We start this week with Trump’s handpicked DOJ officials opening a case and executing search warrants against Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton. Those same officials were already pursuing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James (who successfully prosecuted Trump on fraud charges), and Senator Adam Schiff (who stood up to Trump in a Congress where far too many people were unwilling to do that). We don’t know the details yet, but it appears that the Bolton search warrants came out of the blue. There doesn’t seem to have been any effort to ask him to return the classified material the government believes he’s in possession of, as there was—more than once—with Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago case. The revenge presidency is in full swing. The Justice Department’s long time mantra, “do the right thing for the right reason in the right way,” has been replaced with “do whatever the president demands of you, even if it means lying to a judge and violating your oath to uphold the rule of law.” But there’s more. On Friday, Trump speculated out loud about the possibility of deploying National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago, as he has in Washington, D.C. Trump is claiming he needs to do this because of violent crime—under the law, he’ll have to declare it’s an emergency. That’s going to be difficult to do because when the FBI released national crime statistics on August 5, they reported that, “National violent crime decreased an estimated 4.5% in 2024 compared to 2023 estimates.” Plus, Chicago had a historic crime drop in the first half of this year. Nonetheless, that’s Trump’s mantra and he’s sticking to it. Just today, Trump called Baltimore “crime ridden,” after rejecting Maryland Governor Wes Moore’s invitation to walk the streets of the city with him to see what it’s really like. The fact that it isn’t true does nothing to keep Trump from saying it. The Washington Post is reporting that a plan for Chicago involving National Guard troops, and possibly members of the military as well, is being developed. We are in the era, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote last week, of Calvinball. Her reference was to comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, where they played a game in which the rules are made up to suit and constantly in flux. Justice Jackson wrote that her colleagues were playing “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” and that in this version of the game, “this Administration always wins.” She might as well have called it presidential Calvinball, which, in fact, it is. Her comment came in the case challenging the administration’s cancellation of $783 million in NIH grants because of Trump’s anti-DEI directives. The brief, unsigned order in a 5-4 decision from the Court’s so-called shadow docket ended a stay that had been put in place by a federal judge in Massachusetts. Even though litigation over the grants will move forward in the Court of Claims, the administration is now free to pull the plug on scientific research. And in the name of what? Trying to preserve racism and misogyny? The problem is that these days, when the administration wins, it’s at the expense of the people. Calvinball does not reward the meritorious. Tonight, there is reporting that some of the National Guard troops in Washington D.C. are now carrying weapons. Most guardsmen will be carrying M17 pistols, but some will be armed with M4 rifles. It’s a frightening moment for those of us old enough to remember Kent State. This week, we will be watching all of that and also, the next developments in the Kilmar Abrego García case. At the mid-July hearing in the civil Abrego García case in Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to produce witnesses with knowledge of the government's plans for Abrego García if he was released on bond pending his trial in the criminal case in Tennessee. Incredibly, the government witness declined to answer basic questions about the government’s plans, including what country other than El Salvador, where the government is currently prohibited from sending him, they might decide to dump him. The government took the ridiculous position that unless and until Abrego García was released from criminal custody in the Tennessee case and placed in ICE detention, they would not make any plans—they just had some vague ideas about the possibilities. Now we know that was all a dodge. Last week, while he was still in custody, the government offered Abrego García a plea deal that involved precisely the kind of prior planning the witness testified it doesn’t do: Plead guilty to those paper-thin charges and be deported to Costa Rica with a promise he wouldn’t be incarcerated. It was a sweetheart deal to get the government out of hot water in a case that, even in its preliminary stages, has caused them a lot of trouble, with the evidence being roundly criticized. Abrego García rejected the deal and when he was subsequently released from custody pending trial, the government promptly advised him of its new plan: They would deport him to Uganda. A country that has been designated by the State Department a Level 3 “Reconsider travel” country because of the risk of terrorism and violence, just one level down from “Do not travel.” Federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes had extended Abrego García’s stay in pre-trial detention until August 22 for his protection. It’s hard to imagine a criminal defense lawyer asking for their client to stay in federal custody to prevent something much worse. The government extracted Abrego García from the U.S. without due process and in violation of an immigration judge’s order that he not be sent to El Salvador and was forced to return him to the U.S. after folks like Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and Kristi Noem said, emphatically, that would never happen. In an effort to save face, they brought criminal charges against him to justify his return to the U.S. when they couldn’t outrun the courts any longer, claiming he was a major figure in a human trafficking ring. But the government’s evidence has appeared inconsistent and lacking in court hearings. Now, Abrego García has moved to dismiss the charges against him while prosecuting his civil case against the government. His argument is that the prosecution is selective and vindictive.
The opening sentences of the motion are powerful, “‘The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.’…But prosecutorial power, though vast, is not unlimited. It cannot be used to punish someone for exercising his constitutional rights. Yet that is exactly what has happened here. Kilmar Abrego García has been singled out by the United States government. It is obvious why. And it is not because of the seriousness of his alleged conduct. Nor is it because he poses some unique threat to this country. Instead, Mr. Abrego was charged because he refused to acquiesce in the government’s violation of his due process rights.” It is hard to imagine that a judge who is fully aware of the facts of the case wouldn’t be inclined to agree. After reciting the history of Abrego García’s “deportation” without due process and subsequent victories in court, they continue, “This case results from the government’s concerted effort to punish him for having the audacity to fight back, rather than accept a brutal injustice.” Imagine playing by the rules in the time of Calvinball. Abrego García’s lawyers concede that selective and vindictive prosecution arguments are “rarely made, less rarely successful.” But, they argue, if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case because the government is trying to use the courts to punish Abrego García for successfully challenging his unlawful removal. John Bolton’s lawyers are undoubtedly taking note.
This is the Trump administration that claimed, when they indicted him, that Abrego García had to be brought back to the United States to "face justice.” At the time, the comments made by government officials went far beyond the facts alleged in the indictment—a clear violation of DOJ policy—in describing his conduct, claiming he was a serious violent criminal who, among other things, had sexually assaulted women. Then came reports that the government’s key witness, José Ramón Hernández Reyes, was a three-time convicted felon prosecutors gave a deal to in exchange for his testimony. The deal included…discontinuing plans to deport him. You can’t make this stuff up. If the case was so strong, it would have been brought in a timely fashion, but it was years old. It was always about spinning the illegal deportation. So, Calvinball proceeds on all fronts. If you need a refresher during the week on the civil and criminal Abrego García cases, you’ll find the details in this July post from Civil Discourse. None of us can keep track of every legal twist on our own—but together, we can make sense of it. Civil Discourse is a place where we connect the dots, understand context, and remember the history so the truth doesn’t get erased. Subscribe and be part of a community that refuses to look away. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Sunday, August 24, 2025
The Week Ahead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
August 24, 2025
As the administration of President Donald Trump is using loopholes in the nation’s laws to claim the right to use the military against Ameri...
-
17 Personal Finance Concepts – #5 Home Ownershippwsadmin, 31 Oct 02:36 AM If you find value in these articles, please share them with your ...
-
A cautionary note on a very funny meme ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
Women's health has been ignored for most of history. This venture capitalist says that's changing. View this email in your browse...
No comments:
Post a Comment