Cross-posted from “A Federal Judge Is on the Brink of Criminally Prosecuting Trump Officials for Contempt” by @remington@beehaw.org in !politics@beehaw.org


In a thundering opinion on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that he had found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for defiance of his orders. It is “obvious,” Boasberg wrote, that government officials “deliberately flouted” his commands by deporting Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison on March 15 under President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. And now they must answer for their unlawful conduct. “The Constitution,” he declared, “does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.”

157 points

Fucking do It already. Everyone involved from the ground up.

permalink
report
reply
98 points

Sounds like that’s where it’s heading:

If the government refuses this offer, Boasberg held, it must swiftly identify the officials who violated his orders so they may be criminally prosecuted, facing fines and potential jail time. Critically, Boasberg notes that if the Department of Justice doesn’t appoint a prosecutor to take the case, he will do so on his own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
99 points

We need to protect that judge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

There’s a very good chance he’ll accidentally fall out of a 10th storey window

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points

swiftly identify the officials who violated his orders

I think this is likely to be the hangup. Everything with this administration is so chaotic and ad-hoc that it might be hard to pin it on a single person or group. If they don’t have beyond-reasonable-doubt certainty that the person they’re holding in contempt is responsible, it’ll probably just get overturned, weakening the bigger Trump v Courts battle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

-“Who was responsible for XYZ?”

- “I don’t recall.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Sounds like a RICO case then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You’re probably not wrong, but hopefully there’s at least a paper trail the judge can work his way up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Annnnnd then Trump Pardons them

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You still need to do it. And then add in some unpardonable civil contempt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Then you roll over like a bitch while everybody else does what they can to help, but keep quiet next time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
*

This is as fast a just court can go. If you want it done more quickly, we’ll need Republicans in Congress to find their spines.

They only have until the 23rd to substantiate their defense before Boasberg charges them. He also states that if Trump’s DoJ refuses to comply, he will appoint an attorney to do so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Dems too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

That’s assuming people actually turn out to the primaries. At least they’re doing what they can to oppose this compared to the Republican enablers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He will just pardon them, there’s no reason not to it not like trump has to face the music.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

Tell me when the judge actually does it though

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Pardon

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Precisely

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Cant pardon civil contempt

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

Sure he is. Trump will just pardon him. The US president has officially gotten too much power.

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

Notes: presidential pardon is available for all offenses against the United States. All offenses against the US are tried by a jury. Contempt of court is not tried by a jury. Thus, is pardon available for contempt of court?

I don’t know. When it’s time, the SC will tell.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have a feeling Trump may have his own opinion on who gets to decide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What was the guys name that owned the Supreme Court?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If you mean Trump, then they have ruled against him on occasions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

The police will NOT side with the judiciary.

They love a strongman.

Someone just like them.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Come back when Donald wears shackles and an orange jump suit.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Does his skin count?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

No, that washes off, probably.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 317K

    Comments