The legality of removing U.S. citizens, a question posed to the government, is addressed: It is legally impossible to deport U.S. citizens. While President Trump has publicly and privately discussed the “potential” deportation of citizens, this refers solely to violent, repeat offenders. Therefore, no U.S. citizens are subject to removal based on current law.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sidelined a lawyer involved in a deportation case deemed “wholly lawless” by a judge. This action highlights a concerning trend of prioritizing loyalty over legal integrity within the administration. The lawyer, in his attempts to fulfill his duties, truthfully answered questions posed by the judge regarding the deportation. These answers apparently revealed a lack of evidence justifying the detention and deportation, exposing the questionable legality of the government’s actions.
The lawyer’s honest responses, instead of being praised for their transparency and adherence to legal ethics, resulted in him being placed on leave. This suggests that the administration values unwavering support above accurate reporting and the pursuit of justice.… Continue reading
A federal judge ordered the US government to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by April 7th after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to an administrative error. The judge ruled the deportation illegal, citing a prior grant of withholding of removal and the lack of legal basis for his apprehension and removal. The government admitted the error but initially claimed inability to retrieve Abrego Garcia from Salvadoran custody, a claim the judge questioned given US contractual control over the prison where he is held. Despite a government appeal, the judge’s order highlights the contentious legal battle surrounding recent US deportations to El Salvador.
Radio Free Europe’s assertion that the Washington administration shut down its Russian broadcast despite a court order is deeply unsettling. The very idea that a government would disregard a legal injunction to silence a news outlet raises serious questions about the rule of law and freedom of the press. This action smacks of authoritarianism, a blatant disregard for due process, and a chilling suppression of information.
The implications of this action extend far beyond the immediate impact on Radio Free Europe’s broadcasting capabilities in Russia. It suggests a pattern of behavior where the government feels emboldened to ignore legal constraints when it suits its agenda.… Continue reading
Trump’s demand that France “free” Marine Le Pen highlights a stark clash of legal systems and political ideologies. His assertion, echoing sentiments from other leaders, paints Le Pen’s conviction as a politically motivated persecution rather than a consequence of a legal process. This perspective ignores the established legal framework within which Le Pen was tried and convicted.
The core of Trump’s argument centers on the idea that Le Pen is a victim of a “witch hunt,” a term he frequently uses to discredit legal proceedings against himself and his allies. He suggests that the charges against her are minor, potentially a mere “bookkeeping error,” downplaying the seriousness of the embezzlement of EU funds that led to her conviction.… Continue reading
Ongoing coalition negotiations between Germany’s CDU/CSU and SPD include a commitment to stronger EU action against rule-of-law violators like Hungary. This involves more consistent application of existing EU mechanisms, including sanctions and potential membership restrictions. The coalition aims to overcome Hungary’s frequent veto power by advocating for expanded qualified majority voting in the Council of the EU, particularly on foreign policy matters. This follows previous EU efforts to sanction Hungary, including blocking billions in EU funds over human rights concerns. The aim is to enforce the rule of law within the EU more effectively.
The Trump administration’s lawsuit aiming to invalidate dozens of federal union contracts is a brazen move, claiming these contracts hinder the president’s ability to restructure the federal workforce and safeguard national security. This action raises serious questions about the rule of law; can existing legal agreements be simply disregarded because they stand in the way of an administration’s agenda? The decision to file the suit in Texas, rather than Washington D.C., fuels concerns about “judge shopping” – a practice of strategically choosing a court likely to deliver a favorable ruling.
This blatant disregard for established contracts echoes Trump’s business practices, a pattern of relentless litigation to achieve desired outcomes.… Continue reading
Signal chat records must be preserved, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration. This isn’t just about one specific conversation; it’s about a broader pattern of behavior that raises serious questions about accountability and the rule of law. The judge’s order underscores the gravity of the situation, highlighting the potential for the administration to deliberately obstruct justice by deleting evidence.
Signal chat records must be preserved, the judge insists, because they are potentially relevant to ongoing legal proceedings. The fact that the administration might have used a platform like Signal, known for its end-to-end encryption and disappearing messages, suggests a conscious effort to evade official record-keeping and oversight.… Continue reading
House Democrats are increasingly vocal about their assessment of the Trump administration, describing its actions as a disturbing blend of incompetence and illegality. This isn’t simply a matter of policy disagreements; it’s a deeper concern about the fundamental workings of government and the rule of law.
The perception is that the administration operates with a profound disregard for established processes and legal frameworks. There’s a sense that the pursuit of political goals overshadows any concern for proper procedure, leading to a chaotic and potentially damaging approach to governance.
The alleged incompetence isn’t perceived as merely a lack of skill or expertise, but rather a systemic issue stemming from a prioritization of loyalty over competence.… Continue reading
Sending Americans to foreign prisons is a deeply troubling proposition, one that has sparked outrage and concern. The idea itself flies in the face of fundamental legal principles and established norms regarding the rights of citizens. Civil rights groups are vehemently opposed, and rightly so, asserting that such an action would be unequivocally illegal.
The sheer illegality of this proposed action is a point that bears repeating. It’s not a matter of opinion or political debate; it’s a blatant violation of established legal frameworks, international treaties, and basic human rights. The very notion that a government could simply exile its own citizens to foreign prisons without due process is shocking and should be alarming to everyone.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood