this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025

529 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22674 readers

3810 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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

[email protected]

529

‘I can’t get a straight answer from you’: Judge loses patience with Trump admin lawyer for repeatedly ignoring court order unfreezing USAID funds, issues harsh evidentiary demands (lawandcrime.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Federal Judge Amir Ali sharply criticized the Trump administration during a Tuesday hearing for failing to comply with his 12-day-old restraining order to unfreeze USAID contract funding.

"I don't know why I can't get a straight answer from you," the judge demanded, asking if funds had been unfrozen. The government lawyer responded: "I'm not in a position to answer that."

Ali ordered USAID to pay all invoices for work performed before February 13 by midnight tomorrow and required the administration to identify officials who can testify under oath about compliance disputes.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Two words:

Or what?

As long as judges don't have an answer for that, they will continue to be brushed off, ignored, misled, and outright lied to by Trump and his team. And right now, I haven't seen any judges putting forth any answers. The reality of the situation is that judges really don't have an answer for that (mostly because the Supreme Court gave Trump all but blanket immunity), but they cannot say it without admitting that they actually have no real power at all. There's literally nothing stopping Trump from telling this judge or any other judge to go pound sand.

The court system is not going to help us. And at the rate things are going, midterm elections are not going to help us. Military intervention is simply not going to happen. Congress is not going to intervene. The one and only thing that we have to hope for is that voters in heavy red districts eventually get so sick of seeing the leopards eating their faces that they actually start to threaten their own Congressmen even more than the MAGA crowd currently does. That's it. They have already repeatedly gone on record (anonymously, but repeatedly) and have said that it is fear that stops them from speaking against Trump. Their voters have to make them even more afraid not to.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you live in a red state, you can call your legislators.

You can lie to them and say you're a republican voter.

It's not like they don't lie to you.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you live in a blue state, call a red state legislator and tell them you’re one of their constituents and voters. The whole system is bullshit anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To be fair, phone call records would show how many of those calls actually came from out of the district or state.

We already have Johnson and other apologists already framing the town hall incidents as a bunch of Democrat rabble-rousers pretending to be Republicans. The last thing we need to give them is proof that Democrats are doing just that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Having an out of state cell phone as your only number can't be ruled out. They'll ignore you anyway though.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

the Supreme Court gave Trump all but blanket immunity

Even "better," they gave blanket immunity to a person who has the power to give blanket immunity for federal crimes. Anything the SCROTUS is willing to consider an "official act" by the president carries no consequences whatsoever for him OR anyone doing his bidding.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

While true, in theory (not practice) Congress/Senate would remove the president for not abiding the judges conclusion. The fact that they haven't voted to remove him after 2 weeks shows the constitution (law of the land) is no more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The state should just wrap all federal buildings in their state with crime scene tape and say it's a state crime to cross it. 10 years in prison no exception without permission to cross!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Or what? The court issues a bench warrant and demands their presence which they can do to literally anyone who isn't the president.

The rest is on law enforcement to have enough balls to do as their profession demands.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And when said person tells the courts to go fuck themselves, backed by a President willing to issue a pardon?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's contempt and a president can't pardon you for that. You'd be at risk for 179 days in county and huge fines that also cannot be pardoned and it goes to judicial tribunal for appeal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That’s contempt and a president can’t pardon you for that. You’d be at risk for 179 days in county and huge fines that also cannot be pardoned and it goes to judicial tribunal for appeal.

You continue to think Trump cares about the rule of law.

He'll demand the lawyer's release. Judge will say no. He'll sue. At most, we'll get some appelate ruling that says he's not going to dismiss the contempt charge, but he is going to let the laywer walk free while the case proceeds. It'll go up to the Supreme Court where they'll just rule that contempt charges are pardonable, then it'll all go away. Have you not been paying attention for the past month? The guy does not care about the rule of law, the Supreme Court already ruled that he doesn't have to, and Congress isn't going to do a damn thing about it.

These people weren't willing to hold Trump to account when he was a private citizen? WTF makes you think they're going to do anything to him while he's POTUS? This isn't the only judge that has been trying to push back on Trump's bullshit. But the only thing they've managed to do so far is to reissue their court orders while adding the legalese equivalent of "pretty please". Show me where these judges are threatening actual consequences for these actions and somebody actually willing to enforce them. Because all I've seen is a bunch of judges making empty threats, Trump saying "Fuck you, and what are you going to do about it", and a whole bunch of people with a whole lot of nothing for answers.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then it still comes down to whether the cops will actually do their job and arrest said person or not. If they will, then that person rots in prison for contempt of court, which isn't something Trump can pardon

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Until he does anyway and the Supreme Court says he can.

Your statement assumes that prior laws and norms still matter when the person you're talking about is actively shitting on those laws to the thunderous applause of the other branches of government.

And if nobody was willing to arrest Trump when he was a private citizen committing crimes on the daily, what makes you think they're going to do it to one of Trump's lapdogs when the man is literally the President of the United States and the Supreme Court has already said he can pretty much do what he wants?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You know the president can literally just say: "Lol nope. Pardoned." And that's it, right? That's the point, the law is meaningless if you installed a king as ruler.

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

I don't know that because that isn't thing.

Contempt is judicial and unpardonable, and preemptive pardons aren't likely to be held as legitimate.

A King could preemptively absolve someone of a crime that isn't however how our government is ran and it's super duper unlikely the judicial would rule in favor of removing all their power altogether.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Apparently you haven't been paying attention over the last month, have you?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Being cynical isn't an argument.

Contempt is, as a matter of fact, not a pardonable offense. The lawyer can be taken into custody by the court staff and held, by the courts until the contempt offense is resolved.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Contempt is, as a matter of fact, not a pardonable offense.

Until six months ago, the President of the United States was, as a matter of fact, not immune from prosecution. You're trying to enforce rules on the exact people who have the power to change those rules at will. If the Supreme Court decides tomorrow that contempt is a pardonable offense, it's a pardonable offense.

The lawyer can be taken into custody by the court staff and held, by the courts until the contempt offense is resolved.

The court system was unwilling to hold Trump in contenpt of court when he was a private citizen. And that was after directly violating court orders ten fucking times.

Do you honestly think, for one fucking second, that any judge is going to try to hold one of Trump's cronies in contempt for doing Trump's bidding? Because if so, I have beachfront property on Mars that you may be interested in. We literally have a random dude from South Africa firing federal workers by the tens of thousands, answering any attempt at accountability by telling those trying to hold him accountable to go fuck themselves, working with a President who has already committed several direct violations of multiple amendments to the US Constitution, and you think a contempt charge for some random lawyer is going to be the bridge too far?

Are any of these people being held accountable for their crimes? Fucking lol nope. All three branches of our government have largely stepped aside and just said "Go right ahead, sir." The fuck makes you think one of these judges is even going to issue an order holding one of these people in contempt? And what the fuck makes you think that this administration is going to abide by it?

Remember, the Judicial branch has zero enforcement power. Enforcement is reliant on the DOJ. What do you think is going to be the result there?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A judgement made by the court can be revoked and reinterpreted by the same judiciary, it's the basis of the judicial system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What judicial system? You have a king and it's lackeys lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

That remains to be seen for the most part.

We certainly have an idiot with too much power, long not so much yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I have been, apparently that's your best argument which is.... Something I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a Federal Judge, so they can ignore the bench warrant and get a pardon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They cannot. Us Marshalls don't give a good goddamn about a pardon you can only get after the fact. Post facto pardons are a legal question that isn't fully answered but most sources say it's criminal conspiracy which no the president couldn't be charged with but literally any and every state could charge whomever one by one at the state level.

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

US Marshals report to the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch, all Trump needs to do is instruct the DOJ to stand down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

A. Technically yes but in practice no. They're enforcement specifically at the behest of the judiciary, they are wildly unconcerned about whatever bullshit any other LE agency is up to and for that matter the executive branch as a whole.

B. They're the least political enforcement agency, they'll tell him to fuck himself because the oath to the constitution comes first.

C. They literally swear to ignore politics and execute whatever executive process is before them.

D. They've had armed standoffs with other three letter agencies specifically about not doing their job, after Ruby ridge they go out of their way to not be seen as biased or political.

[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

the lawyer knows he's about to get slapped hard by the court. he also knows admitting that Trump and Co has yet to actually do anything the courts ordered is going to get him disbarred

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 month ago

That is something, a small something. I’m getting really skeptical over checks and balances, the constitution, fundamental corruption and graft, government by tantrum and spite ….. but at least this is getting to the point of making that lawyer regret his choices. He’s likely to discover the emphasis on “loyalty” is only one way

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

He also probably thinks that he is going to get a cushy job for his sacrifice. Hopefully Trump refuses to pay in the end, like normal, and this guy speaks out after getting screwed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Hopefully, he ends up homeless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Speaks out to what end? It won't change the minds of anyone still in trump's good graces. It'll give us something to laugh at, that's about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

He'll write a book and go on tour, gotta cash in.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How does the lawyers bar status tied to a client's compliance with a spurt order?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Essentially, if a client doesn’t follow a judges orders (the client is the US gov,) and the lawyer can’t get them to comply, they’re supposed to drop the case (and probably the client,)(in this case, that would likely mean a resignation.)

If the lawyer doesn’t…. They’re on the hook and the first step is their license to practice (yeeting that is called “disbarring”).

The reputation harm from this saga is huge- I wouldn’t want to hire a guy so blithely and publicly pissing off a judge.

The reality is he’s likely found himself between a rock and a hard place and is stuck. But lawyers who help their clients break the law …. Don’t stay lawyers. Look at nearly every lawyer who has worked for trump.

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

Trump not complying shouldn’t get him disbarred, but he should resign before trump does something that actually gets him disbarred.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It will if he doesn't resign, though. And this guy is now between a rock and a hard place. I don't know if his decisions put him there (IE he coudl be a career civil servant trying to negotiate this bullshit) but so far, it seems like he's towing the Trump Party Line.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have to put him in a cell

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

That behavior sounds very contemptuous.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Hold his ass in contempt and issue a warrant for his arrest already, you goddamn judicial muppets. It's going to come down to that anyway - might as well yank the band-aid off before it festers.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Seriously. The judge is worried about the political fallout of doing anything as drastic as like, his job. It could be a real political rallying point, if a judge gets retaliated against. But that might make it hard for the judge to maintain his current lifestyle, and so we just make more concessions to the group committed to destroying even the illusory veil of justice and freedom.

Absolutely feckless and cowardly

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Not just him, everyone that can be demonstrated as being part of this. We don't just need to deal with Trump (we do) but there are a lot of other people involved too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure he can and I think the judge isn't sure either.

I think this might be another one of those things where we were relying on the people electing someone reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's that thing called where the court determines you are a petty asshole and can't file things without judicial review? Can we apply that to the government?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

A vexatious litigant

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Their goal isn't to answer and prove why they need to do it, their goal is to stall as long as possible because they don't even believe in what they're fighting for beyond furthering Trump's agenda

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

The more everyone goes at this guy, and the more he comes out unscathed, the more he seems untouchable. Blah.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Haha. The judge knows he has no power to enforce his ridiculous demands. And the Government knows it too. If the judge tries to hold the President in contempt, it won't work, because the president trumps him. Trump can probably have the judge fired. And he should, because the judge should have refused to engage in the case to begin with, knowing that the presidents powers exceed his own.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

You seem way too excited to have a king.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

STF. U.

load more comments