5 ms·
“Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other
by sharemywin 2y ago
“Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery — that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other than the fact that Mr. Zeldin doesn’t like it?” Judge Tanya Chutkan said.
Judge Chutkan also ordered the Justice Department to provide the court with details about the alleged fraud, “because I don’t have the credible evidence that’s required.”
This whole calling things fraud without actually have any evidence is really starting to get old.
- wenwolf 2y agoThe minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury.
- jmward01 2y agoA weaponized justice department requires the judiciary to respond in kind.
- wenwolf 2y agoPersonally, I've considered the problem to be a long term one and fixing it as a possible silver lining. I have to admit that I'm a bit of a pessimist about the integrity of the American people. I was wrong about what would happen with the first Black President, I was sure the racism was going to have a silver lining of cutting down the POTUS and not allowing a show like this. But the POTUS office is still the reason the US will kill itself at a minimum. (Nothing good can go unpunished?)
- gamblor956 2y agoThe judge can request that the lawyers involved lose their admission to practice in federal court for serious ethical violations like the ones here. However, this very rarely happens except in the most egregious cases where the lawyer is usually also disbarred for their conduct (i.e., Guiliani) so it's not a meaningful disciplinary measure.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoIs it just custom not to exercise it? Why do these judges allow people to show up to court and make exceptionally stupid arguments?
- michaelt 2y agoAs I understand it, in an "adversarial" legal system, each side is represented by a lawyer who is obliged to put forward the strongest argument they can; then the court decides between the arguments. And so even incredibly guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer on their side, lawyering as effectively as they can. So to them, there's no shame in representing an asshole and advancing a terrible argument, if that's what their client wants. What's more, generally you don't become a judge without being a lawyer for a few decades first. And they know what class solidarity is. Why would they be overly harsh with their colleagues and friends, if nothing explicitly demands they do so? Pretty much every legal case ends involves at least one side ending up unhappy. And pretty much every legal case involves at least one person who's happy to make legal threats. I'd wager many lawyers have someone threaten to get them disbarred a few times a year. It'd be difficult for the legal system to function if getting people disbarred was easy.
- dghlsakjg 2y agoI guess I should have been clear that when I said stupid arguments, I meant breaking the rules, not necessarily arguing from a position of weakness. I’m not asking why there are people representing shaky cases. Even bad people are entitled to a competent defense. I’m talking about why judges allow lawyers to get away with breaking courtroom procedure and rules. I don’t think there is as much class solidarity among lawyers. Most lawyers I know are happy to shit talk other lawyers, hell, many of them would jump at the chance to find an idiot in contempt. After a few decades of dealing with clowns and reaching a federal judgeship, you’d think they would take the opportunity to knock some heads.
- jonstewart 2y agoFunnily enough, a Trump crony is running to head the DC bar… https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-allies-bradley-bondi-control-dc-bar-association-rcna195253 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> The minimum to cause change is judges expending more effort on imprisoning law enforcement agents for perjury. Is that a thing judges can do? They can imprison you for contempt of court; wouldn't perjury need a prosecutor?
- roenxi 2y agoOn the scale of Wild Things happening in US politics, this one is pretty minor. Provoking that sort of constitutional crisis over it seems poorly advised - it'd be better if the judicial system sticks to their traditional role of telling people to do things differently when it has been established that the government is acting illegally. In my lifetime politicians have associated with flagrant lies that led to 100,000s of deaths and they aren't even expected to apologise. The Iraq war alone is a study - eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project.
- apical_dendrite 2y agoInitiating criminal investigations into the administration's political opponents without evidence is NOT "pretty minor".
- roenxi 2y agoAre you talking about when Obama admin did it, Biden admin did it or Trump admin did it? I mean, I agree but I have this sinking feeling that a lot of the people complaining aren't worried about the idea in principle and they just hate Trump. There is this weird thing where the big government people have suddenly had a revelation that the day-to-day operation of government is threatening. And I welcome that because it is true, I just don't know what they think has changed apart from that they lost an election.
- apical_dendrite 2y agoPlease provide citations for when the Obama or Biden administrations initiated criminal prosecutions of political opponents without evidence.
- roenxi 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_inves... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago If we can pretend those are being done in good faith then we can pretend that the current Trump admin are being honest and reasonable too.
- brookst 2y agoIt’s far more likely that we judges imprisoned for ruling the wrong way.
- garyfirestorm 2y agoAnd disbarring lawyers for malpractice - for knowingly bringing frivolous lawsuits
- kristopolous 2y agoTraditionally when people are on an endless campaign of accusation, they are actually up to their ears in whatever they're accusing others of. The anti-gay politician is exposed as gay, the evangelical pastor is leading a life of excess and vice, people talking about fake news fabricate deceptions and try to pass it off as news... This is generally so reliable, you can just change the pronouns from "They" to "We" and get an accurate statement. I'm pretty sure the actual fraud and abuse here is coming from inside the house. Claiming the richest man in the world isn't motivated by money is like claiming Jeffrey Epstein wasn't motivated by sex.
- kyleee 2y agoI suspect Epstein was not motivated by sex, rather he was likely some sort of spook. We will probably never know unfortunately
- kristopolous 2y agoWhat gives you that idea
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoThe one good thing is this is going to end the Courts giving 'good faith' waivers to the government prosecutors for everything (oh the cops didn't keep chain of custody on this evidence but that's OK we are going to waive chain of custody requirements because we know you all are acting in good faith is such a BS policy).
- JadeNB 2y agoChutkan is quite familiar with this administration's methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Chutkan#Notable_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Chutkan#Notable_cases