I want EVERYONE to use Pam Bondis words against them because she accused him Nationally of crimes he clearly didn’t commit. Slander from an AG is unacceptable. If the government can make up information like this on Abrego Garcia then imagine all 80 boatmen they murdered in VZ.🤷♂️
I’m a subscriber who’s struggling to continue subscribing. Today’s report left me feeling inadequate to understand the legal process and impact of the court’s proceedings today. I heard you say, Adam, this is a case of national importance. But I didn’t hear you explain why clearly enough. I have a master’s in psychology and I understand both you, Adam, and your guest are excited about the proceedings today. But…please remember that some of us really care about what you report about and we need a bit more explanation of the legal context and impact because we lack the legal education you have. How was I at a loss throughout this report? At one point Michael used the term “jurisprudencially” (which Spellcheck on my tablet doesn’t recognize as a word; they don’t offer an alternative spelling.) I don’t understand the significance of that term even though I recognize it has validity despite Spellcheck. I basically understand that Garcia most likely—but not definitely—had a very good day in court. But the true measure of that impact is not clear to me from your reporting. Terms were used during your reporting today such as evidentiary ruling…recesses and “access the credibility of a ...with a timeline,” etc. I feel you as reporters lacked a degree of sensitivity to listeners such as myself who don’t have legal training and/or experience in the U.S. (Or anywhere!) As a gay man in my 70’s I’ve followed legal precedent generally for LGBT folks for decades, and I understand precedent in that context. But from those experiences, I couldn’t feel today I could grasp enough of your reporting to say I’m clear enough about what happened. And what the next steps are. At one point, Michael interrupted and said something like…”let me explain for the benefit of our listeners….” That was very helpful but explanation such as that didn’t happen enough for me. When there’s proceedings of magnitude and great significance, please help those of us have a greater context in which to understand. Thanks much!
Love having Adam there with the courthouse in the background no less. His first hand account just makes this so much more personal and authentic 👏👏
I want EVERYONE to use Pam Bondis words against them because she accused him Nationally of crimes he clearly didn’t commit. Slander from an AG is unacceptable. If the government can make up information like this on Abrego Garcia then imagine all 80 boatmen they murdered in VZ.🤷♂️
Adam, your work is so important!
Adam is so smart and earnest! Independent journalist need our support!
Thanks for attending the hearing and reporting and analysis as well!
Amazing reporting, Adam! So thankful for you!
ALOHA. From the COCONUT WIRELESS. ..........................................................
I’m a subscriber who’s struggling to continue subscribing. Today’s report left me feeling inadequate to understand the legal process and impact of the court’s proceedings today. I heard you say, Adam, this is a case of national importance. But I didn’t hear you explain why clearly enough. I have a master’s in psychology and I understand both you, Adam, and your guest are excited about the proceedings today. But…please remember that some of us really care about what you report about and we need a bit more explanation of the legal context and impact because we lack the legal education you have. How was I at a loss throughout this report? At one point Michael used the term “jurisprudencially” (which Spellcheck on my tablet doesn’t recognize as a word; they don’t offer an alternative spelling.) I don’t understand the significance of that term even though I recognize it has validity despite Spellcheck. I basically understand that Garcia most likely—but not definitely—had a very good day in court. But the true measure of that impact is not clear to me from your reporting. Terms were used during your reporting today such as evidentiary ruling…recesses and “access the credibility of a ...with a timeline,” etc. I feel you as reporters lacked a degree of sensitivity to listeners such as myself who don’t have legal training and/or experience in the U.S. (Or anywhere!) As a gay man in my 70’s I’ve followed legal precedent generally for LGBT folks for decades, and I understand precedent in that context. But from those experiences, I couldn’t feel today I could grasp enough of your reporting to say I’m clear enough about what happened. And what the next steps are. At one point, Michael interrupted and said something like…”let me explain for the benefit of our listeners….” That was very helpful but explanation such as that didn’t happen enough for me. When there’s proceedings of magnitude and great significance, please help those of us have a greater context in which to understand. Thanks much!
Okay, Michael. Getting the gang back together is a bad choice of words. 🤔😉