Raw Story

NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian and legal analyst Danny Cevallos think that an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals backfired against President Donald Trump.

Speaking to MSNBC on Friday, Dilanian addressed the case involving Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland man brought to the U.S. as a teenager 15 years ago. García was detained by the government and shipped to an El Salvador prison despite a judge saying that he could not be sent to El Salvador. The Justice Department's lawyers called the deportation a "clerical error," and admitted in court that he was wrongfully deported to the prison.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government must "facilitate" the return of García, but the word "facilitate" has become part of the argument between the Justice Department, the judge and lawyers for García's family.

ALSO READ: When mafia spoof and constitutional crises collide, things stop being funny

Dilanian cited conservative Appeals Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who took the lead on the Thursday ruling: "He went on to sort of use this case as an argument against Trump administration's approach to judges in general, and to calls for impeachment of judges whose rulings they don't like, and to raise the specter that this is really undermining the rule of law."

Cevallos explained the procedural steps, noting that the Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which then sent the case back to the district court. However, the DOJ sought another appeal of the lower court's decisions.

"And the Trump administration is saying to the circuit court of appeals, hey, help us out. We don't like this district court directive to provide this information. And I've got to tell you, in reading this seven-page opinion, it's as if the appeals court is saying, you're coming to us for help? We don't like anything you're doing. You came to the wrong place."

Cevallos explained that this could ultimately harm the Trump administration.

"As Ken can tell you, within that decision, they also added some other interpretation of words like 'facilitate,'" Cevallos said, recalling the words from the Supreme Court's ruling. "Remember, the government has to facilitate García's return. And almost gratuitously, the Fourth Circuit said, hey, here's what we think facilitate means. Not for nothing, as they say in New Jersey, this is what we think that word means, and what we think you should be doing. I don't think they really needed to do that. They could have just said, hey, a request for emergency help from us: denied. Go back down there to the district court and let this play out."

The appeals court took a different route, he noted.

"But instead they went on for about seven pages, describing all the reasons why they think the administration — they meaning the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — why the court believes that the Trump administration is not doing this right. And I think this emergency appeal may come back to haunt them because it further fleshes out these words like 'facilitate,' 'return,' that I can see the district court using in its own final decision."

Cevallos went on to explain that they must follow a court order until the court decides otherwise.

See the comments below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Conservative political writer Myra Adams spotlighted the Trump administration's top women officials in an article published in The Hill Friday, referring to them as "mean MAGA girls" for mirroring what she called former President Donald Trump's "bullying leadership style."

The list included Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and rightwing influencer Laura Loomer.

"After nearly 100 days, Trump’s loyal Mean Girls are just warming up their 'don’t mess with us,' in-your-face bravado, so effective and pleasing to their man," Adams, who served on the creative team of two Republican presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008, wrote in her article.

ALSO READ: 'I will not be bullied': Whistleblower accuses DOJ of sending 'armed deputies' to her home

"These fine-looking ladies are always camera-ready for their frequent Fox News and social media appearances."

She said that these officials are "bullying into submission two of the three co-equal branches of government, resulting in the most powerful executive branch since President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

The author said Bondi turned the Department of Justice into Trump's "weapon of mass retribution."

"Bondi is rebranding DOJ as the president’s law firm, fighting for his all-encompassing MAGA agenda. Even Trump’s former private criminal defense attorneys are Bondi’s top deputies!," she added.

Adams said Bondi "mirrors Trump’s 'fight fight fight' persona, denigrating judges and persecuting thepresident’s 'enemies.'

ALSO READ: 'What is she taking about?' Ex-RNC chair rips press sec’s defense of Trump’s

"That long-growing list includes former officials, the media, and institutions, organizations and businesses that don’t toe the line," Adams noted.

Regarding Leavitt, who is the youngest White House press secretary at 27, Adams said she displays a "prideful Mean Girl confidence well beyond her years."

"Leavitt disseminates whatever the White House 'Department of Propaganda' has prepared, likely from the all-powerful Stephen Miller," she added.

Adams noted that Leavitt heavily favors Trump-friendly new media.

ALSO READ: 'Neofascist revolutionary project': How MAGA is ramping up its propaganda 'machine

"These foot soldiers in designer heels might be called the 'MAGA Mean Girls,'" Adams wrote.

Two MAGA lawmakers are asking FBI Director Kash Patel to launch a formal investigation into an alleged "coverup" they say was orchestrated by former President Joe Biden's administration, whom conservatives have long faulted for failing to take action in a case stemming from five aborted fetuses found in Washington, D.C.

Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) called on Patel to confirm a probe would be forthcoming by April 29, and also asked that FBI officials provide a “staff level briefing” related to the agency's review and potential investigation into the case – which they refer to as the “D.C. Five.”

“As Chairs of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, we remain concerned about the Biden-Harris Administration’s refusal to investigate the circumstances of the case of five aborted children, also known as the D.C. Five, whose remains were allegedly discovered at the Washington Surgi-Clinic in March 2022 by a pro-life advocacy group,” the MAGA lawmakers told Patel on Tuesday in a joint letter.

ALSO READ: 'All hands on deck': Democrats unleash new strategy to derail Trump

In addition to the Biden administration, Roy and Biggs also targeted the Metropolitan Police Department, both of which they say “chose to ignore any potential evidence of a crime for two years.” They also went after former FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom they blamed for "leadership failures."

“As we continue to conduct our investigation into the District of Columbia’s enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, serious questions remain surrounding the deaths of these children,” they added. “We write to request that the FBI review the decision not to move forward with an investigation and the Biden Harris’s apparent decision not to enforce the Partial-Birth Abortion Act and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act."

The Justice Department clashed with U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis in a Tuesday hearing over what the U.S. government acknowledged was an accidental deportation of a Maryland father.

Kilmar Ábrego García was shipped to a prison in El Salvador despite a judge ruling that García could not be deported there. The U.S. government has claimed that García is an MS-13 gang member, but one legal analyst wrote Tuesday there's reason to question this.

According to Politico's Kyle Cheney, Xinis said that every day Ábrego García is in the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, is "a day of further irreparable harm."

"If not this court, then who, to engage in process. It’s process that is in the roots of our constitution, so we have to give process to both sides...There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding," the judge said.

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

She also questioned the administration's definition of the word "facilitate," which comes from a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the high court ordered the administration to "facilitate" García's return.

The administration's definition flies in the face of the plain meaning of the word, the judge said, according to Cheney. "When a wrongfully removed individual [is outside US borders], it's not so cut-and-dried that all you have to do is remove obstacles domestically."

CNN reported that the judge appeared willing to consider an expansion of the definition of "facilitate." The Justice Department asked for an appeal to stay that decision.

The judge said, "The Supreme Court has spoken. My order is clear. It's direct. There is, in my view, nothing to appeal."

See the clip below or at the link here.

- YouTube youtu.be

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked several portions of President Donald Trump's executive order punishing Susman Godfrey, the law firm that represented the elections equipment company Dominion Voting Systems in their defamation lawsuit against Fox News.

Judge Loren AliKhan slammed the Trump administration's actions from the bench, per MSNBC legal commentator Adam Klasfeld, saying, "Frankly, I think the Framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power."

She noted that a number of other law firms had struck "deals" with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by similar executive orders, which, she said, was "coercion, plain and simple."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

AliKhan blocked all three provisions of the executive order that Susman Godfrey challenged: Section 1, which attacked the firm's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies; Section 3, which ordered the termination of all federal government contracts with the firm; and Section 5, which barred Susman Godfrey personnel from accessing federal buildings.

Trump has issued a number of other executive orders with identical provisions targeting various law firms that have represented clients or cases against himself or his allies or previously employed people who have done so.

The "deals" struck with several law firms to prevent this punishment included agreeing to terminate DEI policies, commit to accepting pro-Trump clients in the future, and earmark hundreds of millions of dollars for pro bono work in specific areas the Trump administration approves of, such as fighting antisemitism and assisting veterans. It's part of a series of attacks Trump has levied at institutions to force compliance with his administration, including threats to terminate funding to progressive research universities and pushing for settlements of frivolous lawsuits against large broadcasting companies.

The law firm deals were largely brokered by Boris Epshteyn, a controversial lawyer and former right-wing analyst for Sinclair Broadcast Group who is notorious for following Trump around with positive news printouts to make him feel better.

Former NAACP director Cornell William Brooks laid into President Donald Trump's move to freeze billions in federal funding from Harvard University, after the prestigious institution rejected his demands to crack down on the political ideology of its faculty and student body — a similar ultimatum Trump used against Columbia University that that school ultimately complied with.

"We have a wonderful Constitution that contains a First Amendment, which this government, this administration is violating," Brooks told CNN's John Berman. "This is to say, the government does not get to dictate political ideology. It does not get to determine whether faculty or staff or too liberal to conservative to this, to that. The First Amendment has a little something to say about that."

But there's another federal law standing in the way, he continued.

"Title XI is that law which says you can't use government funds to discriminate. This is a law that was brought into being as a consequence of the blood sacrifice of civil rights workers and African Americans, and this administration has taken that law, turned it upside down, and used it to try to micromanage Harvard and essentially make it a satellite campus of the now-defunct Trump University. This is outrageous."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

"But even if you buy your arguments, and even if you admit that the administration is trying to micromanage Harvard University, it is their money," said Berman. "How much will the absence of that money impact Harvard?"

"Well, first of all, let's — John, I want to be very clear about this," said Brooks. "It's not their money. It's the money of the American taxpayer ... and Harvard uses taxpayer money to do research on Alzheimer's, to do research on all manner of illnesses, to advance human knowledge, to send teachers into communities to teach. The point being here is the government, as in the Trump administration, doesn't get to use taxpayer dollars to violate the First Amendment."

"When you read the president of Harvard's letter ... it makes it very clear," he added. "Harvard is not refusing to comply with the government demands, simply out of a matter of personal prerogative, institutional prerogative. It is not doing so because the demands themselves are unlawful. They're unconstitutional. This is not the way government is supposed to behave. And if this were done to any major corporation, everyone would understand. You don't really get to micromanage business. I was a lawyer in the United States Justice Department. I served as president and CEO of the NAACP. I've overseen federal investigations with serious settlements and demand letters. This is not that. This is — this is literally political ransom."

Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTube www.youtube.com