This is part of a broader pattern of the incompetent thugs at ICE taking advantage of other, actual functioning and useful parts of government to help them do their work for them. It's not just courts, it's citizenship hearings, it's the IRS, it's schools. They're trying to send a message not to push back or get in their way. It's not about this particular judge, they are sending a message that they will go after school teachers or anybody else.
Generally, I share these concerns. At the same time, this story is very new. In any case, looking at the primary sources is important. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-.... I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal.
Now, putting aside that complaint, the decision to arrest Dugan is questionable for sure. My current understanding is that such an arrest is only done if the suspect is a flight risk.
It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.
>> I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal.
> Criminal complaints against sitting judges for actions they took in their courtroom are not at all "normal".
Point taken.
Just so that we're not talking past each other: What I was trying to say is this: as I read the language in the document, it sounded like plausible legal text. I'm not suggesting this is the proper bar. I am saying that I've read other official "legal" documents from the Trump administration that don't even meet the "not batshit crazy" bar.
> I truly do not understand why this administration continually gets the benefit of doubt from the HN audience.
I'm guessing you're not understanding me. Regarding the strength and validity of the FBI's criminal complaint, I'd probably say there is maybe a 20% chance it will hold up in court, but I'm very uncertain about even my estimate. I don't know the law well in this case. Do I think the FBI was politically motivated in bringing this case? Yes, with a high probability (>80%). Do I think the agent in particular who filed the case (presumably a special officer with a long track record) is doing her job reasonably well Yes, I would guess so with P>60%. Are people around the special agent putting pressure on her to comply with Trump's priorities? Probably, P>60%. Again, these are all guesses, but they show that I'm trying to break the issue apart. It isn't just one entity (e.g. "The Administration") versus Judge Dugan here.
I'm not defending the Trump administration. My goal is to understand the situation as clearly as I can without using motivated reasoning. I want to understand what is likely to happen next. It would be emotionally convenient if this situation was clear cut and obvious. It isn't. It is multifaceted and complicated. There is a history of federal immigration officials clashing with local courts.
This also might be a difference of mindset/approach. To the degree you are in a soldier mindset your goal will be to persuade. To the degree you are in a scout mindset, your goal will be to understand. Right now, I'm focusing on the latter.
Do you disagree with the importance of reading the evidence, including the primary documents? (I'm guessing not). Do you disagree with the Bayesian logic of combining your priors with the evidence. (I'm guessing not.)
>> It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.
Do you disagree with the part above? My is claim is broad: In this case -- and in most cases -- it is wiser to synthesize information with a clear head. Rushing to judgment is usually a mistake. Disagree?
Most of us are far from experts on the interaction between immigration enforcement and local courts.
I'm not sure if/where we actually disagree. Odds are good we both expect the Trump administration's claims to be dubious at best. I call this my prior. But I'll also read the evidence and see and try to update rationally.
The phrase "benefit of the doubt" can be problematic. I am not trying to force things into yes/no categories. It is usually unwarranted to assign a 0% probability to real-world events. There is at least a small chance that Dugan worked in opposition to the ICE agents. Did she have a legal basis for doing so? A moral basis? Did she break the law? What law? These are just some of my questions. I don't know the answers. Do you? If so, how do you know them and how confident are you?
I'm curious about these details. I'm not looking to rush to "pick a side". Reality can be messy. For example, Trump can be a deplorable autocrat _and_ a local judge can mess up. Both can simultaneously be true.
I'm on the side of promoting due process and a sensible understanding of the Constitution. I don't need to rush to attach my identity to any particular point of view about a situation that I don't understand well yet. This way of viewing the world isn't as common -- most people feel the need to pick a tribe -- but it is very important.
I think the concern is that this on its face seems like a pretty egregious thing for an administration to do in a politically motivated fashion.
It seems like they are pushing the bounds of what the public is willing to put up with. I think that trying to rationalize the best argument of their case, is doing their work for them, and the administration has regularly demonstrated themselves to be bad-faith actors.
All of this is to say, that my knee-jerk is to say the administration is wrong, and let cooler heads prevail in the follow-up if that's not the case. Because I have yet to see the case where the administration wasn't overstepping their authority WRT ICE.
