Jdge fnds cause to hld Trump admnstratn in crmnal cntempt over deprtation flghts
46 points by alamortsubite 2 months ago | 42 comments- legitster 2 months agoFrom a different article:
> "The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government," Boasberg wrote.
> If the Government "declines" or "the interest of justice requires," the Court will "appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt," he wrote.
He's already anticipating a corrupt DOJ trying to drop the case.
- outer_web 2 months agoSurely the Eric Adams thing was an isolated incident!
- outer_web 2 months ago
- duxup 2 months agoWe'll see how quickly the courts catch on to the fact that his administration has zero intent on keeping their word even if they agreed to do something.
I think the courts assume that both parties do what they say they'll do / are honest participants in the process. But that does advantage those who are happy to use the process to just do what they want in the meantime.
Of course what consequences could there be? SCOTUS already decided that the POTUS is immune if it is an "official act". They did what they could to enable this kind of behavior. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, not sure how they forgot about that one.
- AnimalMuppet 2 months agoI don't think courts assume that. They assume that they can cause consequences to bad faith actors until they stop doing that. If they don't, they keep upping the consequences.
I fervently hope that the courts have thought through what levers they have available more thoroughly than the administration has.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months agoNobody is holding the President in contempt. But the agents who knew and refused? Lawyers? Pilots? They will be charged (eventually).
(Also, title was editorialised. Nobody has been held in contempt.)
- outer_web 2 months ago> “The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a 46-page ruling detailing his decision.
The title correctly states that Boasberg found cause to hold the government in criminal contempt. It correctly did not state that Boasberg did not hold the government in civil contempt, yet.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> The title correctly states that Boasberg found cause to hold the government in criminal contempt
It originally said it found contempt. The court is threatening contempt. Important difference.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- outer_web 2 months ago
- AnimalMuppet 2 months ago
- outer_web 2 months agoShould be interesting to see the DOJ's response. Considering the wagons have been circled since day one, we may see an independent prosecutor execute this referral. If so, discovery might have some fun details about the early days of the deportation campaign.
The administration has been flaunting the fact that judges can't easily police their bad faith actions ("oops, too late", "ms13 is an invading military"). Here Boasberg has found a low threshold for holding the administration accountable.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> discovery might have some fun details about the early days of the deportation campaign
Discovery may find a lot of criminal records retention violations. Those will need to be prosecuted quickly after 2028.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- AnimalMuppet 2 months agoHonest question: How close is the US to a civil war? A real, not metaphorical one, with bullets and a body count?
I would be interested in hearing readers' opinions...
- cafard 2 months agoNot particularly.
- cafard 2 months ago
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago“…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.”
- alamortsubite 2 months agoPlease increase the character limit?
- JumpCrisscross 2 months agoTry adding threatens or finds cause to the original title. The misleading bit is in saying he found the administration in contempt. He didn’t.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- 2 months ago
- alamortsubite 2 months ago
- ty6853 2 months agoA contempt order is a nothingburger if he's put no one in jail.
There are already court cases being discovered of Kilmar Garcia being issued domestic violence restraining order(s) at the behest of his wife who speaks the exact opposite about him. By the time the court gets around to actually holding anyone in contempt, the media and government will have already found a way to assassinate the character of any victims involved to the point all momentum will be lost.
- outer_web 2 months agoPlease do enough reading to realize this is a different case.
- ty6853 2 months agoI know it's a different case. They're following the same playbook. And the case is involving flights to El Salvador, which has a direct nexus. I am pointing out a pattern.
- ty6853 2 months ago
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> contempt order is a nothingburger if he's put no one in jail
This is like saying an arrest warrant is a nothingburger because nobody has been arrested yet.
- ty6853 2 months agoAn arrest warrant is a nothingburger if no one is arrested. Many people live forever on an open arrest warrant in another state, knowing if it is say a misdemeanor warrant there is 0% chance it will be enforced, it at most turns into a drinking joke.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago> arrest warrant is a nothingburger if no one is arrested
You changed “has been” to “is,” with the implication of ever.
- JumpCrisscross 2 months ago
- ty6853 2 months ago
- outer_web 2 months ago
- rsynnott 2 months agoIn other news, Trump has apparently put tariffs on vowels.
- dlachausse 2 months agoEDIT: Ignore me, as pointed out below I’m a hypocrite per my comment history where I have engaged in the past on political topics here against my better judgement. Sorry, I was having a bad day.
It’s a free country…post what you want and I’ll ignore what I want. :)
From the HN Guidelines...
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Can we please stop with all the political postings on here. It's really drowning out the interesting content. There are plenty of other avenues to discuss politics.
- toomuchtodo 2 months agoYou believe random tech posts about programming languages, frameworks, and data stores are more interesting than a previously democratic superpower slipping into an authoritarian regime and how this impacts hundreds of millions people and the world order? I’m always curious about people who want to discuss and debate shiny things while the house is on fire.
(no snark! genuinely intrigued!)
- dang 2 months agoI think you're conflating two kinds of interest. Doing this leads to mistaken conclusions about HN.
Political interest and intellectual interest are not the same. There is overlap, of course [1], but there is also a huge amount of political and social material which is not primarily about intellectual curiosity. Most of that is off topic on HN (as the site guidelines say), even though much of it is far more important—as you say—than most anything on HN.
People who feel intensely always want us to change this, but if we changed it then HN would become a current affairs site [2] – and there are always people who feel intensely.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- toomuchtodo 2 months agoValuable feedback, and I appreciate the time you took to provide it. I understand that asking "what does good look like in this regard?" is perhaps not helpful, as it seems mods are still attempting to ascertain that based on mod ops strategy and iterating on that strategy (shaping discourse through actions and weights against posts and comments) to achieve an idea of what is desired on HN wrt to intellectual curiosity. I'll look through the past comments you shared to better understand the conclusion I should be arriving at. Thanks again.
- toomuchtodo 2 months ago
- dlachausse 2 months agoYes, I do. I can watch coverage of the administration on any of dozens of major news outlets. There are very few places to discuss programming languages, frameworks, and data stores.
- toomuchtodo 2 months agoCan you not click hide on posts you’re not interested in? This enables you to enjoy the content you’re after without diminishing those interested in these interesting, pressing topics (which we don’t have to argue specifically). It’s also faster and more efficient than writing a comment.
- ndsipa_pomu 2 months agoI can't even see this on the front page. Are you browsing /active or /newest ?
- toomuchtodo 2 months ago
- dang 2 months ago
- cosmicgadget 2 months agoPolitical? This is law and crime. It's also relevant to someone, such as yourself, who occasionally comments on civil liberties.
- toomuchtodo 2 months ago