this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
466 points (99.2% liked)

politics

23063 readers
3484 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross-posted from "A Federal Judge Is on the Brink of Criminally Prosecuting Trump Officials for Contempt" by @[email protected] in [email protected]


In a thundering opinion on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced that he had found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for defiance of his orders. It is “obvious,” Boasberg wrote, that government officials “deliberately flouted” his commands by deporting Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison on March 15 under President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. And now they must answer for their unlawful conduct. “The Constitution,” he declared, “does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 45 points 6 days ago (3 children)

swiftly identify the officials who violated his orders

I think this is likely to be the hangup. Everything with this administration is so chaotic and ad-hoc that it might be hard to pin it on a single person or group. If they don't have beyond-reasonable-doubt certainty that the person they're holding in contempt is responsible, it'll probably just get overturned, weakening the bigger Trump v Courts battle.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like a RICO case then.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure you can easily turn contempt of court into a criminal conspiracy charge.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 days ago

Money was exchanged for ~~humans~~ human resources, in illegal activity.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 days ago (2 children)

-"Who was responsible for XYZ?"

- "I don't recall."

[–] [email protected] 41 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Ok, then I am holding YOU in contempt!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Soooo, citizens can be shipped off to El Salvador eh?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 days ago

This is the way.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Pretty much this is what I'm worried about. Hopefully the government record keeping laws are robust enough that they can eke out a real answer about responsibility by threatening additional charges over failure to document those.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

assuming they weren't sent via self-destructing Signal messages, which itself is a violation of records law

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure they are using a private network for email exchanges.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

Maybe we can get copies of their messages from Russia then.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're probably not wrong, but hopefully there's at least a paper trail the judge can work his way up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

If any paper trail exists, the government will deny it exists, while concurrently setting fire to it and any other evidence they might have left.