By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent development, a federal judge canceled the trial of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man mistakenly deported by the Trump administration, and scheduled a hearing to address potential prosecutorial vindictiveness in his human smuggling case. The decision follows Abrego Garcia’s deportation and subsequent return to the U.S., during which he was issued an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges. The court will examine the prosecutors’ reasoning for charging Abrego Garcia on January 28th, and if the reasoning is found insufficient, the charges could be dismissed. These developments stem from a 2022 traffic stop where Abrego Garcia was initially allowed to continue driving with a warning, despite officers’ suspicions of smuggling.
Read the original article here
Federal judge to hold hearing on whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia is being vindictively prosecuted, and the very idea sparks a strong, immediate response: Yes, he is. The evidence seems pretty clear-cut, honestly. The fact that the White House itself, using its official Twitter account, felt the need to edit a New York Times headline to mock both the writer and Garcia himself, is telling. This wasn’t some minor, under-the-radar case. It was a clear demonstration of how Garcia’s situation was being used to bolster a narrative, a narrative that conveniently painted him as a dangerous MS-13 gang member.
The blatant effort to portray Garcia as the “worst of the worst” feels like a calculated move to perpetuate a specific image. This image was likely meant to justify mass deportations. The fact that they now want to deport him to Africa, far from his home and origin, adds another layer of absurdity and seems to suggest both cruelty and desperation. It’s a sad reality that such tactics resonate with some, who long for simple solutions to complex societal issues.
It’s natural to consider the motivations behind these actions, and it’s hard not to wonder what the president, the vice president, and various law enforcement heads had to say about the case, and why. The possibility that this could become a “smoking gun” regarding the weaponization of the Department of Justice is a significant one. The idea that a sitting president personally targeted an individual, including fabricating evidence and directing a smear campaign, is extremely concerning. It could open a door for a lot of scrutiny in regard to the case.
The very fact that a hearing of this nature is taking place is unusual. A prosecutor facing this situation could easily find their career on the line. The claim that the administration intentionally lied about Garcia being a gang member is already damning evidence. In short, the answer to the question of vindictive prosecution seems to be a resounding yes.
There’s a sense of disbelief and a slight tinge of dark humor in the air, with comments like “BREAKING NEWS: Federal judge to hold hearing on whether or not the pacific ocean is “at least slightly damp.” and comparisons to other high-profile cases. Many see it as a waste of resources, time, and effort. There is a general feeling that the answer is already known and that the hearing is just a formality.
The question of what will happen if the judge rules in Garcia’s favor is another consideration, it’s a legitimate concern. The potential consequences seem to be a bit uncertain, and the focus seems to be shifted toward the future. The point being that the hearing is seen as largely superficial at this point, and the outcome feels preordained. Some are already speculating that the prosecutor should be in jail, while Garcia’s guilt is less certain, but the vindictive nature of the prosecution is evident. The White House even photoshopped a picture to promote that Garcia was a gang member, which also felt ridiculous.
The underlying question here is if the country’s systems have the capacity to deliver justice and enforce rulings. There is an expectation that if this man wins, he will be a multimillionaire in 2028. It’s almost too obvious, to the point of being comical. Those following the case are already predicting how satisfying it will be when the case is struck down based on legal malpractice by the DoJ and executive malpractice by Trump.
It is clear that the consensus is that the prosecution is indeed vindictive, fueled by politics and a desire to win, no matter the cost. There is a strong undercurrent of frustration and disappointment, but also a sense of inevitability. Ultimately, the hearing, while necessary, seems to be a formality in a situation where the truth is self-evident.