By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Mindful of the flagrancy of the government’s due-process violations, the Court refuses to let deportees languish in a solution-less mire. The government is required to return any remaining passports and identification documents, or make good faith efforts to obtain them if transferred. Furthermore, the administration must cover air travel costs for any deportee sent to a third country who wishes to return to the U.S. This ruling comes after nearly a year of legal battles concerning Venezuelans sent to the CECOT prison, including the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was eventually returned to the U.S.
Read the original article here
It seems House Speaker Mike Johnson is going through a remarkable bout of selective amnesia, particularly when it comes to the rather serious accusation of Attorney General Pam Bondi potentially spying on lawmakers through the Department of Justice’s Jeffrey Epstein files. Representative Pramila Jayapal has stated quite clearly that she spoke directly to Speaker Johnson about the DOJ tracking lawmaker searches within these sensitive files. Yet, when asked about it, Johnson’s response was a rather definitive, “I don’t know anything about that, I’m not commenting on it. I haven’t seen or heard anything about that.” This is the very definition of a “Jon Snow” moment, as in, “I know nothing.”
The issue at hand stems from a photograph taken during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, which reportedly captured notes belonging to Attorney General Pam Bondi. These notes seemingly detailed what Washington state Representative Pramila Jayapal had searched for within the unredacted Epstein files. This discovery immediately triggered significant outrage among lawmakers, who viewed it as a clear overreach and a breach of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It’s the kind of development that demands a clear and informed response from the Speaker of the House.
However, Johnson’s immediate reaction paints a picture of someone entirely detached from the situation, even though, according to Jayapal, he had already been informed. This stark contrast between being told directly and then claiming complete ignorance is what raises so many eyebrows and fuels speculation about his fitness for office. It’s hard to reconcile a leader who is supposed to be privy to the workings of government with someone who seemingly can’t recall being briefed on such a critical matter.
The notion that a Speaker of the House, a position of immense responsibility, could genuinely “know nothing” about a potential surveillance operation targeting members of Congress, especially after being directly alerted, is difficult to accept. It suggests a level of detachment that is, frankly, concerning. When such significant allegations surface, particularly those that touch upon potential abuses of power and the privacy of lawmakers, a swift and transparent response is expected. Instead, what we’re seeing is a performance of profound unawareness.
This apparent memory lapse on such a weighty issue also brings into question the Speaker’s overall competency and his grasp of the responsibilities inherent in his role. For someone whose job it is to be deeply informed about governmental affairs and to lead the legislative branch, a sudden inability to recall crucial information is, at best, perplexing and, at worst, indicative of a deeper problem. It leaves many wondering if this selective forgetfulness is a deliberate strategy or a genuine, albeit incredibly inconvenient, deficiency.
The situation also invites commentary on the nature of political discourse and how easily scandals can be met with feigned ignorance. It seems that the moment something smells like trouble, or the potential for political fallout, certain politicians develop an almost instantaneous case of amnesia. This “selective memory” trend, as some might call it, is a recurring theme, and in this instance, it’s particularly glaring given the gravity of the allegations.
Furthermore, for someone who publicly professes strong religious beliefs, the disconnect between these beliefs and the alleged actions or the subsequent denial is a point of contention for many. The idea of a religious leader, as Speaker Johnson is often portrayed, seemingly unconcerned with potential ethical breaches or abuses of power, raises uncomfortable questions about the application of his faith in his public life. The Bible itself contains numerous injunctions against lying, making the denial of knowledge about such a significant issue particularly striking for someone who claims to be guided by its teachings.
This recurring pattern of “I know nothing” responses, reminiscent of historical figures like Sergeant Schultz, can be frustrating for the public. It creates an environment where accountability feels elusive, and where important questions are met with deflection rather than direct answers. The public deserves transparency and honesty, especially when the actions of government officials are being scrutinized.
The implication is clear: whether it’s intentional obfuscation or genuine bewilderment, Speaker Johnson’s current stance on this matter is not fostering confidence. The situation demands clarity, and the public waits to see if any more light will be shed on this alleged surveillance and the Speaker’s surprising lack of awareness. The reputation of the House and the trust of the people are at stake, and feigned ignorance is unlikely to suffice as a long-term strategy.