The Department of Homeland Security’s complaint about being under a gag order on Saturday in its case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump administration illegally deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador earlier this year, likely violated the court order.
Tricia McLaughlin, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the DHS, said that Abrego Garcia being able to make viral TikTok posts was unfair in a rant on X: “American justice ceases to function when its arbiters silence law enforcement and give megaphones to those who oppose our legal system.”
But this “gag order” isn’t specific to Abrego Garcia’s case. As a Saturday court filing states, local criminal rule in the Middle District of Tennessee already blocks DOJ and DHS employees from making extrajudicial remarks that will ‘have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” a defendant’s right to a fair trial. In other words, it is not politically motivated.
McLaughlin’s post boosted another post calling Abrego Garcia an “MS-13 terrorist.” The Trump administration has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13, which a federal judge has ruled as unfounded.
Sounds like a the judge should just dismiss the case with prejudice since the government is poisoning people against him illegally
DHS seems to be filled with whiny dipshits who can’t tell the difference between right and wrong.
They’re criminals like their pedo rapist lying coward convicted felon god.
They don’t give a shit about right and wrong. Whether they can tell the difference is irrelevant.
“American justice ceases to function when its arbiters silence law enforcement and give megaphones to those who oppose our legal system.”
Only because you morons think you’re a PR firm rather than prosecutors looking for justice.
I oppose the US’s flimsy excuse of a “legal” system, where’s my free megaphone
I would be more shocked if the courts did anything actionable about this supposed violation.
Honestly, the gag order is for the benefit of the DOJ, though, right? It prevents a possible mistrial. The defendant doesn’t have one because they may say or do something that makes the outcome of the trial go against them (like the right to remain silent type of thing). The DOJ may have just lost the case before they can even begin to make an argument.
However, I’m just a registry editor so I might be way off!
i remember sitting in voir dire (jury selection) in a civil case and the attorney for one side started arguing their case. now we’re just a bunch of laypeople (i work in a specific title so i know a little shit but i’m no trial attorney) and all of us know you can’t do that. dude looked like the slickest, greasiest, shiniest and i mean shiniest he had a silver semireflective i don’t think he knew good fabric isn’t supposed to be shiny suit. absolute greasewad lawyer. after a few minor rumblings (“you can’t do that!” “i know!” “i watched CSI this ain’t how shit go!”) from the jury box of him trying to argue his case and sustained objections. so as he’s diring his voir he continually is getting stopped and restarts, finally the judge pulls him up to the bench for a good yelling at. probably, and if i know my judges and with two of them in the family i do, “keep this up and i’m defaulting for the other side”. then we broke for lunch and they had selected 16 (it was only going to be two alts, but really quick the judge upped it to four imagine that) so i went home.
anyways, i wish i had gotten that attorney’s card. so i could look up if he works in the krasnov administration now. he was the third worst lawyer i’ve ever met.
Wait, it was only jury selection and he started doing more than just asking potential jurors for info about themselves? If so, wow! I have never been selected for jury duty but have been through selection a few times (pretty sure I have the male version of resting bitch face). Even I know that the selection process is just to weed out jurors who may not be favorable to one or both sides.
Last time I was on a jury selection, the defendant decided to represent himself in a child pornography charge. He seemed a little slimy and made some blunders during the process, but did alright otherwise. At some point, though, they moved us into the hallway at some point and all you hear is raised voices as the judge was in there yelling at the defendant and/or prosecutor. Pretty sure the trial never went forward and somehow ended in a mistrial. I was just happy to get out or work and make about $30 to do so!
Shit’s weird!
Pretty sure the trial never went forward and somehow ended in a mistrial.
in order to represent yourself, the judge has to determine that you are competent to represent yourself. a few questions (“do you understand the charges?” “do you understand the severity of the charges [i.e., do you know the maximum sentence you can get]?”) answered correctly generally establishes competence. I’m guessing defendant was either found incompetent or spoiled the jury pool via sovcit bullshittery and they had to get another (which the sovcit thought meant they were acquitted), hence the yelling.
All sounds plausible to me!
This is something they’ve weaponized for years: when one of theirs is accused of a crime, they blow up Faux “News” and social media complaining that there’s nothing there, the charges are bogus, etc. In their minds it’s a win-win: if the government pushes back, they get challenged in court (more fodder for the mill about how unfair things are); if they lose the case due to the responses, they can claim it was all fake and politically motivated; and if the government stays silent, they’re able to embed in their followers’ minds that the accused was innocent and it was all political anyway.
Now that they’ve put Faux “News” hosts in charge of everything, they’re pissed they actually have to color within the lines instead of just sneaking smearing shit everywhere.
An unbound law enforcement is a decision away from tyranny, and that decision is to not inconvenience themselves or to “go after the ‘bad guys’ just a little harder”. When cops demand less restraint whether they believe it necessary or not is irrelevant
