Transcript
Sponsor Voice (0:01)
This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply.
Sponsor Voice (0:30)
Moms deserve our very best, Especially on Mother's Day. There's only one place I trust to deliver high quality mom approved rose bouquets 1-800-flowers.com this year 1-800-flowers wants to make sure all the mothers in your life get the best with double the roses for free. When you buy one dozen, they'll double your bouquet to two dozen roses. To claim the double roses offer, go to 1-800-flowers.com Spotify that's 1-800-flowers. Com Spotify, the official florist of Mother's Day. What makes a great pair of glasses? At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com like your.
Sponsor Voice (1:30)
Favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network switch. Now keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of a virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualifying unlocked device, credit service port in 90 plus days, device in eligible carrier and timely redemption required Card is no cash access and expires in six months.
Michael Popak (2:00)
Well, the Department of Justice is about to fall into the mouth of Judge Paula Zinnis, who is the person the judge assigned to administer justice About Armando Abrego Garcia because they're lying to the judge and they're lying in their discovery responses which are required by the judge in order for her to get to the bottom of whether the government is in contempt for refusing to facilitate the release from an El Salvador in jail. I don't care which jail he's in. At present, he's in El Salvador when an order from a United States immigration judge says he should not be. And now they have filed. There's a new letter that just got filed jointly by the lawyers for Armando Abrego Garcia, including Quinn Emanuel and the Department of Justice on the other side. And apparently in the interrogatories, the questions under oath that Judge Zinnis ordered be filled out by the Trump administration. They're even lying about what the Supreme Court ruled. Misquoting the Supreme Court in its interrogatory response. What is going on here? All I know is Judge Zinnis is gonna be holding a status conference very soon, and she's about to throw the book at the Department of Justice. And we are here for it. You're here for it on the Midas Touch Network and Legal F. How'd we get here? After the judge amended her order and after the Supreme Court ruled in her favor 90 about her handling of the case, they said it was fine. The Supreme Court said it was fine and it was right. And it was appropriate under the constitution and due process to order for a judge, a federal judge, to order the Department of Justice and the Trump administration to do everything in their power to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from the El Salvadoran prison that they put him in. And then the judge said, you're not complying. After a series of filings required by her by the Trump administration every day at 5 o'clock, it was obvious they were not going to tell her what steps they were taking to facilitate on a daily basis his return. Hiding behind the. It's diplomacy, it's foreign affairs. We're not going to tell you. That didn't make the judge happy. That didn't make the other side happy, who filed a motion for contempt. And the judge said, after seeing that there was not going to be compliance, but wanting to develop a full record, she said, why don't we do this? Let's develop a record through the discovery process. How? What say everybody? Let's do depositions, questions and answers under oath, in person. Let's do interrogatories, questions and answers under oath, in writing. Let's do requests to produce an exchange of documents, develop your record about possible contempt, and then we'll look at whether contempt is appropriate. And she also warned the Trump administration, and she told the lawyers for Abrego Garcia that if the Trump administration screws around with you in discovery, come back to me on an expedited basis and ask for sanctions, and they will be Granted. And that's sort of what we have in a new letter that was written late yesterday on letterhead, a joint report sent to the judge, which is a prelude to a status conference in which the judge is going to be very angry at the Department of Justice, especially when she sees the responses that they have put in place in response, for instance, to the interrogatories. And I'll just use one as an example before I read to you from parts of the letter so you know what's going on. Just to show you how sleazy and greasy the Trump administration is in thinking they can get away with anything, they actually misquote the United States Supreme Court ruling against them to change its terms so they can respond to it, creating a straw man of something that doesn't exist. How about quoting the actual United States Supreme Court decision? How about that? And getting it right instead of having typos where United States is spelled wrong. I mean, this was a lot of I'm going to wipe my butt with some paper and send it into the court. So here's what they wrote. And then I'm going to read to you from the actual orders, the first request, what we call interrogatory, a question under oath, but in writing as opposed to a deposition, was here's their objection. Defendants object to interrogatory number one, the first one, as based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate a Brago Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. Then they quote the Supreme Court decision, or they claim to quote the Supreme Court decision, and they say in parentheses and allegedly a quote, holding defendants should take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as opposed to the release from custody. But that is exactly what the Supreme Court decision says, release from custody. Let me read it to you. So we all were all literally on the same page. On page two, let's get it right. The application is granted in part and denied in part. This was the Supreme Court and this was 9 0. The order of Judge Zinnis properly requires the government to, quote, facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. So how can you possibly say that it's based on. The question is based on a false premise that the United States has been ordered to release somebody from custody. How can you say the Supreme Court decision doesn't say that? They say the Supreme Court decision says take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States. That's not what the Supreme Court decision said. It said exactly what they say. It doesn't say the weather.
