• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

ponderingturtle said:
So no knowingly transporting migrants across state borders is not a crime, so he is being charged with something that is not a crime and you like it.
Click to expand...
A scheme to transport illegal aliens across state lines and accepting money for it, is a crime. So is smuggling guns.
 
Hercules56 said:
A scheme to transport illegal aliens across state lines and accepting money for it, is a crime. So is smuggling guns.
Click to expand...

Again we are back to arresting GOvenor Abbot

Hercules56 said:
Nope, not that either. They were legally in the USA. You seem to have forgotten all the details about this situation.
Click to expand...
Nope try again this time with factually correct information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/so...of-florida-are-now-able-to-legally-work-in-us
 
Hercules56 said:
People accused of hanging out with gang members, beating their wife, being a coyote and gun smuggler, based on Probable Cause in a federal indictment, are usually bad news.
Click to expand...
No, it means the same bungling administration that mistakenly deported him in the first place got a grand jury to indict. Are you familiar with ham sandwiches?

And you are just doubling down on accusations equal knowledge of guilt. Trump 2028!
 
Thermal said:
No, it means the same bungling administration that mistakenly deported him in the first place got a grand jury to indict. Are you familiar with ham sandwiches?

And you are just doubling down on accusations equal knowledge of guilt. Trump 2028!
Click to expand...
He is most likely guilty. But Ive been wrong before. I thought Kamala would win.
 
Hercules56 said:
Like I said, none of them were here illegally.
Click to expand...
They were here illegally at the time they were transported. Or we are changing the definition so that people who have no green card or any other document but are claiming asylum are now here legally?
 
ponderingturtle said:
They were here illegally at the time they were transported. Or we are changing the definition so that people who have no green card or any other document but are claiming asylum are now here legally?
Click to expand...
Wrong. They were legally admitted into the USA under the Biden administration's asylum program.

If the govt gives you permission to be in the USA, you are not here illegally.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Oops.

bsky.app

Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw.bsky.social)

Bondi DOJ has a problem. On left: DOJ Indictment and Detention Memo allege Abrego Garcia lied to officer by not revealing he was coming from Texas On right: DHS Referral Report: "Subject stated he was driving 'three days ago' (11/27/2022) from Houston, TX to Temple Hills, MD (via St Louis, MO)"
bsky.app bsky.app
Click to expand...
Would that count as perjury? Can a prosecutor get in trouble for false statements?
 
Hercules56 said:
People accused of hanging out with gang members, beating their wife, being a coyote and gun smuggler, based on Probable Cause in a federal indictment, are usually bad news.

Once in a while they are completely innocent of all charges, but thats an outlier.
Click to expand...

wow are there any particulars or things of note regarding this case that may indicate it’s an outlier?
 
TomB said:
Would that count as perjury? Can a prosecutor get in trouble for false statements?
Click to expand...
As in all such questions of law, it depends.

An indictment is by a grand jury, but the language of the indictment is drafted by the prosecutor. The grand jury endorses the language of the indictment after the prosecutor presents evidence in favor of each factual claim. There is no judicial rule requiring a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury, although it was Dept. of Justice policy to do so. The grand jury indictment provides the basis for a criminal complaint to which the U.S. attorney must swear. That is, just because a grand jury indicts you doesn't mean a federal prosecutor will file charges. Thus ultimately the U.S. attorney is primarily responsible for the integrity of the claim for Rule 11 purposes.

A referral for criminal prosecution is an allegation of fact made by the referrer. The referral may be sworn or unsworn. It is ultimately the job of the prosecutor to conduct its own sufficient investigation before bringing an indictment bill before a grand jury. Thus one way this can be resolved is if the Tennessee-based U.S. attorney found its own evidence that contradicted the Dept. of Homeland Security referral. It's not clear at this stage whether that happened, because the charge here is a 7-page summary, not the dozens of pages of speaking indictments that were more common before the Bondi era.

A prosecutor who brings charges that she knows are contravened by facts takes one step toward prosecutorial misconduct. But a prosecutor is allowed to apply judgment at the complaint stage regarding which facts are more credible than others. And for obvious reasons, a prosecutor might want to emphasize the side of the story that suggests guilt. However, in the discovery stage the exculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense, otherwise a Brady violation occurs and the judge has the option to dismiss a charge that was predicated on a Brady violation.

The defense has the opportunity to challenge the providence of the complaint in the preliminary hearing. In that case, the defense can question the prosecution about the discrepancy between the DOHS referral and the indictment. The prosecution would be obliged to state what evidence it presented to the grand jury to convince them that the defendant lied as charged in the indictment. However at that stage the result could be a superseding indictment in which that particular factual claim is removed. The prosecutor would not be sanctioned.

In a civil claim under Bivens, the judgment of the prosecutor then becomes much more important. The prosecutor would have a heightened responsibility to defend the charges as properly supported in light of the available facts. In addition, AG Bondi's public remarks in which she accused Abrego Garcia of criminal activity not charged in the indictment—and other prejudicial comments—would tend to argue in favor of malicious prosecution.
 
Hercules56 said:
Tens of millions of people assumed Trump was guilty of MANY crimes even before the trials began. I should know as I am one of them. :)


But just because you believe someone is guilty of a crime even before being convicted doesn't mean you think they should be punished for the crime or face any consequences before conviction.
Click to expand...

There's something to be said for what the basis of such beliefs/assumptions are. Evidence regarding Trump has often been well publicized and his often very public relevant history and personality generally makes the crimes he's officially accused of eminently probable.

For this guy? We have bunch of corrupt idiots who have been brazenly seeking to abuse government power to do harm to him and all the rest of us behind the unsubstantiated and often obviously false accusations they've been flinging around all throughout this saga. It's certainly possible to find less trustworthy official accusers, but not by much.

Hercules56 said:
Yeah, I said I knew he was bad news. I never said I knew he was GUILTY.

Dont lie about people's comments, its bad optics.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs with this attempted defense, at best. You've condemned him from the start, either way, often directly repeating Trump Administration BS, which makes your defense here even less credible. Honestly, this rather feels like a bad faith right winger stance, yet again. What does that actually mean? Make a big deal about your support of some good principle while at the same time actively fighting to sabotage and destroy the foundations that hold up that same principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom