Illegal Immigrant Awaiting Criminal Trial Wants 1st Amendment Rights Revoked For DOJ & DHS Officials

[The Brad Dad]

Lawyers representing Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, (who presently is in ICE custody awaiting Criminal Trial for Human Trafficking charges) asked Judges to muzzle Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi from making disparaging comments about their client, Abrego-Garcia.

“To safeguard his right to a fair trial, Mr. Abrego respectfully renews his earlier requests that the Court order that all DOJ and DHS officials involved in this case, and all officials in their supervisory chain, including [Bondi and Noem], refrain from making extrajudicial comments that pose a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing this proceeding,”
Abrego-Garcia's attorneys wrote.

an unnamed DHS official responded:
“If Kilmar Abrego Garcia did not want to be mentioned by the Secretary of Homeland Security, then he should have not entered our country illegally and committed heinous crimes. Once again, the media is falling all over themselves to defend this criminal illegal MS-13 gang member who is an alleged human trafficker, domestic abuser, and child predator. The media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal alien has completely fallen apart, yet they continue to peddle his sob story.”

source of quotes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...1&cvid=e1f37b074469413c94fba2bf86cda998&ei=25
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IMO, the DoJ should not be permitted to revoke 1st Amendment rights to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, or any other American citizen, for that matter. That makes a very slippery slope.

So you don't understand why or what a gag order is for. Next time, less words to get there. Maybe even one of these emojis -

 

[NotreDame]

Does an employee have a right to express their opinion regarding this Administration on the use of the NG.
It seems the employee does not have a 1st Amendment right to do so.

I believe the Administration should not speak out regarding the Garcia case. They can speak at the trial. .

Attorney General Pam Bondi Fires DOJ Staffer for Flipping Off and Cursing at National Guard Member

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Department of Justice (DOJ) employee Elizabeth Baxter on Aug. 29 for flipping off and cursing at a member of the National Guard. The move comes amid heightened law enforcement presence in D.C. at President Donald Trump's request.

people.com

Your article doesnt address whether 1st Am Free Speech rights are implicated. The article only discusses her termination and why. The fact she is terminated and the reason doesn’t necessarily render no free speech rights are involved.

Government employees enjoy 1st Amendment rights Free Speech Rights, especially a subject matter of public debate/public concern/interest.

The Court employs a balancing test. Bondi, a lawyer, articulated her reasons in such a manner to ostensibly and peripherally satisfy the test.

 

[SkyChief]

So you don't understand why or what a gag order is for. Next time, less words to get there. Maybe even one of these emojis -

Emojis are an intellectually lazy way of making a point, so that's why I don't use them. I prefer logic and reason to make points.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Emojis are an intellectually lazy way of making a point.

You should try reading one of your posts. Your OP doesn't even know what a gag order is. if it's granted, it's not unconstitutional. That's how that works.

 

[NotreDame]

The slippery slope is the DoJ revoking 1st Amendment rights on selected individuals. If the Justice Department has the power to suspend 1st Amendment rights for some citizens, then they can (and would) easily make the case for suspending 1st Amendment rights for ALL citizens. (If and when it suits them.)

Yes, for “selected individuals” specifically here government actors. Ah, but not any and all government actors but specific government actors. Augmenting the narrowness is the factual context of in which this is transpiring, a federal criminal prosecution against a defendant, a defendant cloaked in the constitutional right to a fair, impartial jury trial.

Hence, this doesn’t translate to mere “citizens.” As a result, you’ve shown no slippery slope to “citizens.” Neither are there any facts or logic presently to link this to “citizens.”

 

[mike2810]

Your article doesnt address whether 1st Am Free Speech rights are implicated. The article only discusses her termination and why. The fact she is terminated and the reason doesn’t necessarily render no free speech rights are involved.

Government employees enjoy 1st Amendment rights Free Speech Rights, especially a subject matter of public debate/public concern/interest.

The Court employs a balancing test. Bondi, a lawyer, articulated her reasons in such a manner to ostensibly and peripherally satisfy the test.

Did you provide a link to why Bondi fired the employee? Was it work performance? Was it expressing their views outside the workplace?

 

[Threegoofs]

The slippery slope is the DoJ revoking 1st Amendment rights on selected individuals. If the Justice Department has the power to suspend 1st Amendment rights for some citizens, then they can (and would) easily make the case for suspending 1st Amendment rights for ALL citizens. (If and when it suits them.)

You realize the first amendment is about protecting people from the government, not vice versa…..right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

IMO, the DoJ should not be permitted to revoke 1st Amendment rights to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, or any other American citizen, for that matter. That makes a very slippery slope.

The slippery slope is the DoJ revoking 1st Amendment rights on selected individuals. If the Justice Department has the power to suspend 1st Amendment rights for some citizens, then they can (and would) easily make the case for suspending 1st Amendment rights for ALL citizens. (If and when it suits them.)

I thought this was a minor slip at first.

But just so ya know. Federal Judges are not part of the DOJ, they are part of the Judiciary. DOH is in the Executive Branch, the Judiciary are in the Judicial Branch.

The Judicial branch must deal with Constitutional conflict. There is a Constitutional right to speak about the case. However there is no Constitutional right to slander or libel. In addition those subject to criminal prosecution also have rights. Once of which is the 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury. So now there is a conflict. The speakers right to say anything they want and the defendents right to a fair trail.

WW

 

[Nickyjo]

The slippery slope is the DoJ revoking 1st Amendment rights on selected individuals. If the Justice Department has the power to suspend 1st Amendment rights for some citizens, then they can (and would) easily make the case for suspending 1st Amendment rights for ALL citizens. (If and when it suits them.)

Ok, for the sake of argument, here’s an extreme hypothetical. Could the DOJ take out ads pronouncing individuals as guilty before their trials?

 

[SkyChief]

Ok, for the sake of argument, here’s an extreme hypothetical. Could the DOJ take out ads pronouncing individuals as guilty before their trials?

Of course not. That's absurd.

 

[Nickyjo]

Of course not. That's absurd.

How is that different, other than in degree, from what I sssume is being debated here. Years ago, as a civil rights investigator in Colorado, I was prohibited from commenting on, disclosing or even confirming the existence of an employment, housing or public accommodation complaint, even if the parties involved had publicized it. There was no thought that my free speech rights were being abused, as the rule was considered as both part of professional ethics and protective of the complainant and respondent, as they were called.

The same applies I assume when jurors are told not to discuss a case until they were considering a verdict.

 

[SkyChief]

How is that different, other than in degree, from what I sssume is being debated here. Years ago, as a civil rights investigator in Colorado, I was prohibited from commenting on, disclosing or even confirming the existence of an employment, housing or public accommodation complaint, even if the parties involved had publicized it. There was no thought that my free speech rights were being abused, as the rule was considered as both part of professional ethics and protective of the complainant and respondent, as they were called.

The same applies I assume when jurors are told not to discuss a case until they were considering a verdict.

A defendant in a criminal trial is always presumed Not Guilty until that defendant is proven guilty, and convicted by a Jury of his or her peers.

A prosecutor must always take the following two positions going forward with prosecuting a crime: 1) that a crime has been committed, AND 2) that sufficient evidence has been gathered to get a conviction. If either of these criteria are not met, then the prosecutor must drop the case.

On May 21st, a Grand Jury found that there was sufficient evidence to charge Abrego-Garcia with one count of Conspiracy to transport undocumented Immigrants, and one count of Unlawful transportation of undocumented people. His trial is scheduled to begin January 26th 2026.

Some officials in the DoJ and DHS have publicly commented on Abrego-Garcia's (alleged) federal crimes, which is not unusual in high-profile cases. Abrego-Garcia's legal team is petitioning for a gag order - they claim that Trump administration officials keep attacking Abrego-Garcia with “highly prejudicial, inflammatory, and false statements.”

My personal opinion is that the gag order has no merit. We'll see.

 

[Nickyjo]

A defendant in a criminal trial is always presumed Not Guilty until that defendant is proven guilty, and convicted by a Jury of his or her peers.

A prosecutor must always take the following two positions going forward with prosecuting a crime: 1) that a crime has been committed, AND 2) that sufficient evidence has been gathered to get a conviction. If either of these criteria are not met, then the prosecutor must drop the case.

On May 21st, a Grand Jury found that there was sufficient evidence to charge Abrego-Garcia with one count of Conspiracy to transport undocumented Immigrants, and one count of Unlawful transportation of undocumented people. His trial is scheduled to begin January 26th 2026.

Some officials in the DoJ and DHS have publicly commented on Abrego-Garcia's (alleged) federal crimes, which is not unusual in high-profile cases. Abrego-Garcia's legal team is petitioning for a gag order - they claim that Trump administration officials keep attacking Abrego-Garcia with “highly prejudicial, inflammatory, and false statements.”

My personal opinion is that the gag order has no merit. We'll see.

Maybe, maybe not. But the order has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment, more to do with ethics and responsibility.

 

[SkyChief]

Maybe, maybe not. But the order has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment, more to do with ethics and responsibility.

Fair enough.

I found this statement by Abrego-Garcia's lawyers hilarious:
“For months, numerous representatives of the same federal government that is responsible for prosecuting this case have publicly disparaged Mr. Abrego’s character and reputation,”

It's true, but the DoJ and DHS officials have good reason to have publicly disparaged Abrego-Garcia’s character and reputation. The man is violent - he beat his wife in front her children. She (Jennifer Vasquez Sura) stated so in an affidavit in a petition for protection "from domestic violence". . . . On TWO occasions. Abrego-Garcia is a serial wife-beater.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the federal criminal charges against him, but Abrego-Garcia's shitty character and reputation is not the fault of DoJ or DHS officials - - he has only himself and his deplorable behavior to blame for that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Fair enough.

I found this statement by Abrego-Garcia's lawyers hilarious:
“For months, numerous representatives of the same federal government that is responsible for prosecuting this case have publicly disparaged Mr. Abrego’s character and reputation,”

It's true, but the DoJ and DHS officials have good reason to have publicly disparaged Abrego-Garcia’s character and reputation. The man is violent - he beat his wife in front her children. She (Jennifer Vasquez Sura) stated so in an affidavit in a petition for protection "from domestic violence". . . . On TWO occasions. Abrego-Garcia is a serial wife-beater.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the federal criminal charges against him, but Abrego-Garcia's shitty character and reputation is not the fault of DoJ or DHS officials - - he has only himself and his deplorable behavior to blame for that.

Lot of what you post was in the past and his family seems to be behibd him now. And if potential jurors are tainted by the unnecessary comments by prosecutors, they have only themselves to blame if any conviction obtained is overturned.

 

[SkyChief]

Lot of what you post was in the past and his family seems to be behibd him now. And if potential jurors are tainted by the unnecessary comments by prosecutors, they have only themselves to blame if any conviction obtained is overturned.

Possibly.

But regardless of the verdict of the criminal trial, Abrego-Gargia will be deported - even if a conviction was overturned, or he is acquitted. Undoubtedly, ICE agents will be patiently waiting in the courthouse hallway on the last day of his trial.

ICE is keeping really close tabs on Abrego-Garcia.

 

[Nickyjo]

Possibly.


But regardless of the verdict of the criminal trial, Abrego-Gargia will be deported - even if a conviction was overturned, or he is acquitted. Undoubtedly, ICE agents will be patiently waiting in the courthouse hallway on the last day of his trial.

He was granted withholding of deportation to El Salvador by the US, and treaty prohibitions can prevent his deportation to danger elsewhere. But there was no reason to deport him to any place for any reason. He was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration. His chief (only?) offense has been that his case made Trump look bad. Unforgivable. But tell me why he should be deported? He was here legally and conformed to all reporting requirements of his status.

 

[SkyChief]

He was granted withholding of deportation to El Salvador by the US, and treaty prohibitions can prevent his deportation to danger elsewhere.

Uganda has agreed to take him (and other deportees from the U.S.)

But there was no reason to deport him to any place for any reason. He was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration.

He was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

His chief (only?) offense has been that his case made Trump look bad.

Not really. Abrego-Garcia's "chief" criminal offenses are:
• Conspiracy to transport undocumented Immigrants, and
• Unlawful transportation of undocumented people

A Grand Jury determined that there is sufficient evidence to prove that he committed these crimes.

Unforgivable. But tell me why he should be deported?

1) Abrego-Garcia entered the country illegally, and was subsequently denied asylum. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally, and is not granted asylum is subject to deportation.

2) In the government’s motion for detention, which said it learned that Abrego-Garcia "solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor, beginning in approximately 2020." That motion said "no charges against the defendant regarding child pornography have been filed, but it demonstrates the danger the defendant [Abrego-Garca] poses to the community not just with respect to alien smuggling,"

He was here legally and conformed to all reporting requirements of his status.

I don't think that will help his defense in the criminal trial.

 

[Nickyjo]

Uganda has agreed to take him (and other deportees from the U.S.)

Doesn’t matter if his life or freedom would be threatened there.

He was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

Not really. Abrego-Garcia's "chief" criminal offenses are:
• Conspiracy to transport undocumented Immigrants, and
• Unlawful transportation of undocumented people

A Grand Jury determined that there is sufficient evidence to prove that he committed these crimes.


1) Abrego-Garcia entered the country illegally, and was subsequently denied asylum. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally, and is not granted asylum is subject to deportation.

He was denied asylum because he didn’t apply within one year of arrival, a technicality. He was granted “withholding,” a status that requires a higher level of danger and unlike asylum, which can be denied at the discretion of the adjudicator, is mandatory if the person meets the standard of proof as he did.

2) In the government’s motion for detention, which said it learned that Abrego-Garcia "solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor, beginning in approximately 2020." That motion said "no charges against the defendant regarding child pornography have been filed, but it demonstrates the danger the defendant [Abrego-Garca] poses to the community not just with respect to alien smuggling,"

I don't think that will help his defense in the criminal trial.

No charges. Go figure.

 

[BirdinHand]

The sphere of Trump and gag orders.

That’s news?

 

[BirdinHand]

Grand Jury determined that there is sufficient evidence to prove that he committed these crimes

That’s not what grand juries do.

 

[Jason Warfield]

MAGA-mites??? REALLY?? Name-calling? How juvenile.

ButWhatAboutTrumpButWhatAboutTrumpButWhatAboutTrump . . . .


Of COURSE it is. It's TEXTBOOK whataboutism.

Based on your post, you cannot formulate a sensible argument.

Pot calling kettle black in terms of name calling. Given how much you all like to call folks like me names,

I would take "ButWhatAboutTrump" more seriously if we didn't all know about your "ButWhatAboutBiden(or Obama, or Hillary, etc)".

No, making a comparison isn't the same thing as whataboutism: not my fault you can't tell the difference.

I did make a sensible argument: not my fault you couldn't make a proper rebuttal.

In the end, what you did here was an ad hominem attack which is a fallacy. You didn't really address my points comparing the voir dire situations between the two, but instead, incorrectly accused me of whataboutism, then whined about name calling (which is rich coming from you) and instead of making any rebuttal of my point, you simply decided that I couldn't make a sensible argument as opposed to making a sensible rebuttal.

So, now that you've had your ad hominem say, and that I've refuted it...how about we both get back to my point of the voir dire double standard, shall we? I made a point, and now, it's time for you to refute it. What say you?

 

[SkyChief]

Pot calling kettle black in terms of name calling. Given how much you all like to call folks like me names,

And YOU called me and others Maga-Mites. It sounds like a comic-book character.

I would take "ButWhatAboutTrump" more seriously if we didn't all know about your "ButWhatAboutBiden(or Obama, or Hillary, etc)".

No, making a comparison isn't the same thing as whataboutism: not my fault you can't tell the difference.

I did make a sensible argument: not my fault you couldn't make a proper rebuttal.

Your argument is a straw-man fallacy because you invented a flawed position and attached YOUR flawed position onto me,

. . . you tried to make the point that Trump couldn't get a fair trial because voir dire wouldn't find an impartial jury

expecting to me defend myself for having YOUR flawed position - which YOU falsely assigned to me. The truth is I never said that. You FABRICATED that silly straw-man. And you're not even at a level where you can see how that is a TEXTBOOK straw-man fallacy. I like that.

So, now that you've had your ad hominem say, and that I've refuted it.

You're in a fantasy world. You refuted nothing.

..how about we both get back to my point of the voir dire double standard, shall we? I made a point, and now, it's time for you to refute it. What say you?

It was a dumb straw-man argument, and it's great that you can't realize that.

 

[ElChupacabra]

What slippery slope? Requesting government actors refrain from public comments constituting as “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” the trial or proceedings.

So, where’s the slippery slope?

It's a slippery slope if one wants unprofessional people like Bondi and Noem making up stories about a person the DOJ is prosecuting. . What's most notable is Bondi making charges against Garcia the DOJ isn't even charging him with (solicitation of a minor, and involvement in a murder). This administration is a clown show, and that's easy to tell how they're trying to meme-ify everything in their social media accounts.

 

[What if...?]

Nobody argued that he was convicted. The violent man beat his wife and injured her. The battery is documented.

What a lame straw-man. No, I don't want him punished for a crime he was NOT convicted of. I want that violent man to be deported - not punished.. And he will be. Eventually - probably after his criminal trial in January.

Your mistaken feeling of moral superiority is so misplaced, which is typical.

To Uganda?

I guess the private prison industry was so profitable it was exported when we stopped doing it.

I am always delighted that “Orange is the New Black” wrecked that for them by simply accurately portraying what it was like in for profit prisons.