying to obfuscate the issue, trying to create a pretext for trump’s authoritarian move of refusing to bring Garcia back. Somerby chastises the media for “saying something different than Bondi”, but in reality they are reporting the findings of the Court. Somerby is getting close to excusing trump/bondi, because the right wing will latch onto bondi’s excuse. This is from the Supreme Court ruling:
Delete“The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.”
You're right that an immigration court is not an Article III court.
Delete"Somerby is getting close to excusing trump/bondi"
DeleteA clear, concise, accurate statement would be: "Somerby does not excuse Trump/Bondi."
I said he is getting close, DG. He chastises the media for “saying something different than Bondi.” Why shouldn’t they?
DeleteHe chastised the NYT for failing the present relevant info — that two courts had found gang membership.
DeleteAll of the people kidnapped to El Salvador need to be brought back. They can be (a) released (b) properly deported (c) given a trial if a crime has been committed.
Delete“ relevant info ”
DeleteHow is it fucking relevant, DG?
@7:35 I am not a lawyer, so take this for what it's worth. IMO there's no doubt that a judge has the power to prevent Garcia from being deported to El Salvador. But, it's not clear that a judge has the power to bring him back. The judge does have the power to punish the people who violated his order. But, I don't think a judge has the power to make diplomatic decisions involving faraway places. IMO Trump should bring him back anyway, even if he's not legally required to do so
DeleteAnyone else see the irony of a guy being deported for not committing a crime, by a guy with 34 felonies?
DeleteI agree with Ilya.
Delete8:51,
DeleteHold every one of their lawyers in contempt, fine them $500,000 a day until they bring him back, and open up a criminal investigation into how it happened.
I'm not Jewish, but I'm told bombing hospitals and schools to ethnically cleanse a race of people is one of the main tenets of their faith.
DeleteDavid is feeling anxious because Dogshit is dominating the thread instead of him.
DeleteI wondered what reindeer games are, so I looked them up. Apparently they’re a bad movie:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reindeer_Games
Every Republican Administration in my lifetime seems like a bad movie.
Delete"Being in a gang", whatever this means, is not illegal. In any case, it makes no substantive difference. The kidnapped man was not charged with any crime. He was never linked with any crime. Now, flimsy accusations may be enough to deport someone, but he was not deported. That's just facts. I don't think that there's any reason to complicate this and read the tea leaves. This administration is acting in a patently illegal manner. This is the '70's Chile or the 80's Argentina.
ReplyDeletelike Ilya I wonder about the legal basis for imprisoning someone for just being a member of a terrorist gang. Perhaps illegal immigrants have fewer rights
DeleteI'm not sure if illegal immigrants have fewer rights, but I know they are more industrious and honest than white people.
DeleteOf course, any corporate hiring manager could tell you that.
Illegal immigrants have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That is in our constitution.
DeleteThey don't, David. Everyone detained in the US, by US authorities has the same rights. Everyone. There's no two tier right system. Quite simply: there was no such designation as an "illegal alien" in the constitution. This is why Trump is fraudulently using the alien enemies act. We are not at war with anyone.
DeleteThere's been no crime pointed to that was committed by any of the kidnapped. None. Terrorist gang? That's ludicrous. It's pure fiction.
"Perhaps illegal immigrants have fewer rights"
DeleteThey can't vote and they can't receive most public assistance. But the Bill of Rights applies to them just the same as it does for you and me.
We are about to see a member of the judicial branch hold some feet to the fire and work her way up the chain of command to the person that is responsible for this illegal act, and it is going to be an enjoyable spectacle.
Delete@2:28 I think it's going to be a frustrating spectacle. I expect the Trump team will delay and appeal and then delay some more. I expect SCOTUS will be dragged into the case several times.
DeleteYou may be right that it will go as usual but based on some reporting I heard last night I am optimistic.
Delete“An immigration lawyer born in the U.S. told CNN she received an email from the Department of Homeland Security telling her she had days to self-deport out of the country.
ReplyDeleteNicole Micheroni, who was born in the Boston area, joined CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Tuesday to discuss the email she received and DHS’ explanation for it. According to a DHS statement, some emails were sent to “unintended recipients” because illegal migrants may have provided other people’s emails.
The message to self-deport in seven days used Micheroni’s name and she doubted DHS’ explanation.“
DHS cannot deport citizens but that won’t stop them from trying.
Sorry, Judge. There's nothing I can do. I tried to un-burn the Tesla dealership, but its not co-operating.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Judge, I spent all the money I stole from the bank on hookers and blow,. I can't ask for it back because it's not my money any more.
DeleteThis old nugget is for David in Cal:
ReplyDeleteQ. What's the difference between the Holocaust and Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?
A. Nothing.