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

[SkyChief]

You may pretend that you haven't already convicted and deported him in your head, but it's obvious that your minds already made up.

It's easy to tell when someone truly lacks the ability to formulate an intelligent and rational argument or comment - count the number of yous in the statement or comment.
One you suggests that the argument or comment might be ad-hominem, and can reasonably be scrutinized.
Two yous indicates that the argument or comment is likely ad-hominem, and should be scrutinized.
Three yous indicates a solid ad-hominem, and can be summarily rejected as being a logical fallacy.
Four yous - - I've never seen this before today.

Two different posts, by two different people - Both posts containing FOUR yous in one sentence. Both are Textbook ad-hominem logical fallacies.

Anyways, it doesn't matter what I personally think about Abrego-Garcia. The fact is that a Grand Jury was presented with sufficient evidence that Abrego-Garcia committed federal crimes. In June, he was indicted and he will have his day(s) in court in January.

Whether he is found guilty or he is acquitted doesn't even matter. When Abrego-Garcia is released from DoJ custody (whenever that is), ICE will arrest and deport him.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

It's easy to tell when someone truly lacks the ability to formulate an intelligent and rational argument or comment -

Then why are you having such difficulty?

 

[SkyChief]

Then why are you having such difficulty?

More yous. LOL

That's supposed to be clever and witty, but it's just more ad-hominem nonsense.

 

[NotreDame]

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.



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.

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.

Have you ever in your life held the position of prosecutor? If you had, then you’d very likely be aware 2 is false as a necessity. My ethical duty as a prosecutor is I have a reasonable belief with a basis in the facts that a crime is committed by the perp and that satisfies the probable cause standard. There is no ethical or legal requirement I have evidence satisfying the trial burdens of proof behind a reasonable doubt, translated as firmly convinced of guilt.

Yes, when I’m considering to file felony offenses or lesser criminal offense I personally choose to adhere to a firmly convinced standard. However, that is at my discretion and not incumbent upon me by any moral, legal, or ethical obligation.

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.

Then articulate this position, which is superior to your vacuous slippery slope view.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

More yous. LOL

"Clever and witty"?

Oh my......

"Yous" isn't grammatically correct in Standard English.
Standard English uses "you" for both singular and plural forms.
How is it that you don't know this?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Abrego-Garcia has committed battery on an American citizen (his wife) at least two times. They were documented. Those batteries were ILLEGAL. He took THOUSANDS of dollars for smuggling of people around the country. That human smuggling is a federal crime, and it's ILLEGAL.

He beat his wife at least twice. She wrote and signed legal affidavits detailing the beatings. The beatings were DOCUMENTED. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Abrego-Garcia is known to be a violent man.

Irrelevant.

Straw-Man fallacy noted, and appreciated!

Anyways, there are no possible scenarios where Abrego-Garcia dos not get deported. The only things that are debatable are when will he be deported? and where will he be deported to?

No, he didn't. That is a lie.

Turn the Faux off.

Ad hominem attack noted, and appreciated!

There is no adhom here. Only you're poor attempts at baiting and your devotion to Faux and MAGA.

Neither of those things makes any difference.

 

[SkyChief]

Have you ever in your life held the position of prosecutor?

No, I have not ever held the position of a prosecutor. But that's irrelevant.

If you had, then you’d very likely be aware 2 is false as a necessity.

Yes, I misspoke about #2

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.

That is wrong - I should have said that sufficient evidence has been gathered to try the case in a court of Law. This what a Grand Jury must determine. If there's a lack of evidence, then the Grand Jury must issue a "no Bill" dismissal - at least temporarily until further evidence is made available.

My ethical duty as a prosecutor is I have a reasonable belief with a basis in the facts that a crime is committed by the perp and that satisfies the probable cause standard. There is no ethical or legal requirement I have evidence satisfying the trial burdens of proof behind a reasonable doubt, translated as firmly convinced of guilt.

Yes, when I’m considering to file felony offenses or lesser criminal offense I personally choose to adhere to a firmly convinced standard. However, that is at my discretion and not incumbent upon me by any moral, legal, or ethical obligation.

Wow, I'm impressed.

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

Then articulate this position, which is superior to your vacuous slippery slope view.

I don't need to articulate anything. It's my personal opinion. Vacuous slippery-slope view??. LOL

In a previous post, I have conceded that the gag order is not a violation of free speech rights.

Some have made the point that a Court ordered gag order to silence prosecutors from tainting a jury pool does not preclude 1st Amendment rights, and I've conceded that point.

"Clever and witty"?

Oh my......

"Yous" isn't grammatically correct in Standard English.
Standard English uses "you" for both singular and plural forms.
How is it that you don't know this?

You, you, you, you, blah blah blah. The same ad-hom nonsense over and over. So boring.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran migrant whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador ... had a temporary order of protection against him in 2021 in which she cited being slapped, hit with an object, and being detained against her will, according to court documents obtained by ABC News.

documentation of Abrego-Garcia assaulting his wife - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

,

Yet, he was never charged for any of it?

Why do you think that is?

 

[Bodi]

Yet, he was never charged for any of it?

Why do you think that is?

Because she did not pursue the charges/case and the matter was dismissed... NOT because he did not assault her.



.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Sounds like Bondi WANTS him to get a mistrial.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Because she did not pursue the charges/case and the matter was dismissed... NOT because he did not assault her.



.

So he wasn't convicted of it?

 

[Bodi]

So he wasn't convicted of it?

Correct.

.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Correct.

.

Well, then.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

You, you, you, you, blah blah blah. The same ad-hom nonsense over and over. So boring.

Another grammatically incorrect derp fail on your part.
Guess you will never learn.

 

[rahl]

It's easy to tell when someone truly lacks the ability to formulate an intelligent and rational argument or comment - count the number of yous in the statement or comment.

I’m sorry that your own argument was thrown back at you showing your hilarious hypocrisy.

One you suggests that the argument or comment might be ad-hominem, and can reasonably be scrutinized.

If you don’t know what an ad hom is, sure.

Two yous indicates that the argument or comment is likely ad-hominem, and should be scrutinized.

If you don’t know what an ad hom is, sure.

Three yous indicates a solid ad-hominem, and can be summarily rejected as being a logical fallacy.
Four yous - - I've never seen this before today.
WOW!

I accept your concession. I’m glad you realize your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and you have no answer for it other than to parrot a word you don’t know the meaning of.

 

[SkyChief]

I’m sorry that your own argument was thrown back at you showing your hilarious hypocrisy.

If you don’t know what an ad hom is, sure.

If you don’t know what an ad hom is, sure.

I accept your concession. I’m glad you realize your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and you have no answer for it other than to parrot a word you don’t know the meaning of.

It's easy to tell when someone truly lacks the ability to formulate an intelligent and rational argument or comment - count the number of yous in the statement or comment.
One you suggests that the argument or comment might be ad-hominem, and can reasonably be scrutinized.
Two yous indicates that the argument or comment is likely ad-hominem, and should be scrutinized.
Three yous indicates a solid ad-hominem, and can be summarily rejected as being a logical fallacy.
Four or more yous - troll.

 

[SkyChief]

Another grammatically incorrect derp fail on your part.
Guess you will never learn.

you, you, you, blah, blah, blah . . . . the same drivel just goes on and on and on.

Not a word about the topic - just you, you, you, you, you . . .

Anyways, Abrego-Garcia will be deported. The only scenario where he doesn't get deported is if he's found guilty in his criminal trial, and sentenced to Life without parole, and that will not happen obviously.

Abrego-Garcia should have taken the deal where he pleads guilty to federal human smuggling charges, and is deported to beautiful Costa Rica. That was a golden opportunity.

 

[devildavid]

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.)

No, that is not what is happening. It has zero to do with the 1st Amendment. Unless you would like to defend an official of any justice system to call you guilty before you are put on trial. There is no slippery slope here. Jurors are ordered not to talk about cases they sit on. This is normal protections for the accused. Nothing to do with revoking 1st Amendment rights or even a slippery slope at all.

 

[devildavid]

you, you, you, blah, blah, blah . . . . the same drivel just goes on and on and on.

Not a word about the topic - just you, you, you, you, you . . .

Anyways, Abrego-Garcia will be deported. The only scenario where he doesn't get deported is if he's found guilty in his criminal trial, and sentenced to Life without parole, and that will not happen obviously.

Abrego-Garcia should have taken the deal where he pleads guilty to federal human smuggling charges, and is deported to beautiful Costa Rica. That was a golden opportunity.

That wasn’t a deal, it was crooked attempt to make him plead guilty to something he didn’t do so their illegal deportation of him would go away.

 

[devildavid]

Because this thread is not about Trump - it's specifically about the illegal immigrant seeking to silence DoJ and DHS officials. Read the thread title - that's the topic of this thread.

If you want to discuss Trump's crimes, there are literally hundreds of other threads on this forum for that.

wow. what a remarkably lame argument!

This thread is about your misunderstanding of our legal system and how it is supposed to operate which means someone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Deuce]

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.

lol what a pathetic spin attempt. Right wingers really are such drama queens.

 

[SkyChief]

lol what a pathetic spin attempt. Right wingers really are such drama queens.

It's easy to tell when someone lacks the ability to formulate a sensible argument. Invariably they will rely on some form of logical fallacy to make thier point - which you have done here. And it's a hard FAIL. You'll never understand WHY.

 

[Deuce]

It's easy to tell when someone lacks the ability to formulate a sensible argument. Invariably they will rely on some form of logical fallacy to make thier point - which you have done here. And it's a hard FAIL.

Your first amendment rights do not cover violating someone else's right to a fair trial, sorry.

Gag orders are not new. It's just the 10,000th thing right wingers only ever started whining about once it affected Trump. If you'd complained about them a decade ago, I'd give you some credibility. But you didn't.

 

[rahl]

It's easy to tell when someone truly lacks the ability to formulate an intelligent and rational argument or comment - count the number of yous in the statement or comment.
One you suggests that the argument or comment might be ad-hominem, and can reasonably be scrutinized.
Two yous indicates that the argument or comment is likely ad-hominem, and should be scrutinized.
Three yous indicates a solid ad-hominem, and can be summarily rejected as being a logical fallacy.
Four or more yous - troll.

It’s so funny watching you flail and furiously dodge because your own argument has been thrown back at you exposing your hilarious hypocrisy

Keep it going!

 

[SkyChief]

It’s so funny watching you flail and furiously dodge because your own argument has been thrown back at you exposing your hilarious hypocrisy

Keep it going!

You, you, you, you , you, blah, blah,blah, ad nauseum. The same nonsense repeated over and over and over and over and over . . . .

So boring. *yawn*

It's time for a new act, bud.