5 ms·

The arrest itself (not necessarily the charges) is best described as a publicity stunt. If you want to charge a lawyer or judge or anyone unlikely to run of a n

The arrest itself (not necessarily the charges) is best described as a publicity stunt. If you want to charge a lawyer or judge or anyone unlikely to run of a non-violent crime, you invite them to the station: > “First and foremost, I know -- as a former federal prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for decades – that a person who is a judge, who has a residence who has no problem being found, should not be arrested, if you will, like some common criminal,” Gimbel said. “And I'm shocked and surprised that the US Attorney's office or the FBI would not have invited her to show up and accept process if they're going to charge her with a crime.” > He said that typically someone who is “not on the run,” and facing this type of crime would be called and invited to come in to have their fingerprints taken or to schedule a court appearance.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
Public displays of executive power and disregard for political and legal norms is slightly more than a publicity stunt. They are related ideas but come on. Like describing a cross burning as a publicity stunt. This is a threat.
whats_a_quasar 2y ago
No, a "publicity stunt" is not the best way to describe this latest escalation in the Trump administration's campaign to destroy the rule of law in America. It may be deliberately flashy, but that phrasing very much undersells the significance of the executive attacking the judiciary.
jandrese 2y ago
Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer bringing a case before a judge that you previously arrested on a flimsy pretext in order to intimidate them? That's going to be awkward.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Federal agents probably don’t worry too much about being in local misdemeanor court.
Kapura 2y ago
It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence. A judge is not an agent of ICE or the feds; they have undergone study and election and put in a position where their discretion has the weight of law. It's frankly disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans. It's just like "states rights" where it only matters so long as you stay in their good graces. Very reflective of how they operate internally today: worship Trump or you're out.
- masklinn 2y ago
  > It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence. That’s not exactly new, I was recently reminded that during the governor’s meeting when Trump singled Maine out for ignoring an EO the governor replied that they’d be following the law, and Trump’s rejoinder was that they (his administration) are the law. That was two months ago, late February.
legitster 2y ago
To clarify - the only time you ever need to "arrest" someone and place them in custody is if you are worried they are either going to commit violent crimes or are going to be a flight risk before they can see a judge. To arrest a judge in the middle of duties is absolutely the result of someone power tripping.
genter 2y ago
Kash Patel's since-deleted tweet: https://www.threads.com/@pstomlinson/post/DI3-hnfuDvL https://www.threads.com/@pstomlinson/post/DI3-hnfuDvL > Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, ... I feel like I'm watching reality TV. Which makes sense, we have a reality TV star for president and his cabinet is full of Fox news hosts.
- Maxious 2y ago
  The judges impeding ICE scenarios has been portrayed on fictional TV too https://thegoodwife.fandom.com/wiki/Day_485 https://thegoodwife.fandom.com/wiki/Day_485
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - genter 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - typeofhuman 1y ago
      Are you suggesting he undeleted a post or maybe he re-posted it.
fencepost 2y ago
I'd also call it a publicity stunt because DOJ leadership would have to prove themselves [even more?] utterly idiotic to let this go to a jury trial. I can't imagine this ending in any way other than dropped charges, though they may draw it out to make it as painful as possible prior to that.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

Public displays of executive power and disregard for political and legal norms is slightly more than a publicity stunt. They are related ideas but come on. Like describing a cross burning as a publicity stunt. This is a threat.

whats_a_quasar 2y ago

No, a "publicity stunt" is not the best way to describe this latest escalation in the Trump administration's campaign to destroy the rule of law in America. It may be deliberately flashy, but that phrasing very much undersells the significance of the executive attacking the judiciary.

jandrese 2y ago

Can you imagine being a law enforcement officer bringing a case before a judge that you previously arrested on a flimsy pretext in order to intimidate them? That's going to be awkward.

kasey_junk 2y ago
Federal agents probably don’t worry too much about being in local misdemeanor court.

Kapura 2y ago

It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence. A judge is not an agent of ICE or the feds; they have undergone study and election and put in a position where their discretion has the weight of law. It's frankly disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans.

hypeatei 2y ago
> disgusting to see how little separation of powers means to Republicans. It's just like "states rights" where it only matters so long as you stay in their good graces. Very reflective of how they operate internally today: worship Trump or you're out.
masklinn 2y ago
> It is a statement that the current regime wants to discourage judicial independence. That’s not exactly new, I was recently reminded that during the governor’s meeting when Trump singled Maine out for ignoring an EO the governor replied that they’d be following the law, and Trump’s rejoinder was that they (his administration) are the law. That was two months ago, late February.

legitster 2y ago

To clarify - the only time you ever need to "arrest" someone and place them in custody is if you are worried they are either going to commit violent crimes or are going to be a flight risk before they can see a judge. To arrest a judge in the middle of duties is absolutely the result of someone power tripping.

genter 2y ago

Kash Patel's since-deleted tweet: https://www.threads.com/@pstomlinson/post/DI3-hnfuDvL https://www.threads.com/@pstomlinson/post/DI3-hnfuDvL > Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, ... I feel like I'm watching reality TV. Which makes sense, we have a reality TV star for president and his cabinet is full of Fox news hosts.

Maxious 2y ago
The judges impeding ICE scenarios has been portrayed on fictional TV too https://thegoodwife.fandom.com/wiki/Day_485 https://thegoodwife.fandom.com/wiki/Day_485
typeofhuman 2y ago
[flagged]
- genter 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - typeofhuman 1y ago
    Are you suggesting he undeleted a post or maybe he re-posted it.

fencepost 2y ago

I'd also call it a publicity stunt because DOJ leadership would have to prove themselves [even more?] utterly idiotic to let this go to a jury trial. I can't imagine this ending in any way other than dropped charges, though they may draw it out to make it as painful as possible prior to that.