Hamus Yaigh

Constitutional crisis incoming! The Trump administration is escalating its legal and political risks in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, potentially digging itself into a deeper hole. On April 14, 2025, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele visited the U.S. , presenting an opportunity to negotiate Garcia’s release from CECOT prison, where he was illegally deported on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 court order. The administration, aware of its “administrative error,” failed to act, with Bukele publicly refusing to release Garcia, calling him a “terrorist.” Instead of rectifying the mistake, the administration doubled down, using a April 16 White House briefing to platform Patty Morin, a grieving mother whose daughter was killed by an unrelated immigrant, to deflect criticism and falsely tie Garcia to MS-13, despite no credible evidence. This approach risks a constitutional crisis by defying judicial orders—Federal Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court have demanded Garcia’s return, with contempt proceedings looming for non-compliance. The administration’s tactics, including violating the Leahy Law by funding El Salvador’s abusive prison system and leveraging Morin to obscure accountability, have drawn scrutiny from Democrats like Senator Chris Van Hollen, human rights groups, and media outlets like The New York Times. By prioritizing political optics over legal obligations, the administration faces growing pressure from lawsuits, congressional investigations, and public backlash, which could force accountability or deepen the crisis if Trump continues to obstruct justice.

Just in your opinion only. That doesn't make it right. Including laws like two-tier policing or freedom of speech differences as non-tariff barriers in U.S. trade policy could theoretically align with national interests by pressuring trading partners to align with U.S. values, potentially leveling the playing field where regulatory differences impact trade. For example, stricter speech laws abroad might suppress market-related expression, indirectly affecting U.S. firms. However, this risks infringing on other nations’ sovereignty, as it imposes U.S. standards on domestic legal systems, inviting retaliation and straining diplomatic ties. Tariffs traditionally address trade-specific issues—subsidies, labor costs, environmental standards—where economic impacts are clearer. Expanding tariffs to cover broader legal or cultural differences muddies the waters, likely escalating disputes beyond trade. Trade issues should dominate tariff rationale to maintain focus and avoid overreach.

His status was legal. Just like if you went to do an annual extension based on marriage at Thai Immigration and next thing you know is you are in chains and off to a prison on a country run by a dictator. You're OK with that arrangement then? I'll let Thai Imm know 🙂

The statements at the 14Apr White House meeting by Marco Rubio and Pam Bondi warrant investigation but it depends on legal and ethical thresholds, while Trump’s role—allowing and commending their remarks—raises questions of accountability. Rubio and Bondi’s statements as grounds for investigation: Rubio’s claim that the President can override a Supreme Court order misrepresents constitutional law, and Bondi’s pairing of an "administrative error" with baseless MS-13 allegations contradicts court findings. If these were deliberate misrepresentations to evade a court mandate or mislead the public, they could constitute misconduct, potentially violating federal ethics rules or laws like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements). For example, knowingly providing false information to courts or Congress could trigger scrutiny from bodies like the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General or congressional oversight committees. The Kilmar Ábrego García case already has judicial attention—courts have rebuked the administration, and a Texas federal judge demanded daily updates on efforts to retrieve García. If evidence emerges that Rubio or Bondi intentionally misled to obstruct compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, it could escalate to calls for investigation, possibly by the House Judiciary Committee or an independent probe. However, absent concrete proof of intent (e.g., internal communications), their statements might be seen as political spin rather than criminal falsehoods, making formal investigations less likely unless new evidence surfaces. Trump’s role and commendation of Bondi: Trump’s silence during Rubio and Bondi’s remarks, coupled with his commendation of Bondi for “what a good job she was doing” after her April 14, 2025, Oval Office statements, implicates him in endorsing their narrative. As President, he’s accountable for his administration’s actions, especially since the Supreme Court explicitly ordered his administration to facilitate García’s return. His failure to correct misleading claims and his praise of Bondi could be interpreted as tacit approval of non-compliance with a court order, raising ethical concerns about abuse of power or neglect of duty. While not necessarily illegal, this behavior could fuel political or legal scrutiny, particularly given García’s ongoing detention in El Salvador and Bukele’s refusal to release him. If courts or Congress perceive Trump as obstructing justice by allowing subordinates to defy rulings, it could prompt investigations, similar to past probes into executive interference (e.g., Nixon’s Watergate-era actions). However, Trump’s defenders might argue he’s relying on advisors’ counsel, and his commendation was generic, not proof of intent to mislead. Likelihood and context: Investigations hinge on political will and evidence. With a Republican-controlled executive and a polarized Congress (as of April 2025, based on recent trends), probes into Rubio, Bondi, or Trump face hurdles unless Democrats or bipartisan actors push hard, likely citing García’s case as a human rights or due process violation. Public pressure, amplified by X posts criticizing the administration’s handling, could add momentum, but it’s not enough alone. The courts remain the strongest check—continued judicial oversight, like the Texas judge’s orders, might force accountability without a separate investigation. Trump’s history of deferring to surrogates (seen in prior cases like immigration policy defenses) suggests he’s insulating himself, making direct culpability harder to pin down. In summary, Rubio and Bondi’s statements stretch the truth enough to justify scrutiny, especially given judicial rulings, and Trump’s endorsement amplifies the issue. While investigation is plausible, particularly via congressional or judicial channels, it’s not guaranteed without clearer evidence of deliberate falsehoods or obstruction. The García case’s ongoing legal battles may drive further accountability before formal probes materialize.

Birds of a feather Trump- Bukele. #autocrats

It goes futher than Biden , the war started in 2014 under Obama. The amount of nutjobs living in an extremist American political cesspit of hate to generate their everyday thoughts on this forum boggles the imagination as children are being killed by missiles.

Says the guy with a #47 avatar.

Stock answer to every question posed to a MAGAnut about the latest Trump move that might appear insane to normal thinking peoples.

Did you not understand the purpose of the thread? Presumably from the avatar you are allowed to vote also.

Believe it or not is it possible to think without left or right political tinted glasses on. Try it sometime. You'll gain more friends and be less tedious to talk to, A win win I'd posit.

If you go to the FRED web site https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT you'll notice there are no Biden and Trump red arrows on the graphs like you have plastered on them. The charts are based on finance studies, not some hacks political beliefs.

You must live in a rough part of the neighborhood. It happens.

No, I think it is for ME ME ME, I do not want to catch anything, or breathe in pollution, or because my Mum told me to. My point exactly, some foreigners still got to learn about respect.

It comes from respect for others, something visiting foreigners could learn from.

Everyone of your posts is conspiracy theory nonsense, so in that respect the answer would be a yes.

Fairy tale. No one short changes a Thai 900THB and gets away with it.

Thought these percentages might have been higher, like today or this week. When it happens markets will be up 5%. https://polymarket.com/event/peter-navarro-out-of-trump-administration-in-april?tid=1744188339670 https://polymarket.com/event/howard-lutnick-out-as-secretary-of-commerce-before-july?tid=1744188414383

He should be more than ashamed, he should be imprisoned.

Whenever Lutnick and Ron Vara open their gobs on cable news the markets go further south. Only Bennet offers any slight respite talking some sense, yet he has his hands tied by the boss so has to go down with the ship likewise.

How do you know its the best? Have you made comparisons? The call rates on MyTello for example are much cheaper than Yolla? Is MyTello not any good? I haven't tried either yet as still got plenty of Skype credit to use up that will be transferred to Teams until it expires, in a few years?

One of the key solutions to the op would be to elect a leader who isn't a sociopath and surrounds himself with idiots that makes the country the laughing stock of the world. That might be a start.

Possibly because he's got the mind of a gangster doing a shake down and lies through his sociopathic face whenever he addresses anyone would be my guess. How can anyone deal with a guy who says even zero percent tariffs offered in negotiations won't be enough (for Vietnam for example). He makes no sense and probably doesn't understand it himself working off jailbirds like Navarro, and is more concerned about winning a game of golf and telling reporters to note the win several times as market volatility hits highs not seen since Covid, 2008 and 1987.

From a fellow observer: "Someone asked me if I, as a Canadian, could trust America again after Trump dies. I answered: the problem is not just Trump or even MAGA. The problem is that the Republic's constitutional checks and balances were not acted on, they were ignored or allowed to be dodged or simply disregarded, one by one by " institutionalists" who knew better. The rot is deep. How can we trust you if you don't ACTUALLY respect the Constitution you ballyhoo about so loudly?"

A "just trust" one man approach, with a support cast of executive office members all running the same insulting sound bites of adoring nonsensical rhetoric, for running the largest economy on the planet is not a sound economy? Congress needs to grow a pair and sort the sh** out soon.