I HAVE THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING THAT LED TO THE JUDGE ORDERING THAT KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA BE RELEASED, AND IT’S A MONSTER!
I purchased the transcript of the hearing which resulted in Judge Xinis ordering that Kilmar Abrego Garcia be immediately released from custody, and it’s Herculean! It’s 186 pages (and at $1.45 a page at that)! And yes, the entire thing, all 186 pages, is included for Notes from the Front members.
The cool thing about this transcript is that it actually includes the examination *and cross-examination* of a witness! That witness is Johnathan Cantú, who is the acting assistant director for the removal division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Now, as you will see if you read the transcript, Mr. Cantú submitted a declaration (a sworn statement like an affidavit) saying that while Costa Rica had agreed to accept Abrego Garcia, the acceptance wasn’t binding, and so that the only country to which Abrego Garcia could be removed was Liberia. (That declaration was originally sealed, it is now unsealed and I have included it as well.)
It’s fascinating (at least I think so); at one point while Mr. Cantú is being examined (direct examination) by one of the government’s lawyers, one of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers objects, saying, and I quote, “Objection, your honor! Double hearsay! I could go on!” I mean, it was a legitimate objection, but the way he said it! (In the transcript there are no !s, but you know that’s how he said it!)
And, as you will see, the government’s attorney pretty quickly pulls out of Mr. Cantú that even though he signed this sworn statement, he didn’t actually even have knowledge of some of what he was asserting in the declaration. You may wonder why the government would seem to be impeaching their own witness. Read on.
A bit further down you’ll see the government lawyer, Mr. Guynn ask Mr. Cantù:
“All right. So looking at paragraph 6, “Department of State personnel have advised that the Republic of Liberia is at present the only state willing to accept Mr. Abrego Garcia without further negotiations and additional commitments from the United States… Is that what the Department of State told you that it believed?”
To which Cantù responded “That is what they said.”
Then Guynn asked him “what has the Department of State told you about the viability of removing Mr. Abrego Garcia from the United States to Costa Rica?”
CANTÙ: “That it’s not an option at the — at the moment.”
Setting Cantù up to be the vehicle to get this “what the administration believed” into the record.
And then…
During the cross of Mr. Cantù the government’s lawyer objected to something as being covered by attorney-client privilege, but *not* an attorney involved with this case, in fact having nothing to do with it at all! The Court says:
“Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. The attorney from the Department of State – [you are calling that] attorney-client work product and privilege? You made much at the last hearing that they’re not a party.”
GUYNN: They’re not a party.
JUDGE XINIS: So overruled.
To which Mr. Guynn responded – get this:
GUYNN: But we are a unitary executive.
(Take a beat to let that he said that sink in.)
To which Judge Xinis responded: Well, which one is it? Are they at the table or aren’t they? Do you wish to approach?
GUYNN: I can — I can — okay. No, Your Honor. Never mind.
(Bahahahaha)
It’s like Judge Xinis said “I got yer unitary executive right here…”
A bit further down, and we’re still doing cross-examination with Abrego-Garcia’s lawyer, and he’s saying that Cantù was let go during a purge of government workers, then called back up just last month, and put in this position (clearly suggesting that Cantù was brought in and set up as a scapegoat) to which Mr. Guynn (remember, the government’s lawyer) objects, and this exchange happens (still talking about Cantù’s declaration):
___
MR. GUYNN: I don’t know. This is the first I’m hearing of this purge and this potential source of bias. I think it’s absurd. I’m embarrassed for Mr. Rand —
THE COURT: Really? Because the — the declaration is absurd. If there is a sham declaration so far, it’s this one. It — sir, you’re going to let me finish.
MR. GUYNN: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. GUYNN: Yes.
THE COURT: This is the quintessential triple hearsay. Doesn’t say a thing, was sealed until 15 minutes ago for reasons beyond my ken. And now this witness is basically, “I was given the words by a guy, and I don’t know if that guy is the guy who knows it or not. He got it from another guy. I don’t know that guy’s name. I just know they call him the Deputy Secretary of State. And I know nothing about anything.” It doesn’t get more empty than that. Now, I don’t know why you’re doing it, and I don’t know why you did it under seal. But it’s going to come out in oral argument that there’s a representation by the Department of State that Costa Rica will no longer take Mr. Abrego Garcia, and we’ll take it from there as to whether that’s even trustworthy because this witness has zero information for me.
___
Mind you, this is just a few pages of this 186 page transcript!
We all know that it ended with the Court ultimately, based on this hearing, issuing an order that Abrego Garcia be immediately released, and in large part that was because the government had no valid removal order for him.
Now here is the full evidentiary hearing that led up to that, for those of you who want to see how it happened. Of course, fair warning, there’s a reason for the old saying that “to retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.”
Notes from the Front members: the full 186-page hearing transcript, along with Mr. Cantù’s declaration, is in your inbox.
To protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents for which I have had to pay out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public but I find them for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this document, our archives, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month. And honestly, $5 a month is less than you would pay for a minute of lawyer time anywhere else. ;~)
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-the-actual-transcript-of-the
Source