The Daly Weekly (4/18)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Lisa Murkowski, Peter Navarro, and more.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw at me.

Let’s get right to it…

---

Hi Sir John. Depending on which source I look at, I’m getting different versions of the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the immigrant with protected status who the Trump Administration deported to a prison in El Salvador because of an “administrative error” because he was allegedly linked to MS-13 and human trafficking. Garcia’s attorneys and the liberal left are predictably claiming that he’s innocent and should be returned to the U.S. and a judge agreed, demanding Garcia’s return. Pam Bondi and the Trump Administration acknowledge the error but predictably maintain that evidence shows that he has ties to MS-13 and allegedly participated in human trafficking , although the Administration has not seen fit to present this evidence. For some reason SCOTUS Justice Roberts appears to side with the Trump Administration. I ask you: what’s the truth? If Garcia is a gang member, why hasn’t Bondi given proof to back up the claims? How did the error occur in the first place? Why can’t he come back if he’s innocent? And if he actually IS a member of MS-13, then why do the left wingers want him back in the country? Can you please shed some light on this case for me? —“One Way Ticket To El Salvador” regards from The Emperor

Though I’ve been known for my impeccable street cred, Emperor, I can’t say, with certainty, exactly what this guy’s gang affiliation was/is. I’ve read conflicting assessments on that, but there may well be one.

What I do know is that: 1) (as you pointed out) the Trump administration acknowledges they made an error in sending Garcia to rot in an El Salvador, against a judge’s order; 2) Garcia did not receive due process; 3) the Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration needs to bring Garcia back for that due process; and 4) Trump, as of the time I’m writing this, seems willing to defy a court order instructing him to “fix” the mess his administration made with its unlawful deportation of Garcia.

Many on the right are trying to make this issue about illegal immigration, or Garcia being a bad guy, but what it’s really about is the rule of law. I think the law should have been followed, and I think Trump should follow the law now by complying with the ruling of the Supreme Court. If Garcia is as bad some evidence suggests he is, he should face lawful ramifications in the United States, and then, if appropriate, deported (but not into an El Salvador prison).

John, do you think at some point, if these tariffs continue and tank the markets and people feel the effects, do you think that would be enough to change the minds of the religious MAGA movement to give up on protectionism and populism? —Ed G

No, I don’t. Those who are (to use your word) religiously devoted to Donald Trump will continue to support whatever he wants, even if it means a quadrupling of their weekly grocery bill, and their life-savings vanishing before their eyes. And they will accept (and parrot) any alternative explanation they’re given by Trump and his surrogates for why it is happening. That’s one of the things that makes the personality-cult so frustrating. If Donald Trump stepped up to a podium tomorrow, and did a 180 by delivering a Milton Friedman-like speech on the merits of free trade, and declaring the removal of all U.S. tariffs on foreign imports… virtually every MAGA populist and protectionist would do the same 180, and turn into an enthusiastic free-trader.

Incidentally, I would love for Trump to do just that, and I would vocally support him doing it, but I’m pretty sure he’ll prosecute these self-harming trade wars, in one form or another, until he’s gone from office.

What is the Save Act essentially and a voter use the Real ID as a form of valid ID to vote under the Save Act as it is written today? The language in the current bill notes an ID similar in nature to the Real ID? What does this mean. Thanks! —Stephanie Y.

Hi Stephanie. You’re asking me about legislation I haven’t read nor paid much attention to. Rather than digging into it now, I’ll just direct to some Wikipedia synopses of the SAVE Act and Real ID.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) made an interesting statement this week, saying that even as a U.S. Senator, she is “afraid” and “oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real." She was referring to speaking out against Donald Trump. What do you make of this? — Alex D.

She said out loud what a number of Republican legislators have been saying in private for years. I’ve written a lot about how GOP politicians fall in line behind Trump for the sake of their political careers (they’re scared to death of Trump and MAGA primarying them out of office), but physical threats are very much a concern too. We heard a lot of such reports in the wake of January 6 (constituents threatening their representatives to stand with Trump), and it’s worth remembering that Megyn Kelly and her family had 24/7-security for 18 months, because Trump wouldn’t stop targeting her for harassment by his supporters.

Activist David Hogg, now the DNC vice chair, is pledging to use Democratic funding to purge (and replace) Democratic incumbents during the primaries, who he deems ineffectual for the progressive cause. Does this sound as stupid to you as it does me? — Ben G.

Yes. The Democratic party isn’t struggling so terribly right now because incumbent Democrats aren’t “activist” or “progressive” enough. Just the opposite, actually. Hogg should have never been given this leadership role. He’s only going to make things worse for his party.

Why is Pres Trump giving so much stock in what [Peter Navarro] advises? Do you lean towards the thought China is being underestimated here? I do. China's citizens have zero say in their politics- our country's citizens lay the pressure on, thus influencing to a point. And I agree, too much authority given to the President with tariffs- Congress needs more input authority. Absolutely. — Sharon H.

Trump listens to Navarro, because Navarro is one of the extremely few economists on the planet who thinks tariffs are a good idea. As for China, I think, like in his first term, Trump underestimates how perfectly willing the Chinese government is to let its people suffer and sacrifice through the economic hardships brought on by a trade war with the United States. That gives them an edge in being able to navigate through the situation.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.