By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice was caught misrepresenting facts to the 9th Circuit regarding the deployment of federal agents in Portland, with claims dramatically inflating the number of officers present. The DOJ initially stated 115 FPS officers were diverted to Portland, but this was incorrect. After being exposed by the plaintiffs, the DOJ issued a correction, admitting to the error without acknowledging any intent to mislead. This falsehood was a key factor in a panel ruling that authorized Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, which was subsequently overturned by the full 9th Circuit, providing an opportunity for reconsideration based on accurate information.
Read the original article here
The DOJ Lied Its Way to Victory in a Key Trump Case. It Just Got Caught in Court.
The core of the matter here is that the Department of Justice, during the Trump administration, seems to have a habit of misleading judges. And, frustratingly, they often don’t bother to correct the record even when they’re caught. This time, however, the DOJ made a significant misstep, admitting to a “serious error” in how they portrayed the presence of federal agents in Portland. This error was a major factor in justifying the deployment of the National Guard, a move that was subsequently greenlit by a panel of judges in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The good news is the full 9th Circuit has since thrown out that decision.
The admission of this “error” is quite a revelation. It reveals how the DOJ’s misrepresentation was central to the ruling, and now the court has to reconsider the whole case with accurate information. It’s a reminder of how crucial truthful information is to the legal process.
It is worth noting that this situation also highlights the lack of consequences the DOJ faces for these actions. The article makes it crystal clear that the people, as taxpayers, are ultimately footing the bill for lawyers on both sides, even as the DOJ’s actions cast a shadow of doubt over the legal process. The irony is, these missteps, these errors, don’t seem to come with any real penalties. It begs the question: how does this affect public trust in the legal system?
The reactions to the situation on the thread are pretty clear – many people are not surprised. The sentiment is that the behavior is simply “business as usual,” which is a pretty damning indictment. The implication is that this level of deceit is expected and almost normalized.
Then there is the issue of accountability. The lack of consequences is a huge concern. One comment points out the existing penalties, which include contempt of court and disbarment. The question being asked is: why aren’t the judges actually enforcing these measures? This raises fundamental questions about the role of the judiciary and the willingness to hold powerful actors to account. It’s a really critical point.
There are some comments that focus on the semantics of the DOJ’s admission, pointing out that it was framed as an “error” rather than an outright lie. It’s a subtle but important distinction. The term “error” softens the blow and potentially allows the DOJ to avoid accountability.
This thread shows a general sense of frustration and disillusionment about the way the legal system is perceived to be functioning. The situation is not just about one case; it’s about a pattern of behavior and the lack of repercussions for the people who are entrusted with upholding the law.
The bigger picture here is the erosion of trust in institutions. When the Department of Justice, an agency meant to serve justice, is perceived as being deceptive, it undermines the very foundation of the legal system. It makes people question whether justice can be achieved when those tasked with ensuring it are not playing by the rules. The legal system depends on the accurate presentation of the facts and the integrity of the individuals involved.
The thread also touches on the importance of the rule of law. Some comments recognize how fragile the concept can be. The implication is that if these transgressions are ignored, then there is a danger of the legal system, as it is understood in the US, crumbling. This isn’t a small concern; it speaks to the very structure of the United States.
It is worth noting that the conversation brings up the idea of consequences. The desire for real consequences—disbarment, contempt charges—is evident throughout the thread. This desire stems from the need to hold people accountable for their actions and to restore faith in the system. The lack of such consequences is often cited as a key factor contributing to the loss of public trust.
The underlying concern here is that the legal system is not working as it should. The comments and replies show that there is a widespread sense that the system is broken and that the DOJ is using its position to manipulate the legal process.
The overall sentiment is one of disappointment mixed with a sense of inevitability. The system is flawed, and sometimes these flaws can result in what looks like a lie by the DOJ in court.