Dem Sen Reveals El Salvador's Goons Faked Margaritas With Deported Dad
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)'s recent trip to Central America was hardly the Margaritaville portrayed in photos.
The senator addressed reporters after returning from El Salvador on Friday following his meeting with wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, continuing to call for his return and revealing that the margarita-filled photo op shared by El Salvador president Nayib Bukele was staged.
In a desperate bid to prove naysayers wrong, Bukele posted photos of Van Hollen and Abrego Garcia to his X account on Thursday night, showing the men talking at a table with what looks to be margaritas in front of them.
Bukele designed the accompanying caption to ridicule critics, making reference to people's concerns that Abrego Garcia had been killed or tortured while being held in CECOT, the country's most notorious maximum security prison. Bukele claimed that, far from coming to harm, Abrego Garcia was now in a 'tropical paradise' and 'sipping margaritas.'
After addressing more pressing concerns like Abrego Garcia's wellbeing and legal battle, Van Hollen took some time out of his press conference—while flanked on all sides by Abrego Garcia's loved ones—to address the staged photos, telling reporters how the margarita photo op came to be.
'As we were talking, one of the government people came over and deposited two other glasses on the table, with ice and I don't know if it was salt or sugar round the top, but they look like margaritas,' the senator began. 'Let me just be very clear: neither of us touched the drinks that were in front of us, and if you want to play a little Sherlock Holmes, I'll tell you how you can know that.'
He continued, 'If you look at the picture I sent out from the beginning of our meeting, you'll see there are no glasses on the table, so you'll see in later videos they are on the table. But they made a little mistake: if you sip out of one of those glasses, some of whatever it was, salt or sugar, would disappear—you would see a gap. There's no gap. Nobody drank any margaritas or sugar water or whatever it is.'
The point of highlighting this, Van Hollen explained, was that it illustrated the lengths Bukele will go to to 'deceive people about what's going on,' as well as just how far President Donald Trump will go, because when asked about the meeting, he just 'went along for the ride,' calling Van Hollen a 'fool' for 'begging for attention from the Fake News Media.'
Van Hollen continued, telling reporters that despite the fact the Trump administration has 'been lying about this case from the beginning' and 'trying to change the subject,' ultimately this is about 'adhering to the Constitution, to the right of due process, and that's why we say bring Kilmar home so he can be afforded his rights under the Constitution.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Has Long Been Itching To Use The Military On American Streets
A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM's Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version. We come into the new week with more weekend news to process than we've had since February or March, so I'm going to jump right into it. I tried to condense it as much as possible, grouping like things together, in roughly descending order of importance. One note: I wrote extensively about the return of Abrego Garcia on Friday so I didn't include it here given the volume of other news, but we'll come back to this, especially the news that the criminal division chief in Nashville resigned over the Abrego Garcia indictment. In the meantime, Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed a flaming retort last night to the Trump DOJ's attempt to end the original case and sidestep the contempt of court proceeding entirely. We can't talk about the protests in Los Angeles against mass deportation and President Trump itching to send in the military without a quick reminder that we all knew there was an extremely high risk that if Trump were re-elected he would provoke civil unrest in order to use it as a pretext for lawless actions he was already determined to take. It's too early to say whether this particular incident ends up being the defining episode of the erosion of the line between the military and domestic law enforcement. But it's understandable why everyone has a hair trigger about Trump sending in the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Two things in particular: The President's memo was concerningly open-ended. It didn't specify Los Angeles or California; it applies anywhere. It empowered the defense secretary 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' It broadly defined protests as rebellion: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a big deal over the weekend about a detachment of 500 Marines at Twentynine Palms being ready to provide backup to the National Guard. A former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau told Fox News: 'This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' The most astute analysis: Law professor Chris Mirasola, who used to work in the DoD Office of General Counsel, unpacks the presidential memo. The NYT's Charlie Savage on the various legal issues implicated. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck on what the presidential proclamation did and did not do and why it remains alarming. A helpful thread from Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the US Army War College: 'I'll say it over and over again; you can't build the mass deportation machine without first building the police state machine.'–Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council ABC News suspended veteran newsman Terry Moran for a blistering tweet about White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. Here's the tweet: A great visualization from Amanda Shendruk and Catherine Rampell on the people Trump doesn't want to exist: This is part of a broader campaign to delete the statistical and visual evidence of undesirables, or at least those who may not fit into President Donald Trump's conception of the new American 'golden age.' Entire demographics are being scrubbed from records of both America's past and present — including people of color, transgender people, women, immigrants and people with disabilities. They are now among America's 'missing persons.' The Trump administration has forced out two senior FBI officials and punished a third for his friendship with former FBI agent Peter Strzok, the longtime Trump target. Damian Williams, the former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, is leaving Paul Weiss, which cut a deal with President Trump, and joining Jenner & Block, which in contrast sued over Trump's executive order against it and won. Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Dominic Pezzola – all convicted in the Jan. 6 attack then given clemency by President Trump – have sued prosecutors and FBI agents in federal court in Florida over their prosecutions, demanding $100 million in punitive damages. An alleged series of thefts of combat equipment from an Army Ranger regiment in Washington state led to the arrest earlier this month of two veterans at a home full of Nazi and white supremacy paraphernalia and a stockpile of stolen weapons, the NYT reports. The Forward: ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt compared pro-Palestinian student protesters to ISIS and al-Qaeda in an address to Republican attorneys general. A 6-3 Supreme Court granted DOGE access to confidential Social Security records, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasting the decision in a written dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor Jackson. Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court cut back the scope of discovery the watchdog group CREW can seek from DOGE. Frank Bisignano, the new head of the Social Security Administration, declared himself to be 'fundamentally a DOGE person.' In a widely panned decision, two Trump appointees on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reinstated the Trump White House's ban on the Associated Press in retaliation for not using 'Gulf of America' in its stories. Adam Bonica used computational text analysis to examine judicial decisions in nearly 300 cases involving the Trump administration and found what he called an 'institutional chorus of constitutional alarm': The sharp language from the bench isn't judicial activism; it's the sound of democracy's defense mechanisms under unprecedented stress. These interventions span the political spectrum. Judges were responding not to partisan disagreement but to actions that crossed fundamental legal and constitutional lines. The alarm is being sounded by conservative and liberal judges in a range of cases, many of which you'll be familiar with from Morning Memo.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. Protests continued to roil Los Angeles, California for three days straight over the weekend, as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement across the greater area over a series of federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in the city. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held. The demonstrations gained steam throughout the weekend in response to a Saturday morning gathering of Border Patrol agents the Latino suburb of Paramount and as National Guard troops deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. Live updates: Gov. Newsom blames Trump for unruly protests Timeline: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded The National Guard deployment, along with statements from Trump and other officials, has raised the specter of further executive actions while the administration takes a heavy hand in responding to the demonstrations and tensions escalate. Trump was asked about the potential of invoking the Insurrection Act, an unprecedented move in recent memory, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. Here's what to know. What is the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act is an 1807 law that empowers a president to deploy the U.S. military to suppress events like civil disorder. 'The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military inside the United States and use it against Americans, making it one of the executive branch's most potent emergency powers,' according to a 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice. It's also one of the oldest emergency powers available to the president, the center says, traced back to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. It's Congress's authority under the Constitution to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,' and is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the center's experts say, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. What has Trump said about invoking the Insurrection Act? In a social media post on Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and said he was directing his cabinet officers "to take all such action necessary" to stop what he called riots. When asked on Sunday by reporters if he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act, he said, "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Prompted as to whether he thinks there currently is an insurrection, he said, "No, no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with it." In Trump's presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops, he said the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and referred to the demonstrations as a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X Friday that active duty Marines at its West Coast base were on 'high alert' and would be mobilized if 'violence continues,' claiming the demonstrations were a national security risk. In his statement on X, Hegseth repeated the unfounded claim of an invasion by immigrants facilitated by criminal organizations, a once-fringe theory that now undergirds the administration's immigration crackdown. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." More: Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended Has the Insurrection Act been used before? In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises, according to the Brennan Center for Justice report, but it has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the Brennan Center says in a report that lists out the history of the act's use. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, also in response to unrest and demonstrations in California. Unlike the current immigration raid protests, the governor of California at the time requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial, after four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in their trial for beating the Black motorist. The unrest had already been mostly quelled by state-controlled National Guard troops before the federal troops arrived, the Brennan Center said. Contributing: Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
