McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 4,085
- Points
- 1,260
Aside from concetration centres? Threats of annexation toward democracies? Ignoring court orders (including a unanimous SCOTUS order)? Detaining tourists for nonsense?
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,347
- Points
- 1,090
The next stage in the continuing saga of the deportations:
apnews.com
Judge finds cause to hold Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating deportation order
A federal judge says he's found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court and could seek officials’ prosecution for violating his orders last month to turn around planes carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison.
apnews.com
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 25,104
- Points
- 1,260
At least the courts haven’t all bent the knee yet.The next stage in the continuing saga of the deportations:
Judge finds cause to hold Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating deportation order
A federal judge says he's found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court and could seek officials’ prosecution for violating his orders last month to turn around planes carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, was rounded up and deported to El Salvador. He's currently in the prison with the other deportees. He had a court order, dating from before the trump administration, prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador (but not his deportation to any other place). The US government has admitted that they erred in deporting him to El Salvador. A federal Judge has ordered the government to "facilitate" his return to the US, this was appealed to SCOTUS and they came back 9-0 saying "do what the first judge said". The government now is basically saying "Well he's in prison in El Salvador and we can't order his release" and are essentially washing their hands of the situation. The government has claimed he's a member of MS-13 but he has no criminal record in the US and the government hasn't provided any evidence to support this claim.
edit: https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-maryland-senator-el-salvador/index.html
edit again: corrected his status.
Last edited:
Trump’s pardon power makes it ultimately meaningless, but at least if they force him to exercise that power it’ll be more undeniable showing of who and what he is.The next stage in the continuing saga of the deportations:
Judge finds cause to hold Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating deportation order
A federal judge says he's found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court and could seek officials’ prosecution for violating his orders last month to turn around planes carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison.
- Reaction score
- 2,347
- Points
- 1,090
I think that the real risk to Trump is that it opens the door to impeachment. It doesn't matter if he is immune from prosecution, or if he has the power to pardon in this instance. Any effort to twart the judiciary here would be a clear violation of the constitution.
yeah but he doesn't have to worry about that as long as the house and senate are controlled by republicans. They're so spineless that jellyfish look at them with wonder and awe.
I have zero faith that congressional Republicans as a group possess the integrity or the convictions to do that.
- Reaction score
- 3,083
- Points
- 1,190
The court order says that if sufficient justification for their contempt is not provided by the government, they are going to do an in depth look at the very people who allowed the contempt to occur. This means going after not just the senior government officials, but those more front line people who ignored the lawful order. Even if they can't get Trump, they can get a lot of other people who were just "following" orders. If that happens, it'll be a lot less likely in the future (hopefully) for those same level of people to follow those orders when they know a judge has ordered them not to.
- Reaction score
- 2,347
- Points
- 1,090
I would agree with that assessment, but the Democrats have the opportunity to make a spectacle of their hearing in the House, and keep it in the public's consciousness. Then when it goes to the Senate, they can continue to argue that each arm of the government acts as check and balance on the other two, and that the system is specifically set up to avoid situations specifically like this. I wager there are more than a few Republicans who might break ranks here.
Last edited:
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 262
- Points
- 730
- Reaction score
- 3,083
- Points
- 1,190
Shit I just realized that even if this happens Trump will just pardon them all, so, nevermind. It's definitely going to be an absolute autocracy.
- Reaction score
- 2,347
- Points
- 1,090
He can't pardon them until they've been tried and found guilty. That's going to be a really bad look.
- Reaction score
- 3,083
- Points
- 1,190
No one notices a mud stain in a pile of cow shit.
HavokFour
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 357
- Points
- 780
And then it continued to get worse.
www.technologyreview.com
Alt: https://archive.ph/pUtKO
US office that counters foreign disinformation is being eliminated
Conservative critics have long accused the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub of helping to censor the American right.
www.technologyreview.com
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,051
- Points
- 1,010
Except RSM's
Sure he can. Presidents can pardon in advance. Biden didn’t on the way out the door for Fauci, Milley, and others who were as risk of persecution under a Trump government.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,615
- Points
- 1,040
Another round of righteous moral/ethical/legal outrage. It reminds me:
- Of when some people argued for a war in Iraq, reasonably knowing that it was going to infringe basic human rights (life, liberty, property) of people not guilty of any crime or even subject to US law. They reasonably ought to have known that removal of the regime would produce a power vacuum into which two or more factions might insert themselves, creating something akin to a civil war, and prepared for that. When it happened, they ought to have acted more forcefully. Their critics were perspicacious and forceful. They went ahead; today, some of them are critics of the outrage du jour.
- Of when some people argued for detaining people abroad and set up such a detention centre, in order to deal with terrorists and people whose status was harder to pin down but was somewhere on the wrong side of lawful combatant. Their critics were perspicacious and forceful. But what else could be done? To bring the detainees into the US would have been to introduce all kinds of domestic law complications. They went ahead; today, some of them are critics of the outrage du jour. (They were probably right about the complications of domestic laws exploited to obstruct their aims, by opponents both principled and politically-motivated, as we see today.)
- Of when some people decided direct attacks on individuals and entourages (ie. assassinations) were reasonable courses of actions. This was defended through successive administrations, even when it was obvious a few people with the holy status of "US citizen" were executed without anything resembling due process (as in, a chance for the accused to defend themselves). Many of those defenders are critics of the outrage du jour.
Is there a point? In part, it's about casting stones. In part, it's about finding solutions to messy problems after creating them.
- Of when some people argued for a war in Iraq, reasonably knowing that it was going to infringe basic human rights (life, liberty, property) of people not guilty of any crime or even subject to US law. They reasonably ought to have known that removal of the regime would produce a power vacuum into which two or more factions might insert themselves, creating something akin to a civil war, and prepared for that. When it happened, they ought to have acted more forcefully. Their critics were perspicacious and forceful. They went ahead; today, some of them are critics of the outrage du jour.
- Of when some people argued for detaining people abroad and set up such a detention centre, in order to deal with terrorists and people whose status was harder to pin down but was somewhere on the wrong side of lawful combatant. Their critics were perspicacious and forceful. But what else could be done? To bring the detainees into the US would have been to introduce all kinds of domestic law complications. They went ahead; today, some of them are critics of the outrage du jour. (They were probably right about the complications of domestic laws exploited to obstruct their aims, by opponents both principled and politically-motivated, as we see today.)
- Of when some people decided direct attacks on individuals and entourages (ie. assassinations) were reasonable courses of actions. This was defended through successive administrations, even when it was obvious a few people with the holy status of "US citizen" were executed without anything resembling due process (as in, a chance for the accused to defend themselves). Many of those defenders are critics of the outrage du jour.
Is there a point? In part, it's about casting stones. In part, it's about finding solutions to messy problems after creating them.
HavokFour
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 357
- Points
- 780
Aaaaaand we have a third suspension. The Pentagon is an absolute mess.
Third top Pentagon official suspended in leak investigation
Alt: https://archive.ph/dizRj
Third top Pentagon official suspended in leak investigation
Alt: https://archive.ph/dizRj
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,005
- Points
- 1,160
Didn't one of their courts shut that down and say you can't pardon people in advance?