7 ms·

Jdge fnds cause to hld Trump admnstratn in crmnal cntempt over deprtation flghts

46 points by alamortsubite 2y ago

duxup 2y ago
We'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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Nobody 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 2y 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 2y 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.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  I 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.
ty6853 2y ago
A 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.
- JumpCrisscross 2y 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 2y ago
    An 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 2y ago
      > arrest warrant is a nothingburger if no one is arrested You changed “has been” to “is,” with the implication of ever.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        I mean that it is a nothingburger. Maybe some day it will not be a nothingburger. If I meant to say it will be a nothingburger for all infinity I would say 'ever.' My intent here is to portray it could indeed change to not being a nothingburger, which is why I used a past tense in my first quote.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
legitster 2y ago
From 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 2y ago
  Surely the Eric Adams thing was an isolated incident!
_mlbt 2y ago
EDIT: 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 2y ago
  You 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!)
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    Yes, 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 2y ago
      Can 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.
      - _mlbt 2y ago
        That is what I've been doing...flagging and hiding all the political posts, but it gets tiresome when it's so rampant on here.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
“…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- alamortsubite 2y ago
  Please increase the character limit?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Try adding threatens or finds cause to the original title. The misleading bit is in saying he found the administration in contempt. He didn’t.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
outer_web 2y ago
Should 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 2y 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.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Honest 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 2y ago
  Not particularly.
rsynnott 2y ago
In other news, Trump has apparently put tariffs on vowels.

46 points by alamortsubite 2y ago

We'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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Nobody 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 2y 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 2y 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.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
I 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.

ty6853 2y ago

A 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.

JumpCrisscross 2y 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 2y ago
  An 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 2y ago
    > arrest warrant is a nothingburger if no one is arrested You changed “has been” to “is,” with the implication of ever.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      I mean that it is a nothingburger. Maybe some day it will not be a nothingburger. If I meant to say it will be a nothingburger for all infinity I would say 'ever.' My intent here is to portray it could indeed change to not being a nothingburger, which is why I used a past tense in my first quote.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

legitster 2y ago

From 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 2y ago
Surely the Eric Adams thing was an isolated incident!

_mlbt 2y ago

EDIT: 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 2y ago
You 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!)
- _mlbt 2y ago
  Yes, 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 2y ago
    Can 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.
    - _mlbt 2y ago
      That is what I've been doing...flagging and hiding all the political posts, but it gets tiresome when it's so rampant on here.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

“…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

alamortsubite 2y ago
Please increase the character limit?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Try adding threatens or finds cause to the original title. The misleading bit is in saying he found the administration in contempt. He didn’t.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

outer_web 2y ago

Should 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 2y 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.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Honest 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 2y ago
Not particularly.

rsynnott 2y ago

In other news, Trump has apparently put tariffs on vowels.