I think I saw that same asshole lawyer say that this morning, or was it afternoon? I tuned in for about 10 minutes before walking the dog. This guy is or was a defense lawyer and has a rightwing bent imo. Can’t remember his name. Italian, I think. Very callous attitude I thought and a very inappropriate response.
2 Likes
Yup. I’m too old to wait for that history to be written.
4 Likes
It’s the same EO.
3 Likes
This whole thing is illegal as Hell and a whole bunch of Trump’s minions need to be held to account - starting with “Neo-Nazi Skinhead in a Suit” Miller and Homan.
The Statute of Limitations on this stuff will not toll until Trump is out of office. JB Pritzker and the rest of the Dem.s need to make it clear to these bastards, that WHEN they get back into office, the new Administration’s DoJ will punish ALL of them like ducks in a row - (See: assassin and his accomplices John Wilkes Booth after the end of the Civil War) - in the public square if they don’t knock this traitorous stuff it off right now.
Trump may be immune but these bastards are not. The door swings both ways.
4 Likes
There’s an additional EO declaring TdA an arm of the Venezuelan government that is invading the US. The existence of that EO was the fig leaf used to justify the first three flights (in defiance of Judge Boasberg). No parallel EO for MS-13.
1 Like
To what extent are lawyers unaccountable for the bad faith representations they make on behalf of their clients?
So high on their own supply that they’re flagrantly breaking laws willy-nilly.
2 Likes
Google the story about the Oklahoma woman and her daughters who were the victims of an ICE raid on the wrong address. Horrifying.
2 Likes
Correct, but inapplicable. The trumpers don’t claim KAG was TDA, and he’s Salvadoran, not Venezuelan. PeeWee German’s excuse was that the MS-13 terrorism designation somehow overrode the immigration judge’s order prohibiting the government from deporting him to El Salvador.
2 Likes
Aren’t you supposed to get orders that conflict with new findings overturned?
Whose bad faith, the lawyers’ or the clients’?
The question should answer itself. But to be clear, I think the DOJ lawyers are themselves dancing on the edge.
4 Likes
I do not understand your question. Could you elaborate?
John Roberts and the Fascist Five gave trump the room for prevarication that he’s currently exploiting. Whether they’ll ultimately let him get away with the prevarication is still an open question, but the deliberate delay in SCOTUS getting around to answering it very intentional.
If SCOTUS had wanted to secure KAG’s return without interfering in the conduct of foreign affairs, it would have just required the administration to secure that return or explain in great detail why its efforts to comply had failed. Instead, SCOTUS invited fuckery.
5 Likes
You are using language that I literally do not understand in a legal context. Take like a 5-sentence paragraph to explain what you’re trying to get through to me. I can’t promise, but I expect I’ll be better able to get to whatever you’re aiming at substantively.
Avoid the word “findings.”
I mean, if an order says “not Y because X” and you discover something that says “not X”, if you want to do “Y” you need to go get that order revoked/overturned, in order to do Y, right? Like, this shit they say about oh ho we believe his tattoos say he’s a gangster AFTER ALL despite prior courts finding that allegations of his gang membership are spurious, or if you have some other law that says you can deport people whose name starts with “A” and end with “Garcia” born on a Thursday in El Salvador, you still have to go get that original order that says “you can’t deport this person” overturned, right? You can’t just suddenly go actually that order doesn’t apply to us because we have a new reason, right?
I feel like Trump’s legal team keeps saying they can make up new reasons that are different from the reasons that prevented them from doing something in previous orders, as if the predicate for the prior order not being the same is sufficient to defy the consequent.
And yeah you’re right ‘finding’ is a legal term of art that wasn’t intended to be used in that way. I meant in the definition of ‘finding’ as in ‘the result of an inquiry or investigation’ not as in ‘the result of a trial or hearing’.
1 Like
Who is “you” in this context? Who TF are X and Y? You’re not giving me anything I can opine upon, even though I’m really trying to opine on whatever you’re on about.
Context Is King.
Well, yes, obvs. You’re on the path to righteousness, even if you haven’t delineated it.
You are the president wanting to do something. The court had previously said the government can’t do something, and they came to that conclusion because of reason X. Now you have a new fucking reason, not the original reason X. You can’t just go and do that thing you were prevented from doing before without getting someone with judicial authority to say that prior prohibition should not apply anymore, right?
I’m not asking for legal advice here, just a general principle - if something comes up that should render an original injunction moot, you can’t just ignore that injunction without getting SOME JUDGE to overturn it, right?
1 Like
That would be collateral estoppel. Boom. Finished.
1 Like
So, given that legal doctrine, the only path they would have had to remove Abrego Garcia would have been to appeal that original order yeah?
1 Like