Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
46 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Alito and Thomas dissent?

No way gif

Fucking Goblins. There isn't anything redeeming about either of them. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 6
Posted
1 hour ago, fuggled said:

 

Really rather unusual for the Court to base a ruling on the factual realities of a case, and this Court in particular.

But they're seeming to get that when the government is threatening to remove people without due process and then claim they can't get them back, that's the kind of irreparable harm that renders the other injunction factors kinda irrelevant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
55 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Can a member of SCOTUS be disbarred?

 

Sure, theoretically.  But not for their judicial decisions.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

I was assured that the court was gonna do whatever king trump said. 

And when Trump ignores their rulings, then what army is gonna enforce them?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Regarding yesterday's hearing in the Abrego Garcia case, the government submitted a declaration from lil Marco supporting the invocation of state secrets privilege.  Judge Xinis found it wanting and will unseal it.

Also she was mad that no declarations came from DHS/ICE Barbie.

She appears ready to invoke the power to review the material the government is withholding (without showing it to the opposition) to see if the privilege is properly invoked, an "in camera" review.  That should be fun.

Also, in the expedited discovery period, the plaintiffs were permitted to depose the three people that gave declarations in the status of Abrego Garcia.  As could be expected, those people knew nothing and were escape goats.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested, and were granted, permission to take the depositions of DHS, DOS, and DOJ on an "institutional" basis, where the witness has to dig around for information to answer questions and can't respond "I don't know that's not my area."  Also indicated that the court may grant a request for such a deposition of the "White House." Probably pretty unusual.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted

I'm sure that even if he comes back the maga community will treat him well and with respect. Those good Christian people have nothing but kindness and love in thier hearts.

*or the opposite

Posted
On 5/16/2025 at 5:15 PM, Firemans4Horn said:

I’ll I do is lose, lose, lose, lose no matter what. 
 

 

This is fake news. I have it on good authority that the entire legal community is rolling over for Trump.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
16 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Pam Bondi was spewing some weapons grade bullshit explaining why Garcia was brought back to the U.S. I had to turn it off. There’s just no point in listening to these people. 

Well, she may be spewing bullshit or the recently unsealed federal indictment against him might be well founded.  That's the whole point of following due process.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well, she may be spewing bullshit or the recently unsealed federal indictment against him might be well founded.  That's the whole point of following due process.

So much this.  "Abrego is a human trafficker who sacrificed puppies and stole the Declaration of Independence and also collaborated with the computers controlling the Matrix to hand over Neo!"  Cool.  If you've got the evidence, 1) bring charges, and 2) get a conviction, 3) in a court following and applying the law of the land.

If not, then what she said has the exact same import and value as my post on a sports message board.

Anyone can say anything about anyone.  It's meaningless.  Adjudication pursuant to due process?  Well then, NOW we're talking.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Hes been charged with human smuggling? Wut?

Ballgame.

It's being widely reported across numerous news sources.  I can't locate a copy of the indictment, though.

This is from an NBC News report:

Quote

The indictment alleges that from about 2016 to 2025, Abrego Garcia and others conspired to bring migrants illegally to the United State from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, through Mexico and across the Texas-Mexico border.

Abrego Garcia and a co-conspirator “ordinarily picked up the undocumented aliens in Houston, Texas area" after they had crossed the border. The pair then allegedly would transport “the undocumented aliens from Texas to other parts of the United States to further the aliens’ unlawful presence in the United States," the indictment said.

In the indictment the government said Abrego Garcia and co-conspirators communicated using cellphones and social media to unlawfully transport the undocumented immigrants.

The government alleged that Abrego Garcia and co-conspirators collected financial payments from the immigrants and transferred money between one another to conceal the origin of the payments.

 

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted
7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

cool. try him in court and prove the case. was that so hard? 

Following the law, and not violating basic constitutional rights?  Yes.  For this regime, it's nearly impossible. It's antithetical to their entire being and existence.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Ballgame.

It's being widely reported across numerous news sources.  I can't locate a copy of the indictment, though.

This is from an NBC News report:

Wasn't this part of the "He had a buncha brown people in his truck that he was driving across multiple states so he MUSTA been human trafficking" bullshit that they had already floated?  

Posted
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Well, she may be spewing bullshit or the recently unsealed federal indictment against him might be well founded.  That's the whole point of following due process.

No, she was spewing bullshit.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

“We can’t comment on ongoing litigation” isn’t a thing anymore?

No.  That is historic DOJ, and most other prosecuting authorities, standard practice, for a multitude of reasons, mostly that it is unfair to a defendant to accuse them in public as opposed to the forum in which they can actually defend themselves.

Also, that indictment is really short on actual facts, compared to many we have seen recently.  It cites a number of unnamed co-conspirators who no doubt supplied those facts under considerable inducement from the government.

Also, the particular section of the law in question, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324, seems to encompass a lot of lawful conduct and may violate the 1st amendment (association):

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

I'm guessing the lawyer resigned because a) political b) entirely based on jailhouse informants and c) probably an unconsitutional or at least rarely-charged statute.  Note that the "for profit" allegations of the indictment is not part of the charged crime.

Also, note that they didn't charge firearms offenses, but if true and provable, what was alleged in the indictment would support a pretty serious federal firearms charge.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

The DOJ/this Administration's unrestrained lust to inflict absolute cruelty on this man is going to make that El Salvadorian gulag seem like crumpets and tea.

 

and that where we're at. Thanks, America

 

 

 

.

Edited by yoladu
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, yoladu said:

The DOJ/this Administration's unrestrained lust to inflict absolute cruelty on this man is going to make that El Salvadorian gulag seem like crumpets and tea.

 

and that where we're at. Thanks, America

.

In the end, they still gotta have a case with evidence that will get them a conviction.  That's why due process really, really matters.

It ain't about what they say on Fox news over and over.  It's about what they can prove in a court, according to the applicable rules and law.

Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

In the end, they still gotta have a case with evidence that will get them a conviction.  That's why due process really, really matters.

It ain't about what they say on Fox news over and over.  It's about what they can prove in a court, according to the applicable rules and law.

True, but they are trying him in Tennessee, right?

puppet-awkward.gif



×
×
  • Create New...