Faced with a backlash on the Abrego Garcia case, Trump admin assigns Karoline Leavitt to make it better by asking, "Who needs due process anyway?"

Karoline Leavitt (whitehouse.gov)

The White House called a press briefing yesterday in response to backlash prompted by Donald Trump's inflammatory statements in a Monday Oval Office session regarding the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation to El Salvador. Unfortunately, the administration could not get its facts straight, likely leaving the press and the public shaking their collective heads. 

One problem came when Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was assigned to address issues related to the controversy at hand -- and she proved to be not up to the task. Leavitt was so clueless about the subject matter that . . . well, the briefing joined a growing list of embarrassing moments that have plagued Trump White House 2.0.

How bad was it? The Hill provides the basics from reporter Brett Samuels, under the headline "White House: Abrego Garcia deportation to El Salvador ‘always going to be end result'."

We will use Samuels' story to show how Leavitt ran off the tracks. Then we will turn to the words of someone who actually knows what she's talking about -- University of Baltimore Law Professor Kim Wehle, who was quoted extensively in an NPR piece titled "The risk Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case poses for citizens, according to legal scholar. That is an alarming headline, and it shows that -- even in an era of numerous troubling legal cases -- the Abrego Garcia matter is particularly gross. In fact, one legal expert refers to Trump's actions and statements related to the case as an "abomination."

We will use The Hill and NPR articles to help clear up the muddy waters that Trump and Leavitt created. Our hope is that we provide some clarity so the public can better understand a profoundly important and complex court case, one that is international in scope. (Note: We even will use "oopsie," a word that El Salvador President Hayib Bekule introduced to the fray.)

Let's start with Brett Samuels' account of the Karoline Leavitt press briefing:

The White House asserted Tuesday there was no scenario in which a Maryland man whose deportation to El Salvador has made national headlines and spurred court battles would end up living a “peaceful life” back in the United States. 

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed exasperation over media coverage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national whom administration officials acknowledged in a court filing they mistakenly deported. Officials have since changed their tune on that matter, and the lawyer who wrote of the “administrative error” has since been put on leave.

(a) Leavitt goes "oopsie" -- Like others in the Trump administration, Leavitt does not seem to understand that the Abrego Garcia case involves a fairly important concept in our legal system; it is called "due process of law." It is a constitutional right, and Garcia was mercilessly deprived of it in what has amounted to a state-sanctioned kidnapping.

(b)  Kim Wehle explains via NPR --

The ongoing legal saga of a wrongly deported immigrant from El Salvador creates a situation where President Trump can deny due process to anyone — not just immigrants living in the U.S. without legal status — if he removes them from the country, warns a constitutional scholar.

The case is now "about whether [Trump] feels like giving someone their rights or shipping them to a foreign country," University of Baltimore School of Law professor Kim Wehle told Morning Edition.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was granted protection from deportation by a judge in 2019, was arrested and deported in March. He entered the U.S. without status and lived in Maryland for almost 15 years. Abrego Garcia had no criminal record, and the Trump administration admitted his removal was due to an "administrative error."

Wehle broke down why the Trump administration is in no rush to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and the risk she believes this legal reasoning poses for U.S. citizens.

The Supreme Court didn't order Trump to ensure Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with a lower-court judge who ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., but Wehle said the Supreme Court drew a distinction between "facilitating" and "effectuating."

"So I think Trump took the bait and said, 'Listen, I'm trying, but I don't have to. The court didn't direct that. I do that, and I can cite you my power over foreign affairs, and there's nothing anybody can do about it' " Wehle said.

On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters at an Oval Office meeting with El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele that courts have no right to conduct foreign policy.

The Lowdown: Leavitt had no way of knowing Abrego Garcia would never wind up living a peaceful life in Maryland. He lived a peaceful life there for 15 years, and he was entitled to a court proceeding that would have determined his future. That is part of due process, and the Trump admin acted unlawfully by depriving him of a constitutional right.

Here is more from Brett Samuels on the Leavitt press briefing:

Leavitt also indicated Abrego Garcia would simply be deported again if he was returned to the U.S.

“Deporting him back to El Salvador was always going to be the end result. There is never going to be a world in which this is an individual who is going to live a peaceful life in Maryland,” Leavitt told reporters at a briefing. 

“Because he is a foreign terrorist and an MS-13 gang member. Not only have we confirmed that, [El Salvador] President [Nayib] Bukele yesterday in the Oval Office confirmed that as well,” Leavitt continued. “So he went back to his home country, where he will face consequences for his gang affiliation and his engagement in human trafficking. I’m not sure what is so difficult about this for everyone in the media to understand.”

(a) Leavitt goes "oopsie" -- Leavitt wants to know why the media finds it difficult to understand what she is saying? Maybe it's because the Trump admin has provided little or no evidence to support its claims -- that Abrego Garcia is a foreign terrorist, a gang member, a human trafficker. My question is this: Why are Leavitt and Trump so afraid to see Abrego Garcia go before a court? Leavitt seems certain that the detainee, if he returned to the U.S., would be deported again. But if the constitution had been followed, with a court determining there were no grounds for deportation, Abrego Garcia would have returned to his peaceful life.

 

(b) Kim Wehle explains via NPR --

Wehle wrote a column recently in which she argued that the Supreme Court made a big constitutional leap in its ruling by suggesting the president doesn't have to return Abrego Garcia as long as it cites foreign policy.

"The fact that the president has foreign-affairs authority implied in the Constitution doesn't supersede that core foundational constitutional right that's guaranteed in the plain language of the Constitution," Wehle said.

Everyone in the U.S., including those without legal status, have constitutional rights to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Wehle said.

(c) The Lowdown: Again, Leavitt shows that she knows next to nothing about the constitution -- which is understandable given that her boss doesn't seem to know even that much about the nation's guiding document.

Let's return to Brett Samuels and the Leavitt press briefing:

Abrego Garcia’s family has asserted he is not a member of MS-13 like the government has claimed, but rather fled from El Salvador as a teen to escape gang violence. The government’s assertion is based on a tip from a confidential informant claiming he was involved with the gang in New York, though Abrego Garcia has never lived there. 

The Supreme Court last week determined the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia. So far, there’s been no indication that the administration has taken any action that could help lead to his return.

During an Oval Office meeting Monday with the president of El Salvador, Trump administration officials argued it was up to El Salvador whether to return Abrego Garcia.

(a) Leavitt goes "oopsie" -- This goes to the facts of a potential court case, as asserted by Abrego Garcia's family. These are the type of allegations Trump lawyers would have to counter before a judge. If they can't do it, the detainee no longer is detained -- and he and his family likely have a heckuva lawsuit against the government, maybe even Trump personally. 

(b) Kim Wehle explains via NPR -- 

"[Due process] dates back to the Magna Carta in England in 1215. And the idea is that you get notice of an offense and an opportunity to be heard before the government can take your liberty away," Wehle added.

"So imagine this is your brother and he gets picked up off the street by the cops. The first question he's going to say is, 'what did I do wrong?' And they don't answer," Wehle said. "And the second question he's going to say is, 'I want to say my side of the story here. I shouldn't be put in prison.' And that basic constitutional guarantee was admittedly deprived here."

(c) The Lowdown -- A "constitutional guarantee was admittedly deprived here"? Why don't Trump, his staff members, and lawyers understand that and do everything in their power to bring Abrego Garcia home -- just as a matter of human decency? Maybe they don't have human decency? Maybe they are fine letting an unlawfully deported man rot in the inhumane conditions of El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison.

(d) Epilogue --  Let's give the final word to Kim Wehle, as she addresses, via NPR, an issue that should be of concern to every American:

Why Abrego Garcia's case should concern U.S. citizens

Wehle said the Trump administration could apply the principle of removing someone from the country — including citizens — potentially depriving them of the right to due process, a constitutional right present at the founding of the country.

"The framers, the revolutionaries, rejected an unlimited monarchy where the power came from God," Wehle said. "And people had to just hope that the next king … was benevolent and not malevolent, because essentially your rights depended on being in good graces with the king."