White House Defends Abrego Garcia Deportation, Calling Return "Out of the Question"

[mikeymike100]

On 4/20/2025 at 8:20 AM, b17 said:

This has become "hair splitting" when, in "reality world", its blatantly obvious that this man is completely innocent, and should be offered significant compensation upon his safe return to his wife and family. Any other interpretation, based on what is currently known to be true, is evil and insane. 

There was obviously a reason the SC used the words 'facilitate' as opposed to 'do it', dont you think?

Saying he is completely innocent is incorrect, he initially entered the US illegally and is there for a criminal!

[Presnock]

On 4/19/2025 at 11:34 AM, Presnock said:

well, for sure, the US Constitution is very clear on the issue of laws that protect and respect the rights of every individual which the Trump decision is in violation of that law.  That is my opinion and also that of the US courts but I also see other violations of the rights of US citizens and residents that are being violate regularly by the Trump administration.  I sure hope that the SC and lower courts will be able to control these violators soonest.  Some day, I hope Trump is taken away and locked up for good for all his violations.  Just like the security breach on SIGNAL - yeah staffers now removed from DOD while the senior violator is left to continue his rule!  A sick society nowadays IMHO in the US>

AND, today another report that The sec of def gave another briefing of classified to his wife, his brother and other friends.  Time to lock that SOB out of the govt and put in jail for security violations that several "senior" officials of the def dept have been removed.  They probably did no wrong except for briefing the sec def.  A scary time within the govt for sure as Trump and Co. continue their insane "on the go Plan" which is totally destroying and confidence any other country in the world might have had in the US.  Pretty soon I do believe you will see countries getting rid of their US bonds, knowing that Trump will destroy any value whatsoever/due to lack of confidence in what Trump might next dream up.  Now I notice former economic advisers to the administrations are calling Trump "insane".  

[mikeymike100]

On 4/17/2025 at 11:23 AM, Tug said:

What past record?that’s the problem here some call him a terrorist ok why?were is the proof?thats is exactly what this is about,the courts want due process (proof) and trump is essentially telling the court to (*&$#) off.that’s contempt pure and simple,ditctator stuff quell surprise.it ain’t ok

 

[cambion]

22 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

but as you say we have a legal system and it should play out.  In the end I suspect IF El Salvador returns him his day in court will result in his deportation. 

 

I only want his return because I believe in the rule of law. 

Yup. Seems like we agree on the most important parts here.
 

 

22 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

I seriously doubt he is innocent
But in his case the violence towards his wife, probability of human smuggling and MS-13 connections, I doubt a lawyer will change the outcome.

Personally, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least until a court clearly finds otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty not only before the law, but also in our hearts.
 

 

22 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Having a wife who went through this process I can tell you it is nerve racking.  And a good lawyer helps.

Ouch. Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything turned out alright.

[Jingthing]

Again he was not deported.
He disappeared to an offshore concentration camp.

For what exactly?

Entering illegally at age 16 to save his life?

Suspicion of gang membership that almost definitely is not true?

Yet the fascist Trump regime still wants him in the concentration camp for life.

This is who is in power now in the U.S.

They want people to be afraid of their evil actions and intent and it's very rational for people to feel that way.

It's either fight back or it gets much much worse very very quickly.

[cambion]

On 4/19/2025 at 10:45 PM, stevenl said:

And it gets worse when the legal system says 'he should be in the US, and the executive refuses. There are no options to force the executive to do as required, not in this case, not in other cases.

We have some very smart justices here who are well aware of this. I have faith that they'll figure something out.

It's helpful that it's not the President or the office of the President who is directly responsible - in most cases the authority and actual violating action is delegated to some individual in some department somewhere, like the guy at ICE who loaded Garcia onto the plane or the staffer at DHS who either overlooked or deliberately ignored the withholding of removal order.

So one way forward is for a judge to find those people above in contempt, and then go the private lawyer route. The President won't be directly affected - but he also would have a hard time to to protect those who are affected. Unless every officer and official in the Executive branch is fully onboard with disobeying, or martial law is somehow declared throughout the US, these guys will feel the pain of being held in contempt and will end up complying.

I also see inspiration with the EPA of the past - allow federal agencies cannot sue each other, the EPA has some powers to enforce compliance onto other federal agencies.

https://ehsdailyadvisor.com/2018/11/whats-epa-enforcement-like-at-other-federal-facilities-and-agencies/

[jimmybcool]

39 minutes ago, cambion said:

 

Ouch. Sorry to hear about that. Hope everything turned out alright.

 

It did.  But it was nerve racking.  And expensive.  But wife is now a US Citizen so all came out in the end.  Thanks.

 

 

[cambion]

9 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

There was obviously a reason the SC used the words 'facilitate' as opposed to 'do it', dont you think?

I think it's obvious because they explained why.

 

Quote

The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

 

9 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Saying he is completely innocent is incorrect, he initially entered the US illegally and is there for a criminal!

Technically, someone who speeds is violating criminal law (as that's where minor driving offenses are spelled out). But is such a person really a criminal? Just for speeding?

Sadly, if Garcia had entered following the proper procedures (at a proper port of entry and declaring asylum there) he likely would have been approved and would still legally be in the US right now. The sole reason his refugee claim was denied was because he waited too long to file it, he had to do it "within a year" of arriving as per https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/25-facts-about-kilmar-abrego-garcia (in which case his entry without inspection would have been forgiven).

[MicroB]

American arrested and detained by ICE. He was walking and got lost near a border patrol HQ in Tuscon. Court documents say he was detained near Nogales, a border town.

 

https://news.azpm.org/p/news-articles/2025/4/18/224512-us-citizen-in-arizona-detained-by-immigration-officials-for-10-days/

 

Some might say he should have been carryng ID. Most IDs, per se, short of a passport (which many Americans won't have), won't indicate your citizenship, just a confirmation where you live.

 

I suppose this means the US is moving closer to a "Papiere Bitte" culture. If you can't prove you are an American, upon demand, you can expect to be detained, and denied even a call.

 

I know there are some who claim this is the same person who had posted a bond. Doesn't make it any better for ICE, as surely that would mean his biometrics were in the system, and the issue would have been sorted out in a few hours.

[Jingthing]

Just checked. It was a Latino guy. No chance this would happen to a white person, ID or no ID.

[cambion]

38 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Some might say he should have been carryng ID.
 

I suppose this means the US is moving closer to a "Papiere Bitte" culture. If you can't prove you are an American, upon demand, you can expect to be detained, and denied even a call.

In some ways that would be quite a shame to see. The US used to be one of the freest places, where carrying identification was not compulsory*

 

41 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Most IDs, per se, short of a passport (which many Americans won't have), won't indicate your citizenship, just a confirmation where you live.

There are only five states that offer the Real ID compliant enhanced drivers license that serve as proof of citizenship - MI, MN, NY, VT, & WA. Other states that offer Real ID compliant enhanced drivers licenses only serve as proof of legal residency (and so are available to green card holders and aliens living on valid work visas).

That said, according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/10/trump-supporter-ice-detained Jensy Machado of Virginia got released after finally getting a chance to show his drivers license. Article is not clear but likely he had a Real ID version - so perhaps that's going to be enough?

Someone else might bring this up, so I'll address it head on. The US Passport Card was introduced in 2008 and one of the purposes it serves is an alternative form of ID that is Real ID compliant for those that lived in states that were not able to get Real ID compliant in time. (That's the primary reason I got mine back then, back when these requirements first started coming out and before it became clear that the deadline to require Real ID would keep getting pushed back.) Proof - https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/passports/how-a-passport-can-help-you-fly-domestically.html

However, it's the same application form to apply for that as the usual US Passport booklet. I'd wager that even fewer folks have the card than the passport, and most that do have the card have both. (Now if you have both, it makes sense to leave the booklet at home and take the card everywhere as ID. But again that's likely a small percentage of people living in the US overall.)

 

57 minutes ago, MicroB said:

I know there are some who claim this is the same person who had posted a bond. Doesn't make it any better for ICE, as surely that would mean his biometrics were in the system, and the issue would have been sorted out in a few hours.

That's quite a bit disturbing actually, that the biometrics of US citizens are being stored in ICE's system for aliens.

* Not entirely true if you go far back enough. Prior to the Civil War, freedman often were required to always carry their freedom papers and produce them on demand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_papers

[cambion]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Just checked. It was a Latino guy. No chance this would happen to a white person, ID or no ID.

So Jose Hermosillo was taken in when he was crossing the border (albeit by accident - he started from the US side and got lost as per the article mentioned earlier).

A lot of these seem to happen at the border. Something similar happened to US citizen Bachir Atallah as per https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/18/us/us-citizen-detained-canada/index.html - even though he had ID (he was crossing at an official port of entry with his passport). Now, from the photo in the article, I guess that Atallah could pass as white, but his name does mark him as being from Lebanon originally.

Otherwise, there are folks who are clearly white who have been detained - but they are also not US citizens. Such as Canadian Jasmine Mooney, and Germans Fabian Schmidt and Charlotte Pohl & Maria Lepere - the last two from https://nypost.com/2025/04/21/us-news/german-teens-traveling-to-us-jailed-and-deported-over-loosely-planned-vacation-being-found-suspicious/

Honorable mention goes to Davino Watson - who is another US citizen detained by ICE, and clearly not Latino. (But he is not white either - he is black as per his photo in https://www.latimes.com/archives/story/2018-04-27/ice-held-an-american-man-in-custody-for-1273-days )

That said, Jensy Machado and the other guy from Florida seem to be exceptions to the border rule. I wonder if these will become more common now?

So another honorable mention, this time to Canadians Cassie MacDonald & Maggie MacDonald who were similarly pulled over at a traffic stop as per https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-musicians-pulled-over-asked-canada-or-us-1.7488950 - but perhaps this proves your point, since they weren't reported to ICE and were let go by the local police.

[MicroB]

DHS doxed the wife

 

https://newrepublic.com/post/194289/abrego-garcia-wife-hiding-dhs-address

 

Quote

 

The wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration, was forced to move to a safe house with her children, after the government posted their home address to social media.

White House officials have spent weeks trying to justify their deportation of Abrego Garcia, even after admitting in court that sending him to El Salvador was an “administrative error,” claiming with no evidence that he is a violent criminal and gang member.

 

 

A family hit by two government administrative errors, very unfortunate.

 

[cambion]

On the plus side, the facility that Garcia is located at right now sounds much better.
 

Quote

As opposed to tattooed gang members in brightly lit, crowded cells, the inmates at the Centro Industrial prison in Santa Ana wear yellow T-shirts and move more or less freely. Some spend much of their time outdoors raising dairy cows and growing vegetables. Others work in factories making uniforms for the armed forces or desks for public schools. 

 

The government calls them “trusted inmates”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-prison-rcna203429

Now, there is an interesting irony here. From the same article,

 

Quote

the prison categorically excludes anyone accused of belonging to a gang. 

So it's potentially evidence that the government of El Salvador doesn't consider Garcia a member of MS-13 (or any other gang). (IMHO it's very strong evidence of this point.)

Though the counter argument is that someone high up (such as Bukele) ordered that a secret exemption be made in Garcia's case, possibly due to the widespread international coverage and attention that he has attracted. (But I'm very doubtful that this would have happened for someone genuinely suspected to be a gang member.)

[GroveHillWanderer]

Trump now saying that he could have Abrego Garcia returned to the US, he just doesn't want to (in defiance of court orders, including from the SCOTUS).

 

Trump Says He Could Free Abrego Garcia From El Salvador, but Won’t

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-deported.html

 

So it turns out (surprise, surprise) that when he and other members of his administration kept saying that they couldn't do anything to have him returned, they were being "economical with the truth."

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 4/21/2025 at 9:56 AM, mikeymike100 said:

There was obviously a reason the SC used the words 'facilitate' as opposed to 'do it', dont you think?

Saying he is completely innocent is incorrect, he initially entered the US illegally and is there for a criminal!

Trouble with that argument is that he wasn't deported for entering the US illegally, he was deported for being an alien enemy, and under the terms of the Alien Enemies Act (1798).

 

If he isn't a member a dangerous gang, then he isn't subject to the terms of that act and was therefore illegally deported under its terms. (There's a viewpoint that even if he were a gang member, he still wouldn't be subject to the AEA but that's a different argument).

 

If the government wants to eventually deport him for a different, legitimate reason they're perfectly free to do so, as the courts have pointed out.

[cambion]

On 4/30/2025 at 2:41 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Trump now saying that he could have Abrego Garcia returned to the US, he just doesn't want to (in defiance of court orders, including from the SCOTUS).

 

Trump Says He Could Free Abrego Garcia From El Salvador, but Won’t

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-deported.html

 

So it turns out (surprise, surprise) that when he and other members of his administration kept saying that they couldn't do anything to have him returned, they were being "economical with the truth."

The quotes of that conversation look a bit different from the other source I was reading, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-abrego-garcia-back-el-salvador/story?id=121298276 

“You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent

“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.

Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately. (From NYT) / "You could pick it up, and with all--" Moran began to say. (from ABC News)

"I could," Trump said again.

"--the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back right now,'" Moran explained. (from ABC News)

“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. (both)
 

Basically, it looks like he's saying he could pick up the phone and make a phone call asking for Garcia back. But unfortunately, not that he thinks Bukele would say yes.

There's another NYT article which claims that recently (within a week of now) diplomatic entries were made to ask for Garcia back, but that this was refused, see https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-bukele-el-salvador.html

 

On 4/30/2025 at 3:11 AM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Trouble with that argument is that he wasn't deported for entering the US illegally, he was deported for being an alien enemy, and under the terms of the Alien Enemies Act (1798).

 

If he isn't a member a dangerous gang, then he isn't subject to the terms of that act and was therefore illegally deported under its terms. (There's a viewpoint that even if he were a gang member, he still wouldn't be subject to the AEA but that's a different argument).

 

If the government wants to eventually deport him for a different, legitimate reason they're perfectly free to do so, as the courts have pointed out.

Exactly. This is about rule of law and granting due process. Now consider this.

Originally, there were three planes sending folks to CECOT. Judge Boasberg ordered them to stop, and the response of the US was to say that two of them were already overseas when his written order was issued and so Boasberg lost jurisdiction. Boasberg didn't quite agree, and there are findings of contempt with additional proceedings on the way because of this.

But there was a third plane that hadn't taken off yet. Abrego Garcia was on the third plane. It left afterwards. Boasberg was told that the folks on the third plane were not deported under the AEA, but because they already had final deportation orders. We know this is true for Garcia - but the government ignored his withholding of removal order, which was the administrative error that they admitted in court to Judge Xinis.

At least in the court of public opinion, they seem to be trying to walk this back and say that Garcia should stay deported because of AEA (by implying he's an MS-13 member and all that).

Interestingly they're not making the same argument in court though, which is telling. They can't really - if they admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA act, then the third plane was clearly and inarguably in contempt - more of a slam dunk case against the administration. So they can't really ever admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA.

I wonder if this is why they were so much against discovery - because that might turn up evidence of the above.

 

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, cambion said:

The quotes of that conversation look a bit different from the other source I was reading, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-abrego-garcia-back-el-salvador/story?id=121298276 

“You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent

“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.

Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately. (From NYT) / "You could pick it up, and with all--" Moran began to say. (from ABC News)

"I could," Trump said again.

"--the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back right now,'" Moran explained. (from ABC News)

“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. (both)
 

Basically, it looks like he's saying he could pick up the phone and make a phone call asking for Garcia back. But unfortunately, not that he thinks Bukele would say yes.

There's another NYT article which claims that recently (within a week of now) diplomatic entries were made to ask for Garcia back, but that this was refused, see https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-bukele-el-salvador.html

 

Exactly. This is about rule of law and granting due process. Now consider this.

Originally, there were three planes sending folks to CECOT. Judge Boasberg ordered them to stop, and the response of the US was to say that two of them were already overseas when his written order was issued and so Boasberg lost jurisdiction. Boasberg didn't quite agree, and there are findings of contempt with additional proceedings on the way because of this.

But there was a third plane that hadn't taken off yet. Abrego Garcia was on the third plane. It left afterwards. Boasberg was told that the folks on the third plane were not deported under the AEA, but because they already had final deportation orders. We know this is true for Garcia - but the government ignored his withholding of removal order, which was the administrative error that they admitted in court to Judge Xinis.

At least in the court of public opinion, they seem to be trying to walk this back and say that Garcia should stay deported because of AEA (by implying he's an MS-13 member and all that).

Interestingly they're not making the same argument in court though, which is telling. They can't really - if they admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA act, then the third plane was clearly and inarguably in contempt - more of a slam dunk case against the administration. So they can't really ever admit that Garcia was deported because of the AEA.

I wonder if this is why they were so much against discovery - because that might turn up evidence of the above.

 

I agree with much of your post.

 

This statement from trump is unambiguous though 

 

'"You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent

 

“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.'

 

Your interpretation doesn't make sense.

"Basically, it looks like he's saying he could pick up the phone and make a phone call asking for Garcia back. But unfortunately, not that he thinks Bukele would say yes.".

[cambion]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I agree with much of your post.

 

This statement from trump is unambiguous though 

 

'"You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent

 

“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.'

 

Your interpretation doesn't make sense.

"Basically, it looks like he's saying he could pick up the phone and make a phone call asking for Garcia back. But unfortunately, not that he thinks Bukele would say yes.".

Let me explain my interpretation of this part a bit more.

Think of who we're talking about. Selective hearing. He might have just been answering the second part of the sentence ("there’s a phone on this desk") while ignoring the first part ("You could get him back").

Now any reasonable person would think to answer the entire sentence, say with something like "I could get him back" or "I could at least pick up the phone" (and so if such a person just answered with "I could" you'd be spot on to say that the person said yes to actually getting him back) but in this case...

The other point is that the current president is often wrong. So even if he says he could do it, could he actually? The other NYT article reports something concerning on that point.

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, cambion said:

Let me explain my interpretation of this part a bit more.

Think of who we're talking about. Selective hearing. He might have just been answering the second part of the sentence ("there’s a phone on this desk") while ignoring the first part ("You could get him back").

Now any reasonable person would think to answer the entire sentence, say with something like "I could get him back" or "I could at least pick up the phone" (and so if such a person just answered with "I could" you'd be spot on to say that the person said yes to actually getting him back) but in this case...

The other point is that the current president is often wrong. So even if he says he could do it, could he actually? The other NYT article reports something concerning on that point.

Your interpretation flies in the face of the evidence, though. Reduced to its simplest form, it was put to Trump that he could bring Abrego Garcia back, to which he replied, "I could."

 

It doesn't get much clearer than that 

[cambion]

14 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Your interpretation flies in the face of the evidence, though.

I respectively disagree. Aside from the one sentence that stevenl pointed out (which I had to explain a bit), the statements are ambiguous. (This is where one of the NYT does a disservice by not reproducing part the original exchange and paraphrasing instead.)
 

14 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Reduced to its simplest form, it was put to Trump that he could bring Abrego Garcia back, to which he replied, "I could."

Yes. This is also a reasonable interpretation. In fact, I like this version because it means that the courts can indeed order the administration to bring Garcia back home.

What's important here is, though, is it the only one?
 

14 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

It doesn't get much clearer than that 

That's kind of the point though. Some of the articles are pointing out that since the president said this, the administration won't be able to argue in court that they can't actually get Garcia back. The question I suppose is less if my interpretation is reasonable, but would the Supreme Court buy it (or something like it)? If SCOTUS buys it then they'll say, "he didn't admit that he could bring Garcia back, and the diplomatic note is enough to show that they tried to facilitate it, and we accept that the government has done all that it can to correct the mistake."

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, cambion said:

I respectively disagree. Aside from the one sentence that stevenl pointed out (which I had to explain a bit), the statements are ambiguous. (This is where one of the NYT does a disservice by not reproducing part the original exchange and paraphrasing instead.)
 

Yes. This is also a reasonable interpretation. In fact, I like this version because it means that the courts can indeed order the administration to bring Garcia back home.

What's important here is, though, is it the only one?
 

That's kind of the point though. Some of the articles are pointing out that since the president said this, the administration won't be able to argue in court that they can't actually get Garcia back. The question I suppose is less if my interpretation is reasonable, but would the Supreme Court buy it (or something like it)? If SCOTUS buys it then they'll say, "he didn't admit that he could bring Garcia back, and the diplomatic note is enough to show that they tried to facilitate it, and we accept that the government has done all that it can to correct the mistake."

You didn't explain, you interpreted in a totally nonsensical way. And you're digging the hole even deeper now.

 

He said he could, an assessment i agree with, but he doesn't. So he won't.

[cambion]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

You didn't explain, you interpreted in a totally nonsensical way.

Just so we're clear, what you are saying is that this,

`Selective hearing. He might have just been answering the second part of the sentence ("there’s a phone on this desk") while ignoring the first part ("You could get him back").`

doesn't make sense? As in these are "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas" as per the dictionary definition of nonsense? (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense )

As I can see how reasonable people can disagree on which interpretation is the correct one, but to say that the explanation I wrote isn't understandable is another matter entirely.

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

He said he could, an assessment i agree with

Perfect illustration here. He said he could ... he could what? Pick up the phone?

(Obviously from the context I know you mean he said he could indeed bring Garcia back, but it shows the perils of trying to interpret weasel words - which more or less covers everything that this president says.)
 

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

but he doesn't. So he won't.

Actually, from the ABC News article, he was quoted as having stated the following.

"I'm not the one making this decision."
"I-- no, no, no, no. If-- follow the law. You want me to follow the law." (in response to "You're the president," Moran told him.)

So it's not quite the slam dunk here either, as he seems to be attempting to say (clumsily in this instance) that he's waiting on his administration's lawyers to tell him that he should pick that phone up. (Of course, he also says that he would have made the phone call already if he thought Garcia were a "nice guy" which undermines this very argument.)

[cambion]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

And you're digging the hole even deeper now.

Rather than "dig the hole deeper" as you say though, I'll just point out what I'd be willing to accept as evidence that GroveHillWanderer's interpretation (and the NYTs) is in fact the correct one. Rather than just the one we want to believe in, as we're all in the same boat here (remember that I did write earlier that "I like this version")

Basically, one of: court filings that use the interview as evidence to make the push to get Garcia and/or some (or all) of the other folks sent to CECOT back, or another source for the interview that adds additional quotes (for example https://halifax.citynews.ca/2025/04/30/in-their-words-what-judges-and-trumps-government-say-about-abrego-garcias-mistaken-deportation-2/ adds in “I’m not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don’t want to do this,” of which the second sentence is missing from the ABC News article), or a followup interview or statement from either the president or someone in the administration which can also be interpreted to say that POTUS can get Garcia back but simply chooses not to. Also, no time limits to any of the above (e.g. courts can sometimes work slowly, so perhaps we don't see the related court filing for a month or two - I'm still happy to accept the evidence and update my stance once it becomes available.)

Also, this is not an exclusive list. If you or another can make the case for something else to be on this list, I'm willing to keep an open mind and consider it.