By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge believes the Justice Department may have brought criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia out of vindictiveness after his successful lawsuit against the Trump administration for his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. The judge cited evidence suggesting the government sought retaliation, potentially to deter Abrego Garcia from further legal action. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are now seeking to dismiss the charges and gather evidence to prove the administration’s improper motives, which may include testimony from officials. If successful, it could be an embarrassing outcome for the Justice Department, especially considering public statements from officials and the unusually delayed nature of the charges.
Read the original article here
Kilmar Abrego Garcia may have been charged because of the Trump administration’s vindictiveness, a judge finds, which, frankly, considering the climate at the time, seems almost laughably understated. The sheer volume of “may” being used in the headlines and the general sentiment expressed by the comments paints a clear picture: many people already believed this to be the case. It’s almost as if the headline writer was intentionally softening the blow, aware of the obviousness of the situation.
The key takeaway from this situation is the timeline, which seems to suggest a pattern of behavior. The delayed charging of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, specifically until after his high-profile deportation and subsequent exposure of the administration’s policies, is a huge red flag. It’s hard to ignore the coincidences, especially when considering the alleged illegal deportation to a concentration camp.
Further complicating matters, the government’s alleged actions to keep Abrego Garcia in that camp, coupled with threats of deportation to Africa, raise the level of the accusations, lending more credibility to claims of malicious prosecution. The notion that this entire period in office was essentially a revenge tour isn’t just hyperbole; it appears to be a widespread belief. The administration seemed more interested in punishing perceived adversaries than in upholding justice, and it’s clear that a calculated risk was taken to try and cover up their mistakes.
This situation also highlights the high stakes involved for Abrego Garcia. His request to reopen his asylum case carries a significant risk. While success could offer him a path to citizenship, failure could put him back in the horrifying CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center. The fact that he’s even willing to take that risk underscores the severity of his situation and the desperation that many people in such circumstances face.
The casual reactions and the widespread use of sarcasm by many who commented further underscore this sentiment. Terms like “duh” and “no shit” are frequent, indicating the general public’s lack of surprise at this revelation. The phrase “may” is used and abused to the point of becoming a joke. It is a clear indication that they are not fit to be an administration. The people, in general, felt this was already known or suspected. The entire tone of the comments suggest that the news is less of a revelation and more of a confirmation of what many already understood about the previous administration.
The mention of Trump’s public statements, as well as his consistent behavior, further supports the claims of vindictiveness. This is not just speculation; it’s based on observed patterns. The comments suggest that the alleged actions against Abrego Garcia align with a broader pattern of behavior and policy decisions that were viewed as retaliatory and punitive.
The fact that the administration repeatedly failed to make any of their allegations stick, yet continued to pursue them, further reinforces the argument of malicious intent. The repeated accusations, combined with a disregard for justice and an apparent desire to attack random individuals, point toward a disturbing lack of respect for the rule of law. It appears this was not about justice at all; it was about seeking revenge.
The situation also highlights the perceived double standards of the administration. The comments also show this was clear because many others, who are believed to be the “good ole boys”, have gotten out of jail free cards. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia, an alleged “enemy”, was targeted and persecuted.
The overall reaction, judging from the comments, is one of weary resignation rather than shock. The judge’s findings may be new information, but the underlying conclusion—that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was likely targeted out of vindictiveness—is anything but surprising. It’s a case of the obvious finally being acknowledged, leaving many to wonder what else we’ll uncover.