Tag Archives: Maryland

Straight Arrow News: DOJ whistleblower says Trump appointee ordered defiance of courts

Posted on by
Reply

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

Shortly after three planes filled with alleged Tren de Aragua gang members took off for an El Salvador supermax prison in March, a judge issued a verbal order with a simple instruction to government lawyers:  turn the planes around. The planes, however, continued to El Salvador. 

Now, a whistleblower says a top Department of Justice (DOJ) official authorized disregarding the judge’s order, telling his staff they might have to tell the courts “f- you” in immigration cases.

The official was Principal Associate Attorney General Emil Bove, whom President Donald Trump nominated to be a federal judge. Leaked emails and texts from whistleblower and former DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, released during the week of July 7, came days before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Bove’s nomination to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the committee approves, Bove’s nomination will advance to the full Senate.

At Bove’s direction, “the Department of Justice is thumbing its nose at the courts, and putting Justice Department attorneys in an impossible position where they have to choose between loyalty to the agenda of the president and their duty to the court,” Reuveni told The New York Times.

Bove is perceived by some as a controversial choice for the lifetime position. He served on Trump’s defense team in the state and federal indictments filed after Trump’s first term in the White House.

In 2024, after Trump appointed him acting deputy attorney general, Bove ignited controversy over his firing of federal prosecutors involved in cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol and over his role in dismissing corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Early this year, the federal government was using an arcane 18th-century wartime law – the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – to remove the alleged gang members from the United States without court hearings. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ruled the removals violated the men’s right to due process, setting up the conflict with the DOJ.

The leaker’s emails and texts suggest Bove advised DOJ attorneys that it was okay to deplane the prisoners in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. 

The messages also cite Bove’s instruction for lawyers to consider saying “f- you” to the courts.

 When Reuveni asked DOJ and Department of Homeland Security officials if they would honor the judge’s order to stop the planes to El Salvador, he received vague responses or none at all.

While the email and text correspondence allude to Bove’s instruction, none of the messages appear to have come directly from Bove himself. The official whistleblower complaint was filed on June 24.

Bove denies giving that instruction. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Bove said he “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.”

The leak prompted outrage from both sides of the political spectrum. Some say deporting people without trial to a supermax prison in El Salvador violates due process rights and a  DOJ lawyer telling other lawyers to ignore a court order should put him in contempt of court. 

However, Attorney General Pam Bondi – who served as one of Trump’s defense attorneys during his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020 – responded on X, saying there was no court order to defy. 

“As Mr. Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg’s lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order,” the attorney general wrote Thursday, July 10, when the emails and texts were released. 

Bondi was referring to the DOJ’s immediate emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals requesting a stay of Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. The DOJ did not turn the planes around, arguing that a verbal order by the lower court is not binding and that the planes had already left U.S. airspace.

On March 26, the DOJ lost its appeal, with the D.C. Circuit voting 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s ruling. The DOJ appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had interfered with national security and overreached on executive immigration power. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DOJ, 6-3, and lifted the lower court’s injunction on April 9.

Bondi accused the whistleblower Reuveni of spreading lies. She said on X that this is “another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts.” 

“This ‘whistleblower’ signed 3 briefs defending DOJ’s position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department,” Bondi wrote.

Reuveni worked at the DOJ for 15 years, mostly in the Office of Immigration and Litigation. Bondi fired Reuveni in April for failing to “zealously advocate” for the United States in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to the El Salvador prison and whose return the Supreme Court eventually ordered.

Bondi and other Trump administration officials have fired many DOJ and FBI employees, saying the administration has broad constitutional power to do so. 

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

DOJ whistleblower says Trump appointee ordered defiance of courts
A Trump judicial nominee told DOJ lawyers to ignore court orders to return planes carrying alleged gang members, a whistleblower claims.

https://san.com/cc/doj-whistleblower-says-trump-appointee-ordered-defiance-of-courts

Reuters: ICE may deport migrants to countries other than their own with just six hours notice, memo says

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. immigration officials may deport migrants to countries other than their home nations with as little as six hours’ notice, a top Trump administration official said in a memo, offering a preview of how deportations could ramp up.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will generally wait at least 24 hours to deport someone after informing them of their removal to a so-called “third country,” according to a memo dated Wednesday, July 9, from the agency’s acting director, Todd Lyons.

ICE could remove them, however, to a so-called “third country” with as little as six hours’ notice “in exigent circumstances,” said the memo, as long as the person has been provided the chance to speak with an attorney.

The memo states that migrants could be sent to nations that have pledged not to persecute or torture them “without the need for further procedures.”

The new ICE policy suggests President Donald Trump’s administration could move quickly to send migrants to countries around the world.

The Supreme Court in June lifted a lower court’s order limiting such deportations without a screening for fear of persecution in the destination country.

Following the high court’s ruling and a subsequent order from the justices, the Trump administration sent eight migrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam to South Sudan.

The administration last week pressed officials from five African nations – Liberia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon – to accept deportees from elsewhere, Reuters reported.

The Washington Post first reported the new ICE memo.

The administration argues the third country deportations help swiftly remove migrants who should not be in the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

Advocates have criticized the deportations as dangerous and cruel, since people could be sent to countries where they could face violence, have no ties and do not speak the language.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing a class action lawsuit against such rapid third-county deportations at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the policy “falls far short of providing the statutory and due process protections that the law requires.”

Third-country deportations have been done in the past, but the tool could be more frequently used as Trump tries to ramp up deportations to record levels.

During Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, his administration deported small numbers of people from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala.

Former President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration struck a deal with Mexico to take thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, since it was difficult to deport migrants to those nations.

The new ICE memo was filed as evidence in a lawsuit over the wrongful deportation of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

ICE may deport migrants to countries other than their own with just six hours notice, memo says

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-may-deport-migrants-countries-other-than-their-own-with-just-six-hours-2025-07-13

Raw Story: DOJ lawyer ‘put his foot in his mouth’ in front of ‘righteously indignant’ judge

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department’s lawyer “put his foot in his mouth the minute he started and never seemed to get it out” in a recent hearing, according to a former prosecutor.

Ex-federal prosecutor Joyce Vance highlighted a high-profile case in which, as the Washington Post put it, “a federal judge in Maryland sharply rebuked a Justice Department attorney” after “an immigration official could not answer basic questions about the Trump administration’s plans to deport Kilmar Abrego García if he is released pending trial on federal human-smuggling charges against him in Tennessee.”

In the Maryland hearing this week, “Judge Paula Xinis heard testimony from a witness she had directed the government to present, and it turned out that the testimony failed to answer some of the very basic questions she has about the case,” according to Vance. She said they were questions such as, “What do you plan to do with Mr. Abrego Garcia if he’s released, and in what country, other than El Salvador, where the government is currently prohibited from sending him, might you dump him?”

Vance went on to ridicule the DOJ’s position in the case.

“The government is taking a ridiculous posture, saying that unless and until he’s released from criminal custody in the Tennessee case, they aren’t making any plans at all—they just have some vague ideas about the possibilities,” she wrote. “Given that this is the same government we now know from the Erez Reuveni whistleblower case doesn’t feel compelled to comply with courts that rule against Donald Trump’s desired course of action, it’s easy to understand why the Judge was skeptical of the government, telling their lawyers she could no longer presume they were acting in good faith at one point. The presumption of regularity entitles the government to an assumption by the court that its actions are valid and in accordance with the law, placing a burden on any party challenging it to prove otherwise.”

Vance highlighted Xinis’ comment to the DOJ lawyer: “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it in my view.”

“The government acted like everything was business as usual and this was just an ordinary case. But this Judge understands that it is not. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers made such a modest request, functional due process, just a couple of days’ notice before their client is dropped in a hellhole like South Sudan,” she wrote. “The government’s lawyer put his foot in his mouth the minute he started and never seemed to get it out. For starters, the Judge had asked yesterday for basic paperwork, the detainer that ICE was using to hold Abrego Garcia. But it took them until midway through the hearing to provide it to her. That’s an inexcusable failure on the government’s part that fairly shouts disrespect to the court.”

The analyst continued:

“The government told Judge Xinis they can either deport Abrego Garcia to a third country of their choice or reopen withholding proceedings… But the government wouldn’t commit to either option or even hint at its thinking.”

She added, “The Judge was righteously indignant that the government wouldn’t say what it wants to do, maintaining the fiction that some randomly assigned desk officer will decide what happens on the fly if Abrego Garcia is returned to their custody, just like they would in any normal case. It’s ridiculous. The government is saying ‘f— you’ to the courts over and over again, and the courts seem to be getting the message.”

DOJ lawyer ‘put his foot in his mouth’ in front of ‘righteously indignant’ judge

https://www.rawstory.com/doj-lawyer-foot-in-mouth

Axios: Trump ramps up deportation spectacle with new stunts and ICE funding

Posted on by
Reply

The MAGA movement is reveling in the creativity, severity and accelerating force of President Trump’s historic immigration crackdown.

Once-fringe tactics — an alligator-moated detention camp, deportations to war zones, denaturalization of immigrant citizens — are now being proudly embraced at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

  • It’s an extraordinary shift from Trump’s first term, when nationwide backlash and the appearance of cruelty forced the administration to abandon its family separation policy for unauthorized immigrants.
  • Six months into his second term — and with tens of billions of dollars in new funding soon flowing to ICE — Trump is only just beginning to scale up his mass deportation machine.

Trump on Tuesday toured a temporary ICE facility in the Florida Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where thousands of migrants will be detained in a remote, marshland environment teeming with predators.

  • MAGA influencers invited on the trip gleefully posted photos of the prison’s cages and souvenir-style “merchandise,” thrilling their followers and horrifying critics.
  • Pro-Trump activist Laura Loomer drew outrage after tweeting that “alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals if we get started now” — widely interpreted as a reference to the Hispanic population of the United States.

Citing the millions of unauthorized immigrants who crossed the border under President Biden, Trump and his MAGA allies have framed the second-term crackdown as a long-overdue purge.

  • The result is an increasingly draconian set of enforcement measures designed to deter, expel and make examples out of unauthorized immigrants.
  • Some newer members of the MAGA coalition, such as podcaster Joe Rogan, have expressed deep discomfort with the targeting of non-criminal undocumented immigrants.

…

Denaturalization of U.S. citizens — once a legal backwater — is gaining traction as Trump and his MAGA allies push the envelope on nativist rhetoric.

  • The Justice Department has begun prioritizing stripping naturalized Americans of their citizenship when they’re charged with crimes and “illegally procured or misrepresented facts in the naturalization process.”
  • But some MAGA influencers are pushing to weaponize denaturalization more broadly — not just as a legal remedy for fraud, but as a tool to punish ideological opponents.

…

Trump ramps up deportation spectacle with new stunts and ICE funding
Once-fringe tactics — an alligator-moated detention camp, denaturalization of citizens — are now being embraced.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/05/trump-migrants-alligator-alcatraz-denaturalize

MSNBC: The Trump admin is going after Maryland courts for doing exactly what courts are supposed to do

Posted on by
Reply

The suit challenges a May 28 order issued by the district’s chief judge concerning the handling of habeas corpus petitions.

In a move more characteristic of a 17th-century English king than a 21st-century American president, the Trump administration last week filed a lawsuit against every sitting federal judge in the state of Maryland.

The charge? That one judge’s attempt to preserve due process for individuals challenging their deportations is disrupting the president’s immigration policies. This unprecedented lawsuit is a dangerous attack on an independent judiciary and escalates the ongoing struggle between the executive and judicial branches. And it brings America one step closer to a constitutional crisis.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. government and the Department of Homeland Security in U.S. District Court in Maryland against all 15 active and senior-status judges in that district, as well as the district’s clerk of court. The suit challenges a May 28 order issued by the district’s chief judge concerning the handling of habeas corpus petitions — legal actions that contest the government’s detention of individuals as unlawful.

The May 28 order expressly addresses the “recent influx” of habeas petitions concerning people subject to deportation, an influx triggered by the administration’s aggressive immigration policies. DHS is trying to move quickly to deport people whom it has identified as illegal aliens; in response, many detainees are filing lawsuits to block those deportations. DHS is proceeding with deportation before courts can hear the cases, and judges are scrambling to manage what the May 28 order describes as “hurried and frustrated hearings” in which “clear and concrete information about the location and status of the [detainees] is elusive.” To ensure that detainees are afforded due process — the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to all “persons” in the United States, not just “citizens” — the May 28 order prohibits the government from deporting a prisoner for two days after a habeas petition is filed, giving the presiding judge time to review the case.

…

Several appellate courts have similar standing orders.

…

But here, the administration has taken the extraordinary step, apparently for the first time in our nation’s history, of pre-emptively suing all the judges responsible for implementing a ruling it claims is unlawful.

This lawsuit is not about immigration policy. It is a frontal assault on judicial authority, raising separation of powers principles that predate the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

…

This attempted power grab should alarm anyone who values our constitutional framework.

Opinion | DOJ’s suit against Maryland judges sends an ominous message
The suit challenges a May 28 order issued by the district’s chief judge concerning the handling of habeas corpus petitions.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-doj-suing-marylands-federal-judges-rcna215771

Daily Beast: Trump Frees Felon to Keep Deported Maryland Dad Locked Up

Posted on by
Reply

The White House is so hellbent on keeping Kilmar Abrego Garcia behind bars, it has released a convicted human smuggler.

The Trump administration has freed a convicted human smuggler in its desperate bid to convict Kilmar Abrego Garcia of the same charge.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported Abrego Garcia in March—a move the Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted was an error—before a federal judge forced the administration to return him. Abrego Garcia was placed in federal custody on a human smuggling charge as soon as he set foot on U.S. soil again.

Despite President Donald Trump’s pledge to focus mass deportation efforts on criminals—the “worst of the worst”—the DOJ has now released three-time felon Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes from federal prison and transferred him to a halfway house in exchange for his testimony against Abrego Garcia, an undocumented father from Maryland.

Which likely will make him an unreliable witness because he has been paid / rewarded for his testimony. When it’s all over, Kilmar Abrego Garcia will walk free.

“It’s wild to me,” Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director at the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, told the Washington Post. “It’s just further evidence of how the government is using Kilmar’s case to further their propaganda and prove their political point.”

Trump Frees Felon to Keep Deported Maryland Dad Locked Up
The White House is so hellbent on keeping Kilmar Abrego Garcia behind bars, it has released a convicted human smuggler.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-frees-felon-to-keep-deported-maryland-dad-locked-up

USA Today: Thanks, Supreme Court! It’s now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.

Posted on by
Reply

Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith.

I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts.

So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.

In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, “The Court recognized that parents have a right ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their children’ and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.”

Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are “radical left thugs that live like vermin” and describing a female vice president of the United States as “mentally impaired” and “a weak and foolish woman” are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief.

So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.)

Alito clearly doesn’t want schools teaching kids that Trump exists

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”

Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency.

That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president.

Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love

Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called “Love Violet,” which “follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s ‘heart skip’ and ‘thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.’ Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and ‘galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.’”

While my religion would define such a story as “sweet” and “loving,” Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it “hostile” to parents’ religious beliefs.

As Alito wrote, “Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it’s normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants.

Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be “clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump

I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump’s behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith.

Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: “The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.”

Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue.

Thanks, Supreme Court! It’s now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump. | Opinion
Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/06/29/trump-supreme-court-ruling-books-maryland-parents/84380649007

Fox News: Trump DHS sues entire bench of federal judges in Maryland district court over automatic injunctions

Posted on by
Reply

DHS lawsuit targets Maryland federal court’s automatic pause policy that delays deportations

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is suing all 15 judges on the Maryland federal bench, arguing the court’s policy of automatically pausing certain immigration cases that come before it is unlawful.

Attorneys for the Trump administration argued to the very court they are suing that the policy, imposed through an order the court issued in May, is an “egregious example of judicial overreach.”

Stupid fools — how is the court supposed to consider a case if the deportation isn’t stopped at least long enough the court to hear the case and reach a decision.

Where does Trump find these shit-for-brains attorneys?

Trump DHS sues entire bench of federal judges in Maryland district court over automatic injunctions
The Trump administration files lawsuit against all 15 Maryland federal judges, challenging court policy that temporarily blocks deportations of immigrants filing habeas corpus petitions.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dhs-sues-entire-bench-federal-judges-maryland-district-court-over-automatic-injunctions

Daily Beast: Judge Embarrasses Stephen Miller in High-Profile Court Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

A judge has shut down arguments pushed by the Trump administration and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in a ruling surrounding the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Tennessee Magistrate Barbara Holmes ruled Sunday that Abrego Garcia is not the dangerous gang member Trump allies like Miller and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have repeatedly claimed he is.

Abrego Garcia is pending trial on human smuggling charges for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants within the U.S. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In March, the Trump administration admitted to mistakenly deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. The Supreme Court ordered them to facilitate his return to the United States.

In her 51-page report, Holmes disputed claims made by the U.S. government that Abrego Garcia was a member of international crime gang MS-13.

Stephen Miller Embarrassed in High-Profile Court Ruling
A court did not rule in favor of arguments pushed by the likes of Miller.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-embarrasses-stephen-miller-in-high-profile-court-ruling

Law & Crime: ‘Doesn’t speak with precision about things sometimes’: DOJ attorney offers mixed praise for Trump’s communication skills during Abrego Garcia hearing

Posted on by
Reply

An attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice offered some mixed praise of President Donald Trump‘s communication skills during a previously secret hearing in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case.

A transcript of the hearing was recently released, in redacted form and limited fashion, by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, a Barack Obama appointee, in response to a motion to unseal several documents in the case filed by multiple news organizations.

While the transcript is not yet available on the public court docket, The New York Times’ Alan Feuer obtained a copy of the document and posted a notable snippet of an exchange between the judge and DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

“President Trump is you know, is a master messenger in many ways, but he also doesn’t speak with precision about things sometimes,” the government lawyer said. “And I think that this might be one of those situations where perhaps his comments were based on what he was recalling may have been the state of play previously.”

While the transcript is not yet available on the public court docket, The New York Times’ Alan Feuer obtained a copy of the document and posted a notable snippet of an exchange between the judge and DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

“President Trump is you know, is a master messenger in many ways, but he also doesn’t speak with precision about things sometimes,” the government lawyer said. “And I think that this might be one of those situations where perhaps his comments were based on what he was recalling may have been the state of play previously.”

The DOJ lawyer’s remarks came amid a discussion about the 45th and 47th president’s ability to have Abrego Garcia brought back stateside.

Until the Maryland man was abruptly returned earlier this month, the official position of the government was that the U.S. simply no longer had control of the situation. Attorney after attorney, in courtroom after courtroom, insisted the decision rested with officials in El Salvador.

Xinis appeared suspicious of this claim, based on an April 29 interview of Trump by since-fired ABC News anchor Terry Moran. During that interview, Trump said he “could” just pick up the phone and have the Salvadoran president return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. But, Trump added, “we have lawyers that don’t want to do this.”

The hearing was the very next day — and part of Guynn’s job was cleaning up Trump’s statement, which flatly contradicted the DOJ’s position.

Xinis was not, however, the only judge to be struck by Trump’s admission about Abrego Garcia during the ABC News interview.

During a May 7 hearing in the initial Alien Enemies Act case before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a jurist who got his start under George W. Bush and was then promoted by Barack Obama, the president’s words were put directly to DOJ attorney Abhishek Kambli.

“Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?” Boasberg asked the government lawyer.

The DOJ attorney tried to sidestep the question by launching into a broader argument about the government’s case. But he was quickly brought back on track by Boasberg, who interjected to say he wanted his questions answered first….

Click the links below for more mumbo jumbo from Trumpski & his attorneys:

‘Doesn’t speak with precision’: DOJ attorney has mixed praise for Trump’s communication skills
“President Trump is you know, is a master messenger in many ways,” the DOJ lawyer said.
‘Doesn’t speak with precision about things sometimes’: DOJ attorney offers mixed praise for Trump’s communication skills during Abrego Garcia hearing