By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia are seeking to dismiss human smuggling charges, arguing the prosecution is vindictive. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen with U.S. family, was mistakenly deported and subsequently returned after a Supreme Court ruling. He now faces charges based on a traffic stop where authorities suspected smuggling, but he was initially allowed to proceed with a warning. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw has expressed concern over potential vindictive prosecution, citing statements from Trump administration officials that suggest the charges may be retaliatory.
Read the original article here
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is making a significant move in his criminal case, asking a US judge in Tennessee to dismiss the charges entirely. His central argument? That the prosecution is driven by vindictiveness, not by a genuine pursuit of justice. This isn’t just a minor procedural request; it’s a direct challenge to the integrity of the proceedings against him, suggesting that the government’s actions are motivated by something other than the merits of the alleged offenses.
The sentiment surrounding this case suggests a deep-seated concern about the fairness of the legal process. There’s a feeling that fundamental rights might have been overlooked, and the hope is that a judge will recognize this and ensure the government adheres to constitutional boundaries. The idea of the government being reprimanded with a simple instruction to “not do that again” is met with a cynical acknowledgment that such warnings often seem to go unheeded, implying a systemic issue where rights violations are an accepted, even preferred, mode of operation.
Reflecting on the past, it’s clear that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case once held significant public attention, but the current climate has unfortunately overshadowed it. The situation has apparently deteriorated to such an extent that even the disturbing news of individuals being sent to CECOT, a facility described in stark terms as a “torture prison,” has become commonplace. The lack of updates on the release of those sent to CECOT suggests a level of systemic cruelty that has normalized immense suffering.
Considering the considerable hardships Kilmar Abrego Garcia has allegedly endured under what is described as a “cruel regime,” the argument for his freedom gains considerable weight. There’s a powerful sense that the government might be intentionally making an example of him, an act that paints a somber picture of the nation’s current trajectory. The commentary strongly suggests a departure from foundational American values, with a growing perception of the country becoming “cruel” and deviating from its historical ideals.
The continued pursuit of this case by the government is met with incredulity, especially given the stated intention that Abrego Garcia will “never set foot in the US again.” This raises questions about the underlying motives, with a strong belief that human well-being is not a primary concern. The decision to press forward with charges is viewed as a strategic misstep, particularly if the case is perceived as weak, hinting at a potentially flawed legal foundation.
There’s a tangible anticipation regarding the defense’s discovery phase, with the expectation that it will be “wild.” This suggests that Abrego Garcia’s legal team believes they will uncover significant evidence of governmental misconduct or impropriety. The idea that “more training” is the proposed solution to perceived issues is met with derision, especially in light of alarming reports of over 4,000 “detainees” disappearing without a trace from a facility referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz.” The sheer scale of such disappearances, if true, would cast a dark shadow over any ongoing legal proceedings.
The timeline of these events feels overwhelming and deeply concerning. The act of El Salvador releasing 250 Venezuelans who were sent to CECOT as part of a prisoner swap, while 30 Salvadorans remain imprisoned there, highlights a complex and troubling geopolitical situation. This is juxtaposed with the prolonged detention of individuals for over 20 years without trial in Guantanamo Bay, further underscoring a pattern of severe human rights concerns.
Given these circumstances, the argument is made that Kilmar Abrego Garcia deserves compensation for what he has allegedly suffered. The commentary also brings to light the historical context of the United States’ treatment of Black people, suggesting a recurring pattern of cruelty that the current situation may reflect.
However, the assertion that his case is “weak” is contested, with a recommendation to consult legal experts like Michael Popok on Legal AF for a more informed perspective on judicial rulings. The development that Abrego Garcia initially faced no human trafficking charges or evidence, and that these were allegedly created later to bolster the case, is a critical point. It’s understood that he was present in the US under a “stay order” which appears to have been disregarded.
The indictment for alleged “human trafficking” is being questioned, with speculation that it stems from a traffic stop three years prior where he was accompanied by an individual without proper documentation. This origin story for the charges strongly supports the claim of vindictiveness, leading to the prediction that Abrego Garcia will likely achieve financial success through lawsuits against the U.S. government once his case is resolved. The notion that the prosecution might be using him as a test subject for “arrest moves” is also mentioned, along with the expectation of substantial financial compensation.
The commentary suggests that the defense believes the prosecution’s “case” is indeed weak, meaning that if the case isn’t dismissed, the discovery process will be instrumental in exposing the government’s alleged wrongdoings. There’s a prevailing sentiment that a dismissal is a likely outcome, although it remains to be seen.
The irony is not lost on observers that the individuals pursuing this case against Abrego Garcia might be the same ones allegedly engaged in tactics akin to “Matrix level moves” to withhold files. These tactics are purportedly employed to shield underage human sex trafficking operations that benefit the wealthy and powerful. This comparison is further refined, suggesting that perhaps a more fitting analogy than the Matrix might be Orwell’s “1984,” with its themes of denial and fabricated realities, or even a reference to the Epstein saga, highlighting the perceived manipulation of information to obscure inconvenient truths.