3 ms·

These are strong feelings. I can appreciate strong feelings. I would also keep in mind that there are only 20k to 30k total ICE agents in the entire country (as

These are strong feelings. I can appreciate strong feelings. I would also keep in mind that there are only 20k to 30k total ICE agents in the entire country (as of this comment). The federal government may not rein them in, but there are enough other humans on US soil to do so. They can also be pursued for the rest of their lives using documentation and evidence after this administration ends, so collecting and preserving that historical record will be important and relevant work. In the interim, protect yourself and your community.

mothballed 10mo ago
Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street. If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that. Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  > Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course. > Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    >only the venue of the trial. The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem. IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
    - bbatsell 10mo ago
      The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
      - mothballed 10mo ago
        Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[]. While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III. Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it. [] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-federal-agents-and-the-presidential-pardon-power https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-f...

mothballed 10mo ago

Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street. If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that. Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.

dragonwriter 10mo ago
> Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course. > Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi). The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  >only the venue of the trial. The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem. IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
  - bbatsell 10mo ago
    The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
    - mothballed 10mo ago
      Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[]. While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III. Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it. [] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-federal-agents-and-the-presidential-pardon-power https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/state-prosecutions-of-f...