QP!
Verified User
Facts do not care about your feelings snowflake...No it wasn't. The corrupt Obama judge dismissed it because he claimed that the DOJ only filed the charge after Garcia had been given immunity on other charges.
{U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw ruled that “objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvdaor, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.”
He further noted that “The Executive Branch closed its investigation on the November 2022 traffic stop. Only after Abrego succeeded in vindicating his rights did the Executive Branch reopen that investigation.”}
Obama-Appointed Judge Dismisses Human Smuggling Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Obama-appointed judge dismisses human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia amid ongoing immigration battle.townhall.com
As shown, your claims are openly false.
Politifraud is not credible.
That said, they do little but repeat what corrupt obama judge Crenshaw claimed.
----------
Ai Summary:
Here’s a fact-check of the forum poster’s claims based on currently available reporting and the judge’s ruling.
1. Claim about “loading people in the trunk and driving across an international border”
This statement appears to be false or unsupported by the public record.
What is actually documented:
- The DOJ case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia stemmed from a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop.
- Police reportedly found nine passengers in the vehicle and officers discussed suspicions of smuggling.
- Public reporting on the stop does not describe people being “loaded in the trunk.”
- Public reporting also does not describe Abrego Garcia being stopped while “driving across an international border.” The stop occurred in Tennessee, inside the United States. CITATION
The actual allegation by prosecutors was:
- transporting undocumented migrants within the United States for money, not being caught crossing a border with people hidden in a trunk.
So the poster appears to be mixing in details that are not part of the documented case, or at minimum are not supported by the publicly reported facts.
2. Claim that “the corrupt Obama judge dismissed it because DOJ filed charges after Garcia had immunity”
This is inaccurate in several ways.
A. The ruling was not about immunity
The dismissal was based on what Judge Waverly Crenshaw called:
- “selective or vindictive prosecution”
- “abuse of prosecuting power”
- “presumptive vindictiveness”
The judge’s reasoning centered on:
- the government previously closing the investigation,
- then reopening it only after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his deportation in court. CITATION
The quoted ruling states:
There is no indication in the cited reporting that the dismissal hinged on Abrego Garcia receiving “immunity on other charges.”
B. “Only filed after immunity” is not what Crenshaw said
The judge’s actual point was:
- Homeland Security had known about the 2022 stop for years,
- had effectively closed the investigation,
- and reopened it only after the deportation litigation embarrassed the administration and courts ordered his return. CITATION
That is different from claiming prosecutors violated immunity agreements.
C. Calling him an “Obama judge” is politically rhetorical, not substantive
Judge Crenshaw was appointed by President Obama, but that alone says nothing about the legal merits of the ruling. Multiple mainstream outlets across ideological lines reported the same core reasoning:
- Reuters,
- AP/NPR affiliates,
- PBS,
- Washington Post,
- LA Times. CITATION
Even some conservative-leaning outlets like the New York Post described the dismissal as based on “prosecutorial vindictiveness.” CITATION
3. Claim that Politifact is just repeating the judge and is “not credible”
That is an opinion, not a factual claim that can really be proven or disproven objectively.
However, the second part:
is misleading because:
- the core facts about the reopening of the investigation are corroborated independently by multiple news organizations and court reporting,
- not solely by PolitiFact. CITATION
The judge’s ruling itself is a primary legal document, and Reuters/AP/PBS/Washington Post reporting all independently summarized the same findings:
- the investigation had been closed,
- it was reopened after the deportation lawsuit,
- and the judge concluded the prosecution was tainted by vindictiveness. CITATION
So even if someone dislikes PolitiFact editorially, the underlying facts here are not unique to PolitiFact.
Bottom line
Unsupported / False:
- “Loading people in the trunk”
- “Driving across an international border”
- dismissal based on “immunity on other charges”
Supported by reporting and the ruling:
- DOJ reopened the investigation after Abrego Garcia won court challenges over his deportation
- Judge Crenshaw dismissed the case for what he viewed as vindictive/selective prosecution
- The judge explicitly said the prosecution likely would not have happened absent the deportation litigation. CITATION
