In addition to everything that is terrifying about Kilmar Ábrego García's case, we have the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States who is married to a US citizen. Is there a more clear case of violation of due process and civil rights?
>" the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States"
I am sorry to break it to you, but this happens all the time, and is not a violation of due process. You can find examples of many Presidents declaring opinions on the guilt or innocence of a variety of people before their trials. [1] It makes sense that this is allowed, as the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, so all prosecutions are done with the tacit or explicit approval of the President. It would be more problematic if the judges in the case expressed views on guilt or innocence before hearing the case.
Just because something is common, we shouldn't accept it if we believe it to be wrong. Slavery was once widely tolerated, as was marital rape. But people in those days decided that these things were wrong and should not be tolerated. Had they listened to arguments like yours we would still be living in those conditions.
There's also an argument to be made for holding our political officers to a much higher standard than the general populace.
Do you think the Justice Department should prosecute people they believe to be innocent? If not, it seems that every prosecution is an expression of the view that the accused is guilty, and by allowing the JD to proceed, the President is expressing approval of the view. Can you please point out the error in this logic?
The error is this logic is that it precludes the possibility that the Justice Department thinks (know for a fact even) that he is innocent but is pursuing the case anyway because political pressure from the President preferring him to be punished rather than admit a mistake.
Belief is not binary and can change with new evidence. You may believe it is likely someone is innocent, but should still witness all the evidence to update your beliefs. In the rare case that there is concrete and infallible evidence that the accused IS innocent, they are typically not prosecuted, or it wraps up very quickly.
The potential source of error is the assumption that the president has the authority to stop a prosecution (short of the pardon power). I say "potential" because a "unitary executive" advocate would claim this is true, and it is becoming more true during the second Trump administration, although it was notably false during the first one. [In prior administrations, including Trump I and Obama, the DOJ appointed independent counsel precisely to prosecute cases the president would have disagreed with prosecuting.]
That sounds nice, but US is mostly a democracy, and to the extent it is a constitutional republic those principles only hold to the extent people are willing to acknowledge them and assent to be ruled under them.
So you're saying we shouldn't ask people to acknowledge them and to be ruled under them? If you keep arguing on those grounds then we're going to be saying "that's nice but we live in the real world" all the way to a failed state.
People are not acknowledging and ruled under the constitution as written and intended and the amendments thereafter, for a very long time.
For one very obvious example, observe that it is illegal to notice an opium poppy is growing in a forest, then take and smoke it, and somehow that magically being interstate commerce.
At this point the government as we know it would totally collapse were it not the people willfully and deliberately violate the tenants of the constitutional republic we live under. And most of them, seem to agree with that.
I don't see the comment's argument as being that this is okay because it's common. It's just pointing out that this is nothing completely new and that it's a shame that it gets pointed out in a selective way when it could have been called out even earlier under other administrations. That's completely fair if one genuinely cares about due process instead of just dogmatic sniping..
It was a throwaway line at the end of a fundraiser. Obama misspoke and was widely criticized widely, even internationally. It does not happen all the time. Obama's gaffe does not make it common.
Well aren't military judges part of the executive branch and members of the armed forces? So the president is in their chain of command which makes those remarks by Obama especially egregious.
I think you're right, but the military has different rules about due process, which you may not find convincing. A good example of the difference is the Captain's Mast.
Trump and his circus of hacks & morons might be one of the most egregious cases in years of an administration doing this, but what you say is true, many previous presidents have poked their political hands into stirring the judicial pot of trying to paint culpability where it hasn't been legally established yet. It's a shame the brainless hie mind decides to downvote this, as they do for all kinds of things they just don't want touching their sensitive little eyes.
To be fair, whenever a DA/the DOJ/an agency has its sights on someone and is trying to pursue a civil suit/conviction/agency action, there is a presumption that it will continue until it's settled or goes to trial or what have you. When they give up, it's an exception to the general rule.
Just as a reminder, deportees to CECOT were subjected to beatings, torture, and rape. Both Bukele and the Trump administration know this, know innocent people were dumped there for an intended life sentence, blatantly lied about it, and seem to find the whole thing *funny*.
It’s self-evident what supporters of these individuals will look like in the history books.
The vindictive attack on an ordinary citizen is pretty horrible. It looks personal. It may leave Kilmar a civil court path to sue Trump personally for damages.
The abusive behaviour of the US government towards Kilmar Abrego Garcia is just petty and meaningless. He hurt Trump's ego, and now Trump's lackeys are trying to make an example of him.
Because this bullshittery is worth pointing out every fucking time: Here's another perfectly valid post on this site, related to previous unflagged posts on the same subject, easily no less relevant than many other non-tech posts that garner no shortage of comments and don't get flagged, getting flagged by some childish ass. Assholes will asshole, and bots may bot but you'd think the site's admin could start pulling its head out of its ass just enough to brake some of the permissive flagging habits on HN a tad.
They're idiots who are throwing good money after bad in order to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.
MAGA voted for revolution, and they got Hillary Clinton (Trump's political idol since the 90s.) No matter who you vote for, you somehow get Hillary Clinton.
Everything that he is doing is what he said that he'd stop, except deportations of illegal aliens, attacks on public sector workers, and closing slush funds disguised as foreign aid, which his base (and others) very much support. The cutting of the public sector turned out to be a scam (barely anyone was cut, they were cut stupidly) and the slush funds were just shifted directly to the Pentagon; and although he closed the border, he was barely deporting. The Epstein failure, the Ukraine failure, and the Israel failure are also painfully obvious, and obviously things he could end at will (except he's obviously implicated by Epstein.)
So what he chose to do was to escalate the public show, the extravaganza of deportations. He tried to do it in the noisiest, most publicity aware way by picking fights with the most dingbat Democrats, creating alligator swamp prisons, and unleashing military in the streets of Democratic cities.
Since his backers (and every politician's backers) in the arms and oil industries want him to overthrow Venezuela, he's tried to somehow link what is overwhelmingly popular (the deportation of illegal aliens) with something stupid and unpopular (regime change in Venezuela) by talking about "illegal alien gang drug terrorists."
Ábrego García was a mistake that he got caught on, that he stupidly made a poster child for this PR strategy, and he's too dumb to let it go.
And to be fair, he sort of can't because it makes you wonder how many other mistakes there are, and then you can't give him the benefit of the doubt to push through the fast deportations he's trying to do to get around deliberately obstructionist judges.
Even worse, García is an illegal alien, and most people who voted for Trump want him deported anyway, no matter how nice he is. But Trump committed to painting immigrants as dangerous when statistically they're less dangerous than American natives. It's the second generation that become criminals, because they catch up to the US rate for people in their economic strata.
He could go back on that dumb claim, but it's not only been his brand since the first election, it's now tied to his excuse for continuing the siege of Venezuela, and escalating it to an outright attack. Also, the conquest of Venezuela would be a real legacy, because the US has become a country of thieves, and Venezuela has a lot to steal.
This is the real consideration. He doesn't care about immigration at all, which is why he isn't deporting, and isn't going after employers (who aren't Korean) but making exceptions and extolling H1Bs to MAGA rage. Attacking Venezuela is just going to lead to more Venezuelans coming in (and is why they're here now), and they'll just get a "legal" process that lets in just as many as the illegal process, in order to kill wages. Whoever you vote for, you get Hillary Clinton.
Actually, Obama and Biden deported more people than trump. trump's just doing it in a more random, arbitrary, sensational, and enthusiastically cruel way.
> They're idiots who are throwing good money after bad in order to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.
This isn't idiocy. A core pillar of the cult of personality that they are fermenting is that the glorious leader and his boyars don't make mistakes.
Anything good is his doing, anything bad is someone else's fault. It's very easy for them to act this way, and the base loves it, because the only requirement for behaving in this way is a complete lack of character.
Since it's difficult to project this one on someone else, they do the next best thing - dial up the spite and cruelty against their victim.
This is exactly it. Not sure why downvoted. When was the last time the administration admitted to any mistake? Fascism is inherently fragile and makes every effort to appear flawless while deflecting all blame on the Other.
He had an active deportation order, that only prevented him from being deported to El Salvador.
Had they just dropped him in a village in some Al-Shabab controlled hell-hole in Somalia we'd never even be hearing this story. The whole thing was an exercise in hubris for no apparent reason.
By bringing him back, his asylum claim timer is reset though. Last time he applied too late and was denied on that basis. I believe he will claim it again, this time less than 1 year from entry.
In addition to everything that is terrifying about Kilmar Ábrego García's case, we have the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States who is married to a US citizen. Is there a more clear case of violation of due process and civil rights?
Aren’t they lying when they know the truth? Calling them biased statements waters down the issue
You have a good point, they're lying. The sane-washing works even when we know it's happening.
>" the VP and President of this country making clearly biased remarks on an active criminal case against a resident of the United States"
I am sorry to break it to you, but this happens all the time, and is not a violation of due process. You can find examples of many Presidents declaring opinions on the guilt or innocence of a variety of people before their trials. [1] It makes sense that this is allowed, as the Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, so all prosecutions are done with the tacit or explicit approval of the President. It would be more problematic if the judges in the case expressed views on guilt or innocence before hearing the case.
[1] https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/04/25/obama-decla...
Just because something is common, we shouldn't accept it if we believe it to be wrong. Slavery was once widely tolerated, as was marital rape. But people in those days decided that these things were wrong and should not be tolerated. Had they listened to arguments like yours we would still be living in those conditions.
There's also an argument to be made for holding our political officers to a much higher standard than the general populace.
Do you think the Justice Department should prosecute people they believe to be innocent? If not, it seems that every prosecution is an expression of the view that the accused is guilty, and by allowing the JD to proceed, the President is expressing approval of the view. Can you please point out the error in this logic?
The error is this logic is that it precludes the possibility that the Justice Department thinks (know for a fact even) that he is innocent but is pursuing the case anyway because political pressure from the President preferring him to be punished rather than admit a mistake.
Belief is not binary and can change with new evidence. You may believe it is likely someone is innocent, but should still witness all the evidence to update your beliefs. In the rare case that there is concrete and infallible evidence that the accused IS innocent, they are typically not prosecuted, or it wraps up very quickly.
The potential source of error is the assumption that the president has the authority to stop a prosecution (short of the pardon power). I say "potential" because a "unitary executive" advocate would claim this is true, and it is becoming more true during the second Trump administration, although it was notably false during the first one. [In prior administrations, including Trump I and Obama, the DOJ appointed independent counsel precisely to prosecute cases the president would have disagreed with prosecuting.]
That sounds nice, but US is mostly a democracy, and to the extent it is a constitutional republic those principles only hold to the extent people are willing to acknowledge them and assent to be ruled under them.
So you're saying we shouldn't ask people to acknowledge them and to be ruled under them? If you keep arguing on those grounds then we're going to be saying "that's nice but we live in the real world" all the way to a failed state.
People are not acknowledging and ruled under the constitution as written and intended and the amendments thereafter, for a very long time.
For one very obvious example, observe that it is illegal to notice an opium poppy is growing in a forest, then take and smoke it, and somehow that magically being interstate commerce.
At this point the government as we know it would totally collapse were it not the people willfully and deliberately violate the tenants of the constitutional republic we live under. And most of them, seem to agree with that.
I don't see the comment's argument as being that this is okay because it's common. It's just pointing out that this is nothing completely new and that it's a shame that it gets pointed out in a selective way when it could have been called out even earlier under other administrations. That's completely fair if one genuinely cares about due process instead of just dogmatic sniping..
It was a throwaway line at the end of a fundraiser. Obama misspoke and was widely criticized widely, even internationally. It does not happen all the time. Obama's gaffe does not make it common.
Well aren't military judges part of the executive branch and members of the armed forces? So the president is in their chain of command which makes those remarks by Obama especially egregious.
I think you're right, but the military has different rules about due process, which you may not find convincing. A good example of the difference is the Captain's Mast.
Read up on the concept of unlawful command influence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_command_influence
Trump and his circus of hacks & morons might be one of the most egregious cases in years of an administration doing this, but what you say is true, many previous presidents have poked their political hands into stirring the judicial pot of trying to paint culpability where it hasn't been legally established yet. It's a shame the brainless hie mind decides to downvote this, as they do for all kinds of things they just don't want touching their sensitive little eyes.
US govt's ego is hurt! They are aggressively trying to prove - one way or another - they were right.
To be fair, whenever a DA/the DOJ/an agency has its sights on someone and is trying to pursue a civil suit/conviction/agency action, there is a presumption that it will continue until it's settled or goes to trial or what have you. When they give up, it's an exception to the general rule.
https://archive.ph/2025.09.15-111938/https://www.newyorker.c...
“Gobierno corrupto.”
Yup.
Just as a reminder, deportees to CECOT were subjected to beatings, torture, and rape. Both Bukele and the Trump administration know this, know innocent people were dumped there for an intended life sentence, blatantly lied about it, and seem to find the whole thing *funny*.
It’s self-evident what supporters of these individuals will look like in the history books.
The vindictive attack on an ordinary citizen is pretty horrible. It looks personal. It may leave Kilmar a civil court path to sue Trump personally for damages.
The abusive behaviour of the US government towards Kilmar Abrego Garcia is just petty and meaningless. He hurt Trump's ego, and now Trump's lackeys are trying to make an example of him.
Because this bullshittery is worth pointing out every fucking time: Here's another perfectly valid post on this site, related to previous unflagged posts on the same subject, easily no less relevant than many other non-tech posts that garner no shortage of comments and don't get flagged, getting flagged by some childish ass. Assholes will asshole, and bots may bot but you'd think the site's admin could start pulling its head out of its ass just enough to brake some of the permissive flagging habits on HN a tad.
They're idiots who are throwing good money after bad in order to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.
MAGA voted for revolution, and they got Hillary Clinton (Trump's political idol since the 90s.) No matter who you vote for, you somehow get Hillary Clinton.
Everything that he is doing is what he said that he'd stop, except deportations of illegal aliens, attacks on public sector workers, and closing slush funds disguised as foreign aid, which his base (and others) very much support. The cutting of the public sector turned out to be a scam (barely anyone was cut, they were cut stupidly) and the slush funds were just shifted directly to the Pentagon; and although he closed the border, he was barely deporting. The Epstein failure, the Ukraine failure, and the Israel failure are also painfully obvious, and obviously things he could end at will (except he's obviously implicated by Epstein.)
So what he chose to do was to escalate the public show, the extravaganza of deportations. He tried to do it in the noisiest, most publicity aware way by picking fights with the most dingbat Democrats, creating alligator swamp prisons, and unleashing military in the streets of Democratic cities.
Since his backers (and every politician's backers) in the arms and oil industries want him to overthrow Venezuela, he's tried to somehow link what is overwhelmingly popular (the deportation of illegal aliens) with something stupid and unpopular (regime change in Venezuela) by talking about "illegal alien gang drug terrorists."
Ábrego García was a mistake that he got caught on, that he stupidly made a poster child for this PR strategy, and he's too dumb to let it go.
And to be fair, he sort of can't because it makes you wonder how many other mistakes there are, and then you can't give him the benefit of the doubt to push through the fast deportations he's trying to do to get around deliberately obstructionist judges.
Even worse, García is an illegal alien, and most people who voted for Trump want him deported anyway, no matter how nice he is. But Trump committed to painting immigrants as dangerous when statistically they're less dangerous than American natives. It's the second generation that become criminals, because they catch up to the US rate for people in their economic strata.
He could go back on that dumb claim, but it's not only been his brand since the first election, it's now tied to his excuse for continuing the siege of Venezuela, and escalating it to an outright attack. Also, the conquest of Venezuela would be a real legacy, because the US has become a country of thieves, and Venezuela has a lot to steal.
This is the real consideration. He doesn't care about immigration at all, which is why he isn't deporting, and isn't going after employers (who aren't Korean) but making exceptions and extolling H1Bs to MAGA rage. Attacking Venezuela is just going to lead to more Venezuelans coming in (and is why they're here now), and they'll just get a "legal" process that lets in just as many as the illegal process, in order to kill wages. Whoever you vote for, you get Hillary Clinton.
Actually, Obama and Biden deported more people than trump. trump's just doing it in a more random, arbitrary, sensational, and enthusiastically cruel way.
> They're idiots who are throwing good money after bad in order to keep from admitting that they made a mistake.
This isn't idiocy. A core pillar of the cult of personality that they are fermenting is that the glorious leader and his boyars don't make mistakes.
Anything good is his doing, anything bad is someone else's fault. It's very easy for them to act this way, and the base loves it, because the only requirement for behaving in this way is a complete lack of character.
Since it's difficult to project this one on someone else, they do the next best thing - dial up the spite and cruelty against their victim.
This is exactly it. Not sure why downvoted. When was the last time the administration admitted to any mistake? Fascism is inherently fragile and makes every effort to appear flawless while deflecting all blame on the Other.
[flagged]
Maybe its before your time, but hackers used to have a strong anti-authoritarian bent. This story is a periodic check-in on where we are.
I know you're not new here... surely you see many political posts on HN daily without any fuss... why choose to single out this one in particular?
He had an active deportation order, that only prevented him from being deported to El Salvador.
Had they just dropped him in a village in some Al-Shabab controlled hell-hole in Somalia we'd never even be hearing this story. The whole thing was an exercise in hubris for no apparent reason.
They had to make up reasons to bring him back because they messed up by sending him to the one place he wasn't allowed to go.
But now they can do what they always could have, send him anywhere else.
By bringing him back, his asylum claim timer is reset though. Last time he applied too late and was denied on that basis. I believe he will claim it again, this time less than 1 year from entry.