Kilmar Abrego Garcia said he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture in the notorious El Salvador prison the Trump administration had deported him to in March, according to court documents filed Wednesday.
He said he was kicked and hit so often after arrival that by the following day, he had visible bruises and lumps all over his body. He said he and 20 others were forced to kneel all night long and guards hit anyone who fell.
What evidence do you have for this? Honestly asking here.
I mean, the SCOTUS basically ruled the federal level electeds, appointeds, and hirees all have qualified immunity for “official acts”, and “official acts” are anything Trump says. The SCOTUS also ruled the courts cannot stop the POTUS from doing anything, except in extremely narrow ways. The SCOTUS also ruled that every regulation is a government overreach. The SCOTUS also ruled money is speech. The SCOTUS also ruled that Trump can, at will, deploy the military on US soil to wage war against it’s citizens.
That’s not entirely correct. “Official acts” are to be determined by the judge presiding over the case. Since no charges against the President have been filed or heard, “official acts” have yet to be legally defined.
So, official acts are going to be determined by judges appointed by Trump? How do you think that will work out?
BTW, charges were laid against Trump, and he was convicted. And then, served no jail time, and the sentence was commuted.
You’re talking about two different things. The charges that were heard, resulting in Trump’s conviction, were NYS charges. The federal charges have yet to be heard.
Trump cannot pardon state charges, so a state judge can determine an official act if there are new state charges.
So, in the event of state charges, as long as he runs for an office, he is immune from everything then, correct?
Nah. He was convicted of the state charges. That’s my point. He did not use immunity in that case. Therefore, “official acts” have yet to be defined by a judge.
He could be charged by the state as POTUS, and the state judge would determine of the acts that defined the criminal activity were “official acts.”
For a recent example, they said the president cannot deport people under the Alien Enemies Act and that the government needs to give people a reasonable timeline to get a lawyer and mount a legal defense.
The federal government lost that one (for now at least… they sent the question of Alien Enemies Act back to lower courts… but not habeus corpus)
What happens if in a couple of months, the federal government just sends some people to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act- directly ignoring the SC?
This would fit in with the administration’s strategy. Do legally dubious things to cause chaos. Ie sending troops into LA totally unnecessarily. Why? Cause protests, legal doubts about whether or not federal government has a right to use military against domestic citizens.
Or the military parade… or the tariffs… defunding NOAA hoping for a destructive hurricane, etc. It’s chaos for the sake of chaos. Same reason they deported the Venezuelans in the first place without habeas corpus.
It’s a concerted and consistent effort to weaken the public institutions until they feel like enough is enough and deal the final blow. The moment where they finally roll the die and cross the Rubicon.
The SC is the only one that has the potential to stand up to the administration. I firmly believe there will be a showdown.
Note- The “official acts” thing has more nuance although that can of worms is not something I have time for. But when that ruling happened, I read the opinions the justices.
Not everything counts as an official act. For example Reagan’s Iran Contra business would not have fallen under the definition.
You or I may not agree with the SC on every ruling. But the individuals on there, for the most part, are scholars of the constitution and hold a deep respect for it. It’s why even people like Kavanaugh who was appointed by Trump will sometimes rule against his interests.
We may disagree on some interpretations but these people genuinely believe in the rule of law. This will inevitably clash with the administration.
And then said,“But we can’t make him stop ignoring us”
Nothing at all.
I think it’s more about building up the dictatorship, so nothing stands in his way.
This is a fucking laughable joke. You’re kidding, right?
lol, ok. Which law? Bible law? Trump law?
Your response provides very little substance. If I were you I’d ask myself why am I spending my valuable time discussing things online if I’m not really engaging.
You really only hurt yourself in the long run with this type of attitude. I hope you’re a teenager because then it’s understandable. Either way unless you engage more than a “lol ok” I’ll save my toilet time for something else.
The substance is “Judges aren’t checking him, and have stated they cannot”
Nah, pushing 50, and have seen this dog and pony show get worse since the 80’s, with people saying, “Don’t worry! Our system will keep things in check!” as all of the checks are discarded.
Let me guess, just vote bloo no matter hoo, right?