Video: 'You would think we deported a candidate for father of the year'

Perpetual Student · Apr 18, 2025

rjs330 said:
Trump doesn't decide who's guilty of a crime or not. He might have opinions. Just like the rest of us do, but the judges and juries still determine guilt.

Tell that to Valetta, who seems to present Trump's and Bukele's statements as sufficient fact of garcia's guilt.

Perpetual Student · Apr 18, 2025

Valletta said:
Off topic. The election is over, you lost.

On topic, since you seem to accept's Trump's (and Bukele's) statement as sufficient.
And guilt or innocence aren't decided at elections (as RSJ330 will agree).

JosephZ · Apr 18, 2025

rjs330 said:
Opinions are a dime a dozen. He was found to be MS13 and he could not prove he wasn't a danger.

The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.

wing2000 · Apr 18, 2025

JosephZ said:
The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.

Exactly.

The court did not find him to be a member of MS-13.

And in any case, even if he was proven to be a member of MS-13, he still has a right to due process.

Say it aint so · Apr 18, 2025

wing2000 said:
Exactly.

The court did not find him to be a member of MS-13.

And in any case, even if he was proven to be a member of MS-13, he still has a right to due process.

Everyone knows that MS-13 gang members apply for work permits, hold down steady jobs, and pay taxes.

rjs330 · Apr 18, 2025

JosephZ said:
The court's decision was limited to the question of whether or not to release him from custody. No ruling was made as to whether or not he belonged to MS13.

So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?

ViaCrucis · Apr 18, 2025

rjs330 said:
So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?

There is zero evidence that he belonged to a gang.

The only evidence that he was exists entirely in the mind of the corrupt administration that violated his Constitutionally Protected Rights.

And even if he was, or had been, associated with a gang, it wouldn't change the fact that his CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS were violated.

-CryptoLutheran

Hans Blaster · Apr 18, 2025

rjs330 said:
So what gang was he found to be a member of? Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?

No gang. He was not *ruled* a member of any gang. That is part of the point here. (The other is that due process applies even if he *was* a known gang member.)

RDKirk · Apr 18, 2025

Why are y'all still arguing about whether he was a member of a gang?

Trump's distraction is working on you full force. He must be laughing his head off at all of you...

...while getting away with thumbing his nose at the federal court.

DaisyDay · Apr 19, 2025

rjs330 said:
So what gang was he found to be a member of?

Back in 2019, he was picked up at a Home Depot parking lot looking for work as a day laborer. Two members of a gang were with him - were they also looking for work? Who knows, but someone, an informant, told a police officer, since fired, that Garcia was a member of a gang in Long Island, NY (where Garcia has never lived) possibly in exchange for favors (informants often inform, sometimes falsely, for payments, leniency, etc., or so I've heard). This is hearsay, not proof, and this hearsay was credibly disputed eventually.

rjs330 said:
Was the governments case based around a "gang"? Any gang, a generic gang what gang was at issue here?

Yeah, that's an interesting point. In 2025, President Trump proclaimed that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 17something-or-another against Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang. Garcia was picked up in a sweep of Venezuelans, as a part of this proclamation, even though he is not Venezuelan and not a gang member and, ironically was here because he fled El Salvador to avoid being impressed into MS13, as his brother fled before him.

Does this answer your questions?

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

ViaCrucis said:
There is zero evidence that he belonged to a gang.

The only evidence that he was exists entirely in the mind of the corrupt administration that violated his Constitutionally Protected Rights.

And even if he was, or had been, associated with a gang, it wouldn't change the fact that his CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS were violated.

-CryptoLutheran

That's wrong. The court found he was.

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
No gang. He was not *ruled* a member of any gang. That is part of the point here. (The other is that due process applies even if he *was* a known gang member.)

Yeah he was.

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

DaisyDay said:
Back in 2019, he was picked up at a Home Depot parking lot looking for work as a day laborer. Two members of a gang were with him - were they also looking for work? Who knows, but someone, an informant, told a police officer, since fired, that Garcia was a member of a gang in Long Island, NY (where Garcia has never lived) possibly in exchange for favors (informants often inform, sometimes falsely, for payments, leniency, etc., or so I've heard). This is hearsay, not proof, and this hearsay was credibly disputed eventually.

Yeah, that's an interesting point. In 2025, President Trump proclaimed that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 17something-or-another against Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan gang. Garcia was picked up in a sweep of Venezuelans, as a part of this proclamation, even though he is not Venezuelan and not a gang member and, ironically was here because he fled El Salvador to avoid being impressed into MS13, as his brother fled before him.

Does this answer your questions?

The found he was a fang member. The entire stop and case was based upon MS13. So he was found to be a member of MS13 because that was the claim. The claim wasn't he was a member of some unknown generic gang. The evidence was he was a gang member with MS13. And the court found that he was. Period.

The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,” Kessler wrote, referring to the informant’s tip.

JosephZ · Apr 19, 2025

rjs330 said:
That's wrong. The court found he was.

Attorney General Bondi’s Claim That ‘Courts’ Have ‘Ruled’ That Abrego Garcia Is a Member of MS-13

The AG insists that two “courts” — an immigration court and an appellate court — have “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. Bondi is new to the federal system but she has been in law enforcement long enough to know that her assertion is deeply misleading.

The court proceedings in connection with the administration’s illegal deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador indicate that he has no known criminal record in any country. That doesn’t mean he is not an MS-13 member — he may well be. But it means the Justice Department hasn’t proved that he is.

The actual issue that those DOJ tribunals “ruled” on was bail, not gang membership.

As Bondi presumably knows, the issue at a bond hearing is not whether the detainee is a member of a criminal organization. The issue is whether there is any condition or combination of conditions that will satisfy the court that, if released, the detainee will neither flee nor pose a danger to the community.

At the hearing, and then on appeal, the DOJ immigration tribunals accepted the government’s evidence for the purpose of determining that Abrego Garcia’s release could pose a danger. But this was not a conclusive finding that he was a member of MS-13...

If the judge denies bail, that doesn’t mean the government has conclusively established that the accused is a member of the criminal organization. It just means the judge has found he should not be released pending trial. It’s a bail ruling, not a finding that the person is guilty.

In claiming that immigration “courts” looked at this evidence and “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member, Bondi skips by the stubborn fact that two actual judicial courts, presided over by actual Article III judges, looked at the same evidence and discounted it — both because it is weak and because it was offered in connection with bail, not with a formal allegation that Abrego Garia was an MS-13 member.

To summarize, then, the two immigration tribunals cited by AG Bondi are not judicial courts and did not rule that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13; they held that he should be denied bond while his asylum claim was pending. No judicial court has ever adopted the tribunals’ reasoning, in 2019, that the government’s scant evidence proves MS-13 membership.

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

My real concerns here is if the administration continues to buck SCOTUS and in my view play games with them, SCOTUS will get sick of it and start ruling against him on principle. I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

In my opinion the smart thing to do is to bring him back, give him his process and then send him packing. That will eliminate any battle with the Supreme Court.

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

JosephZ said:
Attorney General Bondi’s Claim That ‘Courts’ Have ‘Ruled’ That Abrego Garcia Is a Member of MS-13

The AG insists that two “courts” — an immigration court and an appellate court — have “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. Bondi is new to the federal system but she has been in law enforcement long enough to know that her assertion is deeply misleading.

The court proceedings in connection with the administration’s illegal deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador indicate that he has no known criminal record in any country. That doesn’t mean he is not an MS-13 member — he may well be. But it means the Justice Department hasn’t proved that he is.

The actual issue that those DOJ tribunals “ruled” on was bail, not gang membership.

As Bondi presumably knows, the issue at a bond hearing is not whether the detainee is a member of a criminal organization. The issue is whether there is any condition or combination of conditions that will satisfy the court that, if released, the detainee will neither flee nor pose a danger to the community.

At the hearing, and then on appeal, the DOJ immigration tribunals accepted the government’s evidence for the purpose of determining that Abrego Garcia’s release could pose a danger. But this was not a conclusive finding that he was a member of MS-13...

If the judge denies bail, that doesn’t mean the government has conclusively established that the accused is a member of the criminal organization. It just means the judge has found he should not be released pending trial. It’s a bail ruling, not a finding that the person is guilty.

In claiming that immigration “courts” looked at this evidence and “ruled” that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member, Bondi skips by the stubborn fact that two actual judicial courts, presided over by actual Article III judges, looked at the same evidence and discounted it — both because it is weak and because it was offered in connection with bail, not with a formal allegation that Abrego Garia was an MS-13 member.

To summarize, then, the two immigration tribunals cited by AG Bondi are not judicial courts and did not rule that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13; they held that he should be denied bond while his asylum claim was pending. No judicial court has ever adopted the tribunals’ reasoning, in 2019, that the government’s scant evidence proves MS-13 membership.

That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.

"The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,” Kessler wrote, referring to the informant’s tip

rjs330 · Apr 19, 2025

In this case Trump his operating in two realms. A political and legal. His political positions on these deportations is a supported one by the American people. However his legal position is a dicey one. It would be smarter in my opinion to stick within a non-dicey legal position and prevent these things from having to be fought out in court. I think it would actually make things go faster in the long run.

RocksInMyHead · Apr 19, 2025

rjs330 said:
That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.

"The determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent’s clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member,” Kessler wrote, referring to the informant’s tip

The article isn't about the words that the judge said, but rather their legal significance.

It would be incorrect to say that there is zero evidence that he is a member of a gang, but it would be equally incorrect to say that the evidence conclusively shows him to be a member of a gang.

But this whole discussion is moot, because the issue here is one of due process. The most recent legal ruling in Garcia's case (prior to his deportation) was that he was protected from deportation. That applies regardless of whether he is or ever was a member of any gang The government violated that order by deporting him and has violated several orders to return him by multiple levels of the US court system (including the Supreme Court). In doing so, the administration demonstrates a lack of care for the rule of law or the constitution.

JosephZ · Apr 19, 2025

rjs330 said:
That's a blatant falsehood and total misrepresentation of what the judge said.

No it's not.

From the same article:

Abrego Garcia had a bail hearing before a DOJ immigration judge. It was there that the government disclosed that an informant had said Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member. As is customary in bail proceedings, the government neither identified nor produced the informant for testimony. The DOJ judge wrote that “the evidence shows that [Abrego Garcia] is a verified member of MS-13.” In this context, “verified” meant nothing more than that an unidentified informant, for whom the government vouched but whom the alien did not get to cross-examine, told the government he was an MS-13 member.

Say it aint so · Apr 19, 2025

In order to prove a gang member, Trump whips out the sharpie again:

Video: 'You would think we deported a candidate for father of the year'

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time

Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

One nation indivisible

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads