0:00
/
0:00
Transcript
0:00
SPEAKER 1
Hey guys, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark here in the midst of a constitutional crisis with Andrew Edgar. It's Friday. so I guess every Friday we have some freak-out session, but this one is legit. We are coming to you reacting to a court hearing in Maryland over this high-profile case, Kilmar Arbrego Garcia,
0:20
the Maryland man who was wrongfully sent to El Salvador. Basic gist, last night Supreme Court said you need to facilitate his return to the United States, or at least update the courts about the steps you are taking to do so. And there were some
0:37
haggling over what the definition of, what was it, facilitate versus, I forget the other word. Effectuate. Effectuate, yes. Fucking lawyers. But that's where everyone read it the same way. They had to figure out, they had to at least detail what they're going to do to get this guy back.

Sam Stein and Andrew Egger discuss the breaking news on Trump's legal team defying the SCOTUS ruling to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador, back to the United States.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Discussion about this video

User's avatar
Jerry Norman's avatar

Supreme Court needs to meet again. (1) Somebody here said "The lawyers are not in contempt, their client (the Administration) is." (2) Military pledges to uphold the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. (3) According to a piece at LOC.gov (Library of Congress), those amendments were added as some felt our original constitution had a flaw, could let a central authority run all over us. Some sources:

loc .gov/item/2021667570 and

guides.loc.gov/bill-of-rights?

Expand full comment
Lois W. Halbert's avatar

I bet the Justices wish they hadn't granted Donald immunity. Who will win the Supreme Court or Trump?

Expand full comment
Lois W. Halbert's avatar

This isn't difficult to understand. If Trump wins, he can deport anyone he wants, even citizens. Donald is just an asshat.

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

The fantastic paradox of MAGA. The U.S., under Trump, is simultaneously the most awe-inspiring global bully, capable of dominating the globe while also being unable to do anything.

Of course, it's unwilling to do anything, but...

Expand full comment
Terry Mc Kenna's avatar

Trump learned one general lesson as a wealthy bully in Manhattan. If challenged, stall via court filings and never admit wrongdoing.

Sadly the courts have helped Trump with his stalling for... ideological reasons?

Expand full comment
Jeffrey Gaines's avatar

This has been an ongoing, slow-rolling constitutional crisis.

This might be peak constitutional crisis to date, as it is obvious refusal to comply even w SCOTUS rulings. But it’s just one step up from yesterday, and the day before. And we know it will get worse.

This is the monster the GOP, their base voters, and Roberts himself created.

This is also the monster America, by a plurality, deserves. We can’t say we’re better that this, on the whole. Because we voted for all this immorality, illegality and self-serving on Trump’s part, TWICE. And he’ll likely not give us the opportunity to change our collective mind for a third time. He’ll just take a third and perpetual term. By any means he finds necessary.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Doxer's avatar

Hey Bulwark, those quotes you put up are wicked hard to read with those damn firecrackers going on in the background.

Expand full comment
Memo-55's avatar

From NBC reporting July 2024: in the 2.5 years since Bukele's 2022 state of emergency declaration, at least 261 people have died in El Salvador prisons.

88 may have been the 'result of a criminal act, but the specific acts were not detailed."

87 attributed to "illness"

14 related to "apparent acts of violence"

72 had "no immediately identifiable cause"

261 deaths associated with prisons during the 2.5 years of Bukele's declared state of emergency, as of July of last year. The declaration remains in effect.

I wonder how many of these men have been getting along. This individual could be flown home today, if Trump wished. He does not wish to do so, because the admission of error could lead to the challenging of other cases of improper incarceration of possibly innocent men. Something Trump must avoid at all costs. I think it's maybe 50/50 this man will be returned, to rightfully receive his due process on U.S. soil.

Expand full comment
Patricia McKeown's avatar

I would not be surprised if the poor man is not dead. El Salvador will claim that he died of “natural causes.”

Expand full comment
Patricia McKeown's avatar

Someone must be charged with contempt.

Expand full comment
Linda Brown's avatar

A good conversation. As usual, Trump is drawing attention away from it with an alarming warning: “The White House has a threatening message for anyone who might even be PERCEIVED to disagree with the president. Don’t. Or else.” The crackdown against legal dissent--including court challenges and our free speech here on SubStack-- just took a giant leap forward.

Expand full comment
Debra K's avatar

Isn’t the most obvious thing that the poor man is dead because that place is clearly a death camp which was always Trump’s plan all along. Trump never planned on paying beyond the initial $6 million payment. No “ongoing” fees.

Expand full comment
Roni Windle's avatar

Trump wants to disappear people will he nil he, with impunity. He wants to disappear ANYONE he wants to, even U.S. citizens from birth. He's sending them to a foreign gulag (What? We can't build our own gulags?) So ge can argue against bringing them home. This monster needs to GO.

Expand full comment
Marianne Kendrick's avatar

Could it be like the child separation last time the Trump administration did not care enough to even make an effort to keep track of these people. EVIL personified.

Expand full comment
Herman Jacobs's avatar

Why do you guys seem surprised by Trump’s lawyers’ tactics?

Yesterday in a comment on the pod Sam did with Kyle Cheney right after SCOTUS issued its decision, I wrote that SCOTUS’ decision required the govt to do nothing except to “say” it had tried to free Garcia.

If the govt fulfilled the minimal requirement of saying that it had tried to free Garcia, beyond that Court did not actually order the govt to give any account of steps taken to try to free Garcia, but only asked—very politely—that “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken.” In the polite formula—the Government should “share what it can”—is the implication that the govt itself gets to decide what it can share, that the Court has no power to compel the govt to disclose anything about its efforts.

Thus, Roberts’ decision—obviously he was the main author—provided a clearly marked roadmap that would allow the govt to continue its course unchanged, by merely saying:

“We tried, but can’t get him back. And (sorry, not sorry) we can not ‘share’ any details about our efforts because the details, in this foreign policy matter the Constitution assigns solely to the president to conduct, are too sensitive to disclose.”

Simply put, Roberts’ decision had zero effect on the govt’s position or tactics in this case.

Before Roberts issued his decision, Trump’s lawyers stonewalled, defied court orders, lied about facts to the point of firing a govt lawyer who skirted too close to the truth, and refused to provide the court with relevant factual information.

After Roberts issued his decision and sent the case back to the district judge to implement the decision, Trump’s lawyers immediately continued to do exactly what they had been doing before Roberts issued his decision. The only difference now is that the Roberts decision effectually instructed the govt how it can, without risk of judicial intervention deprive a foreigner or a citizen of due process (and their freedom and possibly their life) by kidnapping them into the control of a foreign government, and then pleading——without proof—an inability to secure their return.

The upshot of Roberts’ decision is this advice to the government and its lying lawyers: “Just say you tried, and although we in the judiciary might fuss around about it, in the end we will have to take your word for it.”

We shouldn’t be shocked that Trump’s lawyers are doing exactly what Roberts told them they could do. The Court will not save us.

Here’s a link to the similar and related comment I posted yesterday on Sam’s pod with Kyle Cheney.

https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/scotus-order-trump-administration?r=2k6d1&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=107959411

Expand full comment
Michael Harryman's avatar

Except this was returned to the lower court judge who rewrote the instruction to be very clear. They’re in violation of SCOTUS, they ordered the return, not a feeble attempt.

Expand full comment
Herman Jacobs's avatar

I wish it were so!

This case will probably go back to SCOTUS quite soon, and then we’ll see for sure whether Roberts’ Court can gather the collective will to compel Trump’s underlings to make a real effort to free Garcia. The govt’s response on remand indicates—at the very least—that the govt believes SCOTUS’ decision is toothless.

Expand full comment
Shireen's avatar

They (the Trump administration) are stonewalling. I find this cruel and completely lawless. And this poor man and his family are caught in the middle. And this family will not be the only one caught up in this shit show.

Expand full comment
George Shirley's avatar

Sam asked, "Why this one?" Because if they follow this order, it removes the fig leaf that all of these prisoners could be returned, and that would expose them to 200 or so other embarrassing detainee returns from El Salvador as the due process claims are addressed.

Expand full comment
NUR's avatar

Sam, you gotta let the guy speak. Stop interrupting him!

Expand full comment
Bruce Lawrence's avatar

I am astounded at all the nutcases here asserting that Abrego Garcia is dead. This is QAnon-level conspiracy theorizing! The same goes for all the crackpot theories about the Trump administration knowing exactly what it's doing with its tanking of the economy. Please, leave the insane conspiracy theories to MAGA.

Expand full comment
Debra K's avatar

Did you see that camp?? Why in the world is a death in that setting far fetched? It doesn’t require a “conspiracy” to see deaths in those detention conditions.

Expand full comment
Aviva Patt's avatar

Yes, it’s so important to them that they assert the right to send people to prisons in other countries. And yes, they don’t give a fuck about how this intransigence might be viewed by the courts.

Expand full comment
Aviva Patt's avatar

I don’t understand why judges are putting up with this. They need to start holding these lawyers in contempt IN JAIL until they get answers to their questions.

Expand full comment
Lisa Kraidin's avatar

Listening to this update, I got a really bad feeling that this man is dead and the Trump administration is now scrambling.

Expand full comment
Christina Ronnberg's avatar

Sam - want to hear what you have to say but please stop interrupting everyone else.

Expand full comment
NUR's avatar

I wonder if he's not getting any feedback on this. It's really annoying when you are trying to understand what point the other person is making and Sam keeps interrupting.

Expand full comment
LB's avatar

Since jailing government officials for contempt may be impossible or impracticable given that the marshals work for Pam, might there be another stick the courts may have to compel compliance?

In her dissent to the SCOTUS stay order in JGG, Justice Sotomayor made 2 references to one possible method by which the federal courts might deal with a presidential administration that defies court orders. In California state courts, it is referred to as the “Disentitlement doctrine.” That terminology seems to be confined to cases in which fugitives might lose rights.

But based on the language used in a Supreme Court dissent this week, the broader use of the courts’ discretion to effect a punishment on a court order violator is apparently “a thing” in federal courts too.

Justice Sotomayor stated:

“More fundamentally, this Court exercises its equitable discretion to intervene without accounting for the Government noncompliance that has permeated this litigation to date. The maxim that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands'" has long guided this Court's exercise of equitable discretion…

“The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.”

In other words, the courts in their discretion need not entertain requests for equitable relief made by a party who has contemptuously defied a court order. Thus, theoretically, every district judge and every Court of Appeals panel could routinely deny the Trump administration every request for injunction and motion for non-monetary relief IN ANY CASE, even those completely unrelated to these immigration cases on this ground for long as they fail to comply with any court’s lawful order. Of course it is discretionary. Moreover under this “disentitlement doctrine,” any appellate court can dismiss any appeal filed by the government on the ground that the government stands in contempt.

This is what Justice Sotomayor and ALL of her sisters on the court, including Justice Barrett who signed on to this section of the dissent was suggesting in the dissent to Roberts’ order granting the stay.

Expand full comment
Erica Paul's avatar

The longer Garcia's confined, the better his chances of being knocked off. Deliberate cruelty infuriates me. It is as easy as a phone call. Judge says back in the US of A,so obey.

When all the folks that voted for him realize he is leaving them high and dry, their rage will show.

Expand full comment
monoview21's avatar

Is all of this under The Don's "job description" and thus legal per SCOTUS? The Don lies constantly and thus his "brilliant mind" considers anything he does falls within his job description....

Expand full comment
EVE's avatar

So many people are ok with this. It's devastating.

Expand full comment
Kelly Johnson's avatar

I think they are not bringing them home because then he would be a sympathetic person for the nation to rally around and he probably has some pretty terrible stories at this point.

Expand full comment
JacquieCDV's avatar

I think President Bukele should bring him back home when he visits the Oval next week.

Sadly, I'm kidding.

Bringing a body bag home won't be great optics.

That poor man.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

I hope this young man is okay. I can can see tHump covering up a problem because that's what he does. I feel so awful for him and his family. tPig is a truly despicable ctreature.

Expand full comment
West of Eden's avatar

Nothing will undo the trauma this man has experienced. Also, there are other prisoners who may be innocent, who knows since no one has tried them? I guess it's more effective to have a sympathetic example, but they all should be released.

Expand full comment
Katy Namovicz's avatar

Yes! We can’t stop beating this drum! They were ALL sent there illegally!

Expand full comment
LisaNRN's avatar

They have had plenty of time. They should have been working on this all along, knowing they could lose.

Expand full comment
Karen Tisinai's avatar

Perhaps he cannot be produced because he has died in custody.

Expand full comment
Lori P's avatar

Hold all of them in contempt

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

Exactly! The attorneys need to be held in contempt. The Judge on this case has to be conferring with other Judges for an answer - what to do when you have a President who defies judicial authority and the law?

Expand full comment
David MacNeil's avatar

One would think that El Salvador refusing to give deportees back would be cause for a court to ban any further transfers.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

One would think....the evil of this regime seems to know no bounds.

Expand full comment
Christina Ronnberg's avatar

MAGA = Evil Death Cult

Expand full comment
meredithonthebeach@gmail.com's avatar

I'm hoping in that SCOTUS has said this man must be brought back, must have due process, and this judge has said that the administrations acts were illegal from the get go, that it can be maintained that these detentions are criminal and Trump would not be protected. I think DOJ officials should be held in contempt, one after another, til there are none left to serve and they are one by one, disbarred.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

Pam Bondi - LOCK HER UP

Expand full comment
James Woodruff's avatar

Why isn’t the judge telling the lawyer he should have brought a toothbrush and throwing him in jail for contempt?

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

100% agree - what other lawyer gets away with this? Terrible!

Expand full comment
David MacNeil's avatar

They definitely don't want this guy back and talking to the media.

Expand full comment
Melody B.'s avatar

Sam, please allow guests to finish talking…

Expand full comment
PK's avatar

Yes, a pet peeve of mine. Andrew has erudite responses that serve us well if he's allowed to finish.

Expand full comment
Daydream Believer's avatar

Bringing him back would mean that Trump made a mistake. And Glorious Leader never makes mistakes, comrade!

Expand full comment
LisaNRN's avatar

He's probably covered in bruises too, if not worse.

Expand full comment
jane's avatar

Very good discussion. Extremely important and frightening subject.

Expand full comment
Nancy McAllister's avatar

This seems a clear cut case where, if we have any muscle left any muscular law left in the country, that the law will prevail. I have said that we are in a lawless freefall. Here’s a chance to show that we’re not. If we don’t step in on this and bring the American back, our troubles will never cease.

Expand full comment
Veronica Pelletier's avatar

I'm pretty sure the guys dead, it's why they're fighting so hard to not bring him back

Expand full comment
Justin Lee's avatar

This is what fascism looks like. To listen to you guys spend 12 minutes talking about this without using the word "fascism" has me scratching my head.

Expand full comment
Roberto's avatar

My guess: Trump meets with Bukele on Monday. Post meeting, Trump announces that he, the hero of this story, has negotiated the safe return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from Cecot, the Salvadoran concentration camp. MAGAts cheer the wise and compassionate actions of their cult leader.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

As long as we get him back, I'll eveb give Trump credit.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

I will NOT. My God, he sent him there in the first place without due process.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

I hear that and I agree. I just want this man home and out of that hell hole. Then he can get the due process he deserves. I don't believe Trump has even one redeeming quality if he could do the many things he's done. This is especially egregious, though.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

Understand. I do. Its just awful.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

It IS awful. Truly sickening.

Expand full comment
Tammy Campbell's avatar

I truly believe this man is dead. I don't believe anyone is meant to come out of that prison. Ever

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

That's on my mind, too. I so hope were wrong.

Expand full comment
LisaNRN's avatar

This country sold him into a concentration camp.

Expand full comment
George Shirley's avatar

Bought him into a concentration camp. We paid.

Expand full comment
Theresa's avatar

Punchbowl News reported this morning that Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) is taking a codel that includes a visit to the El Salvador prison. I’m curious who else is on the trip. They could/should find some new info about Abrego Garcia. I’m wondering if a Democratic Congressman will be on the trip

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

I am glad to hear this - this is exactly what should be happening

Expand full comment
Janet Roberson's avatar

Every day that poor man is jail, there is a risk that he will be tortured or killed. Maybe by fellow prisoners who are gang members. This is unconscionable. I agree with the comment that those refusing to comply be cited with contempt and arrested. Maybe Navarro can provide some insights as to how that works.

Expand full comment
Jennifer Armerding's avatar

I’ve been saying this all along. It’s impossible that we’re paying for them to take custody and we relinquish any jurisdiction. Then why pay?

Expand full comment
gail's avatar

Maybe they are responding this way to move peoples attention away from the trump tariff debacle?

Expand full comment
Christopher B Drake's avatar

Trump MO, delay, stonewall, delay some more. Enough!

Expand full comment
Deanna Hines's avatar

I fear the man is dead and the government knows this. When that is revealed it will hit the fan.

Expand full comment
ABT's avatar

It should hit the fan. J6 - and a zillion other things - should’ve caused everything to hit the fan. They are completely unaccountable. This is their way of showing what they will do to people. The terror and cruelty are the point.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

And I'll be one of those helping with protesting. Peacefully, of course!

Expand full comment
David Hebert's avatar

This isn’t difficult. Judge just needs to hold the Administration’s attorney appearing on behalf of DT/White House in contempt. Lawyer goes to jail until the guy comes back.

Expand full comment
Lois W. Halbert's avatar

How about Donald goes to jail too!

Expand full comment
Truly North's avatar

I'm more forgiving of (most) lawyers. The lawyers are not in contempt, their client (the Administration) is. We don't throw the lawyers in jail when the suspect skips court after posting bail.

The problem is that our Constitution has no mechanism for the Courts to enforce its orders on the Executive branch.

Congratulations Republicans, you finally broke the country, in your decades-long quest for power, money, and White supremacy.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

100% - you are right.

Expand full comment
Different drummer's avatar

I made that comment on Morning Shots earlier. Exactly.

Expand full comment
Julie's avatar

There you go. That works for me!

Expand full comment
Justin Lee's avatar

The people who would arrest the DOJ lawyer are U.S. marshals, who are also part of the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. So, the courts do not have an enforcement mechanism that does not depend on the executive branch. It's a major flaw in the system.

Expand full comment
Bruce Lawrence's avatar

A judge can deputize anyone to carry out the court's orders. If the marshals refuse, he can recruit state law enforcement officers. Or just use the court's own security officers against anyone physically present in his court room.

Expand full comment
David Hebert's avatar

If that’s the case, the judge can order the marshals to incarcerate the attorney. My guess is that they would not want to be held in contempt too.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

Maybe a trip to El Salvador to b held in contempt for the attorneys?

Expand full comment
Margy May's avatar

Yep! Take Bondi too!!

Expand full comment
Mike B's avatar

Assume Trump can simply pardon them?

Expand full comment
Bruce Lawrence's avatar

Depends on whether it's criminal or civil contempt. If it's civil contempt, it is not pardonable.

Expand full comment
Sarah G's avatar

Again, I think there’s a real chance that this man is dead and they’re afraid of what’s going to happen when that fact comes to light.

Expand full comment
Tricia's avatar

Unfortunately you’re likely correct. He was seeking asylum from el Salvadoran gangs. He was then delivered to the jail which is full of them.

Expand full comment
Marybeth santiago's avatar

I say the same. If this guy comes out alive, he will talk. It will not go well he share all he has seen and knows. If torture was involved…

Expand full comment
Sarah G's avatar

If he’s alive, they could easily enough cook up some BS story to spin as he’s released. Our magnanimous dear leader had mercy on him, yadda yadda. They’re putting a lot of energy into not cooperating.

Expand full comment
0:37
haggling over what the definition of, what was it, facilitate versus, I forget the other word. Effectuate. Effectuate, yes. Fucking lawyers. But that's where everyone read it the same way. They had to figure out, they had to at least detail what they're going to do to get this guy back.