Across the country, a new defense is being heard in state and federal courtrooms. From Democratic members of Congress to judges to city council members, officials claim that their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government. It is a type of liberal license that excuses most any crime in the name of combating what Minn. Gov. Tim Walz called the “modern-day Gestapo” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path.
This was not a major incursion, but these state and federal officials joined a mob in briefly overwhelming security and breaching the fence barrier after a bus was allowed through the entrance. Federal officials were able to quickly force back the incursion.
McIver and House Democrats insisted that McIver’s forcing her way into the facility might be trespass and assault for other citizens, but she was merely exercising “legislative oversight.” Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared “You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we’re going to have a problem.”
Rep. Eric Swallwell (D., Cal.) promised more such actions: “I promise you there’s gonna be more un-noticed visits by my colleagues where they show up and they better be let in.”
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) even ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver: “It’s a red line. They know better than to go down that road.”
Well, the red line was crossed in a big way after Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba charged McIver with a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1).
The ACLU called the charge “authoritarianism” and insisted that these state and federal politicians “have every right to exercise their legally authorized oversight responsibilities for expanded immigration detention in New Jersey.”
The problem with the oversight claim is that McIver’s status as a member of Congress does not allow her access into closed federal facilities. Congress can subpoena the Executive Branch or secure court orders for access. However, members do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency.
If that were the case, Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez would not have posted images of herself crying at the fence of an immigrant facility, she could have climbed over the fence in the name of oversight.
Conversely, Republicans in the Biden Administration could have simply pushed their way into the Justice Department to seek the files on the influence-peddling scandal.
Yet, the point of the claim is less of a real criminal defense and more of a political excuse.
It is the same claim being heard this week from Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj who was shown in a video shoving and obstructing ICE officers attempting to arrest a woman on immigration charges. Two other individuals (including a Democratic candidate for a school board) were arrested, but not Haxhiaj who claimed that she was merely protecting “a constituent.” After the melee, the city manager issued an order preventing city police from assisting in any way in the carrying out of such civil immigration enforcement efforts by the federal government.
Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant.
The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape (he was arrested after a chase down a public street).
Judge Duggan also claimed that she was carrying out her duties even though her hearing was over, the charges were not part of state matter, and the arrest was being carried out outside of her courtroom. She was declared “a hero” by Democratic politicians and pundits.
As Democratic leaders like Walz engage in rage rhetoric and paint Republicans (and federal law enforcement) as Nazis, political violence is on the rise across the country. Many of the people burning Teslas and engaging in such crimes claim the same type of license that the ends justify the means. That includes affluent professionals who are now shoplifting from Whole Foods as a “protest” against Jeff Bezos meeting with Trump.
When the Administration sought to investigate those burning Teslas and dealerships, Rep. Dan Goldman (D., N.Y.) denounced it as a “political weaponization” of the legal system. The comments suggest that such arson is somehow a form of political expression on the left.
House Minority Leader Jeffries was correct that a “red line” was crossed but not the one that he was thinking of in threatening consequences for any charges. The red line is the one separating political expression and criminal conduct.
Border Czar stressed repeatedly to political leaders that they can protest and refuse to help but “you can‘t cross the line” into obstruction and interference with their operations.
If oversight means that members can force their way into any federal facilities, we would have 535 roaming inspectors general who could wander at will through the executive branch.
Rep. McIver would be better to claim a different type of oversight, in allowing her passion to briefly overwhelm her judgment in rushing into the facility.
In the end, however, McIver and Duggan may have a license of a different kind.
Both have the advantage of being charged in liberal districts where they would appear before sympathetic jurors. They need to just convince a single jury to engage in “jury nullification,” to vote based on the cause, not the crime, in the case.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
A shorter version of this column appeared in the New York Post.
“The problem with the oversight claim is that McIver’s status as a member of Congress does not allow her access into closed federal facilities. Congress can subpoena the Executive Branch or secure court orders for access.”
Turley is wrong. Members of Congress or their staff do not need a subpoena to access ICE facilities. They can show up unannounced, and ICE is required to allow them to inspect the facilities. This is according to the law. No court order is required.
“Access: Members of Congress (Members), Congressional Member Delegations (CODELs), and
Congressional Staff Delegations (STAFFDELs) are afforded special access to ICE facilities.
These visits are limited to Members and congressional staff only;…”
“ (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Homeland Security, by this Act, may be used to prevent any of the following persons from
entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the
Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens, or to make any
temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a
visiting member of Congress or such designated employee, compared to what would be
observed in the absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States
Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide
prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of
conducting oversight.
(c) With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland
Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter
a facility described in subsection (a).“
“Facility Entry Requirements:
• Members of Congress: ICE will comply with the law and accommodate Members seeking to
visit/tour an ICE detention facility for the purpose of conducting oversight.
• Congressional staff: ICE requires at least 24-hours advance notice of an upcoming visit by
Congressional staff. Failure to meet this requirement will result in denied access to the
facility.”
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/iceFacilityVisitationCongressional.pdf
Alina Habba’s charges won’t hold up in court and that’s not because Turley’s assertion that the court will be in a liberal district, but because the law is on the side of the Congresswoman. The chaos at the gate makes it easy to accuse anyone of assault when merely touching an officer constitutes assault. However, Alin Habba, who is eager to show Trump how “tough” she is on ‘law breakers’, will have a hard time proving it was intentional or that the ICE officers were the ones instigating the assault by being aggressive with the Congresswoman.
Turley didn’t mention the arrest of the Mayor and Habba dropping the charges because the evidence does not prove the mayor “forced his way in.” He was apprehended while leaving the facility after being told to leave. It shows ICE made an unlawful arrest, and ICE is lying about it.
Judge Dugan has the same immunity protections as Trump or any other federal government official. Just because the case was no longer being discussed does not invalidate her immunity as an officer of the court. She was still engaged in her duties as a judge. Turley won’t discuss the details of that because he knows her case is very likely to succeed on the merits, not because her case will be tried in a liberal district.
George,
Aparently you can not read what you wrote.
No congress does not – and should not require subpeona’s for oversight.
But both what you cite and common sense dictate that congress can not show up at the rough equivalent of a prison and demand immediate access. That is DANGEROUS and it would be incredibly expensive to staff all dangerous federal fascilities to provide congress instant access.
Regardless, these congressmen showed up without notice. Those in the fascility contacted superiors at DOJ and DHS wich si exactly what we should expect.
They were ultimately told to allow them into the fascility – WHEN IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO.
The congressmen were allowed into the fascility about 90minutes after they requested access.
That is reasonable and more than the law requires.
Further as I said in a prior post I FULLY support providing as broad an access as possible to congress – whether the law requires it or not.
But that STILL does not mean that you get in instantly when you show up unannounced at a dangerous and highly secure fascility.
At the very least the administrators of the fascility must verify ID. Anyone can show up claiming to be a member of congress. That is one of the reasons that prior notice is a very good idea even if it is not required.
Regardless, access to the fascilities is not the real issue – not in Turley’s article, not in the crimes charged.
Congress can have limitless access to fascilities. That still does not allow them to shove arround LEO’s.
John, it’s you who isn’t paying attention to what I said.
“No congress does not – and should not require subpeona’s for oversight.”
But Turley says otherwise,
“The problem with the oversight claim is that McIver’s status as a member of Congress does not allow her access into closed federal facilities. Congress can subpoena the Executive Branch or secure court orders for access. ”
“But both what you cite and common sense dictate that congress can not show up at the rough equivalent of a prison and demand immediate access. That is DANGEROUS and it would be incredibly expensive to staff all dangerous federal fascilities to provide congress instant access.”
They can demand immediate access. It’s a detention facility where they are always in control. Safety should already be in place. If it’s safe enough for detention facility staff it’s safe enough for congressmen.
But it’s not a “rough equivalent of a dangerous prison”. It’s a detention facility for immigrants who have no reason to be violent towards a congressman. I’m sure they keep a tight rein on the facility.
“But that STILL does not mean that you get in instantly when you show up unannounced at a dangerous and highly secure fascility.”
They can, if they insist on it. Allowing detention facility staff 90 mins to “tidy” up any violations or put away certain detainees out of sight of congressmen defeats the point of an unannounced visit. The purpose is to inspect the facility before any “tydying up” or hiding things can be done is to catch violations or unsafe conditions.
The excuse of making the facility safe before letting Congressmen enter is just an excuse. A facility should already be safe to enter the moment a congressman arrives.
Checking ID is required and the amount of time it takes is minimal. Just as it is to allow them in. It shouldn’t take more than 2hrs to “make it safe” to enter.
Checking ID
******************
You stepped right into it george.
You lib/dems hate ID.
You fool.
Dustoff,
Someone claims to be any kind of VIP, Congress person, even LEO, I want to see their credentials or ID verifying they who they claim they are. Just shouting, ” I am a _______!!!” does not cut it. Especially at a ICE detention facility. There are procedures and protocols that have to be followed to ensure everyone’s safety. Assaulting LEOs, pushing and shoving with a mob is NOT the way to do it.
Upstate
So true.
Dem-o-rats just got bit by their own words.
George while I beleive Habba should have refered the matter to the house for discipline,
the charges are sound.
The chaos at the gate was not caused by ICE it was caused by congressmen trying to force entry when a bus of detainees was coming through the gate. That was dangerous and resulted in chaos.
Nor do you expect ICE to check IDs for congressmen while trying to removed several dozen people who forced their way in.
The issue is not access – it is the congressmens use of FORCE.
The charges are valid. I do not expect them to be dropped, or thrown out.
At the same time they are deminimus. The video does show the congresmen PUSHING LEO’s on several occasions. The standard for assault on a LEO is just laying hands on – as many J6’ers learned. This congresmen exceeds that standard.
At the same time none of the conduct shown rises to the level MOST people think of as a serious assault.
A jury MIGHT acquit. Or there may be a conviction and a suspended sentence or some other deminimus punishment. That is likely appropriate.
That does not justify the conduct. But it is NOT as of yet a part of a pattern. and it is actually demimus.
Deminimus does NOT make it justified – and YOU and others one the left whoudl be VERY careful about raising a justification defense – as THAT dictates that it is NOT deminimus.
A justification defense means the acts are INTENTIONAL – not heat of the moment.
“The chaos at the gate was not caused by ICE it was caused by congressmen trying to force entry when a bus of detainees was coming through the gate. That was dangerous and resulted in chaos.
Nor do you expect ICE to check IDs for congressmen while trying to removed several dozen people who forced their way in.”
Again ICE’s agressive pushback can result in a normal responce to counter it by putting hands on the officers. Their aggression created the necessity to lay hands on the officers. The charges will be dropped because of the lack of intent and the chaotic nature of the event. The assualt has to be shown that it was intentional and in this case it is not.
Then as you pointed out Habba’s involvement poses a problem because she can be shown to be doing this to please Trump. He motivation for the charges can very likely be construed as politically motivated.
The congressmen were not forcing their way in. They were allowed in by ICE. Using the crowd forcing their way in and conflate it as them forcing their way in is a poor excuse. They knew who the congressment were.
“Nor do you expect ICE to check IDs for congressmen while trying to removed several dozen people who forced their way in.”
I did not say I expected ICE not to check their ID’s don’t start putting words in my mouth. You’re better than that John.
ICE had to deal with the crowd forcing their way in, but the congressmen were already allowed in because ICE was required to let them in. You’re using the crowd’s actions to paint the congressmen a forcing their way in just as the right is claiming one of them body slammed one of the agents. Lies and rumors seem to end up being facts on the right.
LIke the mayor, the charges will be dropped. Habbas is too eager to please Trump and in her haste made the mistake of pressing charges.
“Again ICE’s agressive pushback”
ICE was not agressive.
These congressmen showed up unannounced with a mob.
Those at the gate appropriately denied entry to two alleged congressmend and a mob while they checked with superiors.
DOJ told them to secure the fascilty and allow the congressment to tour,
that took 90 minutes.
Meanwhile as a bus of prisoners came through the gates a mob including the congressmen forced their way in and assaulted LEOs.
After ICE resecured the fascility – the congressmen were given a tour.
That is NOT agressive pushback by ICE.
“result in a normal responce to counter it by putting hands on the officers. ”
If you have not been taught NEVER to put hands on a law officer – your parents are morons.
I do not agree with the law as it is. But it has been that way most of my life.
Merely putting hands on a LEO can be charged as Agrevated assault.
“Their aggression created the necessity to lay hands on the officers.”
There is never a necesity to lay hands on an officer.
Regardless the video is of SHOVING officers from the front and from behind who are doing their job.
“The charges will be dropped because of the lack of intent and the chaotic nature of the event. ”
Intent is self evident. The congressmen pushed multiple officer from both the front and the rear while they were trying to clear people who were trespassing.
The chaos was created by the mob trying to break in.
“The assault has to be shown that it was intentional”
Correct – when you raise your hands and shove – that is intentional.
“in this case it is not.”
Incorrect.
I do not agree with the law. But this is still under even MY libertarian values simple assult.
It is also deminimus and for a congressmen should be refered to congress for discipline.
for an ordinary person who accepts responsibility it should result in a suspended sentence and expungement after a year. But that does not change the fact that it is a crime.
Conversely if you do NOT accept that is conduct is not allowed and will not be repeated – then you should be convicted.
You may not interfere with law enforcement when they are doing their job – Even if you beleive they are wrong and lawless. Pretty much the only time you can phyiscally thwart law enforcement is if they are using deadly force AND they are doing so in violation of the law and you DAMN WELL BETTER BE RIGHT.
“Then as you pointed out Habba’s involvement poses a problem because she can be shown to be doing this to please Trump. He motivation for the charges can very likely be construed as politically motivated.”
Habba’s involvment changes nothing. Frankly she behaved with restraint.
I would not have dropped the tresspassing charges against the Mayor.
But I would have refered the congressmen to congress for discipline.
Regardless, your guesses as to Habba’s motives are irrelevant.
Do you have EVIDENCE that Habba has used govenrment power unlawfully ?
“The congressmen were not forcing their way in.”
Please watch all the video of course they were.
They and the rest of the mob broke in when a bus full of prisoners entered.
ICE then used force to remove everyone who illegally entered when the gate opened to allow the Bus in. This congressmen resisted being removed by FORCE.
LATER ICE gave the two congressmen and ONLY them a tour – after they had secured the fascilty.
“They were allowed in by ICE. ”
That was later.
“Using the crowd forcing their way in and conflate it as them forcing their way in is a poor excuse.” They were part of the crowd.
“They knew who the congressmen were.”
Again they were part of the crowd at the time.
LEO’s trying to remove a crowd of tresspasssers does not stop doing that to check ID’s.
If you are part of the crowd – you follow their directions. You certainly do not push and shove LEO’s.
“I did not say I expected ICE not to check their ID’s don’t start putting words in my mouth. ”
No you assumed that LEO’s magically know who is allowed to force their way in and who is not, and who in the crowd is allowed to be there and who is not.
“ICE had to deal with the crowd forcing their way in”
And the congressmen entered as part of that crowd and resisted being removed as part of that crowd.
“but the congressmen were already allowed in because ICE was required to let them in.”
While you have a number of timing issues – ICE is allowed to confirm their ID and that involved MORE than just checking an ID card against their face. And they are allowed to secure the fascity so that the tour is safe for the congressmen.
The fact that they were allowed in – is why they were not charged with tresspassing.
It is why they got a tour later.
It does NOT change the fact that they can not FORCE their way in or use FORCE to preclude their own removal or that of others. Particularly in the midst of a mele that they were part of and caused by the people they brought with them.
” You’re using the crowd’s actions to paint the congressmen a forcing their way in just as the right is claiming one of them body slammed one of the agents.”
They brought the crowd. they were part of the crowd, they participated in the actions of the crowd.
Watching the video “body slam” is a bit of an exageration. “agressively and intentionally shove” would be actually accurate. But the legal standard for assault on a LEO is “lay hands on” and that was easily met.
Regardless, they used FORCE when it was not permissible to do so.
Several people have compared this to J6 defendants actions.
Some parts of that comparison ARE valid. And had the DC attorney stuck to the CLEAR cases of use of force, and had the convictions and sentences been comensurate with those of others that used FORCE in protests there would not have been thousands of arrests, and there would be no pardons. But DOJ radically overreached and turned a number of deminimus offenses into capital offenses. They overplayed their hand.
I do not agree with Habba’s choices – the mayor should be prosecuted – thought any sentence and conviction will be minimal. The congressmen should be refered to congress.
As others have noted – this is worse than Santos’s conduct.
“Lies and rumors seem to end up being facts on the right.”
Or you can watch the many many videos.
“Like the mayor, the charges will be dropped.”
Possibly, While this is a dead bang winner case, it is NOT truly significant.
Even a conviction would likely result in a suspended sentence and eventual expungement.
The BIG deal here is actually the “massaging” – and democrats LOST.
You used FORCE against LEO’s who were detaining Violent criminals.
This is not peacefully sitting at a whites only lunch counter.
You picked the wrong issue. You picked the wrong people to defend,
and you have the wrong visuals.
Even if you win – you lose.
You say Habba shoudl dismiss the charges. I suspect you are correct and she will eventually.
Just as the DC J6 prosecutors should have, just as Jack SMith should have, just as Fanni Willis should have, Just as Leticia James should have, just as Bragg should have.
And those cases were more egregious.
There were no crimes there, but there were first amendment rights.
Here we are dealing with congressional rights and deminimus crimes.
Habba should and likely will eventually dismiss charges after some agreement.
But that does not change the FACT that the congressmens actions violated the law.
John Say,
Well said and an excellent take down of the slow and dumb one. Good on you for doing so, but the slow and dumb one’s comments are not really worth your time. I generally just scroll past.
“ICE was not agressive.
These congressmen showed up unannounced with a mob.
Those at the gate appropriately denied entry to two alleged congressmend and a mob while they checked with superiors.
DOJ told them to secure the fascilty and allow the congressment to tour,
that took 90 minutes.”
They are legally allowed to show up unannounced. They are not allegedly congresesmen. They were members of Congress. The mob, were protesters who were there legally. Because they entered the outer gate as a bus went thru is not an assault on ICE agents. ICE was indeed agressive with the protesters and the ensuing chaos resulted in the Congresswoman “assualting” an agent. There’s plenty to dispute in court.
““result in a normal responce to counter it by putting hands on the officers. ”
If you have not been taught NEVER to put hands on a law officer – your parents are morons.”
There is precedent for defensive actions against overly aggresive law enforcement. You have a right to defend yourself against excessive force or unlawful force. ICE’s aggressive actions forcing people to come in contact with officers and issue “assault” charges is the oldest trick in the book. Oftentimes such charges are dismissed when the totality of the circumstances are taken into account.
“ They brought the crowd. they were part of the crowd, they participated in the actions of the crowd.“
That does not make the crowd’s actions the Congressmen’s. They had no control over the crowd if they pushed past the outer gate.
“Watching the video “body slam” is a bit of an exageration. “agressively and intentionally shove” would be actually accurate. But the legal standard for assault on a LEO is “lay hands on” and that was easily met.”
The charges will still have to be determined on the totality of the circumstances. The LEO’s were pushing onto the crowd and shoving people iliciting a natural response of protecting yourself from being shoved to the ground. Again, the charges are almost certain to be dismissed.
“Regardless, they used FORCE when it was not permissible to do so.”
Unforced reactions cannot be deemed intentional when officers are shoving everyone around. It is permissible if it’s excessive or to prevent injury. You are allowed to defend yourself from harm. You are not just supposed to just stand there and be subject to being shoved.
“ I do not agree with Habba’s choices – the mayor should be prosecuted – thought any sentence and conviction will be minimal. The congressmen should be refered to congress.“
The mayor did nothing wrong. He was told to leave and he did. ICE went past the outer gates and proceeded to arrest the mayor as he was leaving. That would have been an unlawful arrest and that’s why Habba could not press charges. He comanded to leave and he did. No crime was committed.
“ Like the mayor, the charges will be dropped.”
Possibly, While this is a dead bang winner case, it is NOT truly significant.
Even a conviction would likely result in a suspended sentence and eventual expungement.“
Again, there will be on conviction since there evidence will have to rely on the totality of the circumstances. The likely outcome will be the charges will be dismissed or a fine will be issued. Congressmen have done far worse and still retained their office. This is nothing.
“You say Habba shoudl dismiss the charges. I suspect you are correct and she will eventually.”
Of course she will dismiss the charges. She doesn’t have much of a case. She is just trying to impress Trump and show how “tough” she is with democrats. It’s a pony show. It’s the optics of charging a congresswoman that matter to Trump and MAGA. Not the results or the merits. Just the idea of showing MAGA nutties that they are “upholding the law”.
It was a rodeo stunt. Luckily no one was injured.
Dugan is not a federal official – and immunity does NOT apply to all federal officials.
Dugan DOES have immunity as an officer of the court for her official actions.
But that does not extend to actual crimes.
Two Judges in Luzerne county PA were convicted of bribery for sentencing juveniles to a fascility that was giving them kickbacks. Biden just pardoned one of them.
Are you saying they have official immunity ?
SOME of the acts Dugan is charged for – telling defendants they can request zoom hearings, or directing ICE to the cheif judge are official acts and do have immunity – though they are still admissible as evidence of intent.
Other actions tuch as escorting Ruis out through the jury room – are not official acts and are not subject to immunity any more than the judges who took bribes in return for specific sentences.
Judges do have immunity. That immunity is actually STRONGER than the presidents.
The president can not be prosecuted while in office. Out of office the courts can conduct a 3 part test to determine immunity.
Judges are not immune while in office. But they have absolute and unreviewable immunity for official acts.
I would not congressmen also have immunity. I think THAT immunity extends to the acts of these congressmen. But congressional immunity does NOT extend to discipline by congress.
“Two Judges in Luzerne county PA were convicted of bribery for sentencing juveniles to a fascility that was giving them kickbacks. Biden just pardoned one of them.”
Because they were actual crimes commited. Immunity does not extend to Bribery charges. Plus they were found guilty on evidence.
“Judges are not immune while in office. But they have absolute and unreviewable immunity for official acts.”
Wrong, all their actions are reviewable. There are judicial conduct committees, ethics committees, etc.
“Other actions tuch as escorting Ruis out through the jury room – are not official acts and are not subject to immunity any more than the judges who took bribes in return for specific sentences.”
Telling Ruiz to exit thru the jury room is within the authority of the judge. It’s not the same as taking bribes. Judges have full authority to tell anyone in their courtroom what can and cannot be done. If a judge directs anyone to use a certain exit they can do that. It’s not a crime.
“But they have absolute and unreviewable immunity for official acts.”
That includes what happens inside their courtrooms. How is directing someone to use an exit other than the public one a crime or an unofficial act. Ruiz was still under Judge Dugan’s authority in her courtroom. She could have told him to remain in the courtroom and still be an offical act as a judge. Directing him to leave through the jury room is also an official act as a judge in control of her courtroom.
“SOME of the acts Dugan is charged for – telling defendants they can request zoom hearings, or directing ICE to the cheif judge are official acts and do have immunity – though they are still admissible as evidence of intent.”
Wrong, SCOTUS made that clear. You can’t use official acts as evidence of intent. Just as evidence using official acts could not be used to charge Trump.
It is very likely her charges will be dismissed and she might get a reprimand instead.
“Because they were actual crimes commited. Immunity does not extend to Bribery charges. Plus they were found guilty on evidence.”
Obstructing LEO’s is an ACTUAL crime.
“There are judicial conduct committees, ethics committees, etc.”
That is not criminal review. Congress can investigate the unreviewable actions of a president. You do not know what unreviewable means.
“Telling Ruiz to exit thru the jury room is within the authority of the judge. ”
No and she did not tell him she physically escorted him.
Court was NOT in session at the time. She was not engaged in an official act.
“It’s not the same as taking bribes.”
No. It is also not the same as murder.
It is a significantly lessor crime.
But it is still a crime.
“Judges have full authority to tell anyone in their courtroom what can and cannot be done.”
Judges control the courtroom while court is in session. When it is NOT it is just a room.
She ended the hearings and escorted Ruis out of the room.
” If a judge directs anyone to use a certain exit they can do that. It’s not a crime.”
It is if it is for the purpose of evading law enforcement.
“That includes what happens inside their courtrooms.”
No it is for what happens when court is in session.
A judge can not murder someone in their courtroom – even if court is in session.
“How is directing someone to use an exit other than the public one a crime or an unofficial act. ”
It is not an official act.
But it is an effort to avoid aprehension by law enforcement and that is a crime.
“Ruiz was still under Judge Dugan’s authority in her courtroom.”
Not true and not relevant.
“She could have told him to remain in the courtroom and still be an offical act as a judge.”
Loosely correct – as long as court remained in session ICE could not come in and arrest Ruis. The moment she ended the seassion ICE was free to take Ruis.
Arguably she could have kept court in session for days.
“Directing him to leave through the jury room is also an official act as a judge in control of her courtroom.” Nope.
“Wrong, SCOTUS made that clear. You can’t use official acts as evidence of intent. Just as evidence using official acts could not be used to charge Trump.”
False. And not at all the same. Please read the case.
Though honestly it is still mostly irrelevant.
Presidential immunity and judicial immunity are significantly different in a large number of respects.
Presidential immunity is far broader. But some portions only apply while the president is in office. Judicial immunity is much narrower but lasts forever.
“It is very likely her charges will be dismissed and she might get a reprimand instead.”
I doubt they will be dismissed.
My bet is a plea agreement for a suspended sentence, resigning as judge, suspending he law license, and a felony conviction with no time, that is expunged after a year or two.
I do not see dismissal. That is far too dangerous. Not even other judges if they think for a second want to see judges or anyone else beleiving they can interfere with law enforcement while they are performing their jobs.
It is way too dangerous.
This case is NOT the perfect case for the reasons we have laws baring interference with law enforcement. But we still have those laws for very good reason.
“Court was NOT in session at the time. She was not engaged in an official act.”
It’s irrelevant if the court was in session or not. She is still a judge exercising her power as a judge within her courtroom. Those are official acts. Escorting Ruiz thru the jury room is not a crime and well within her authority as a judge to do so. It’s not evidence of evasion or preventing an arrest. ICE had him in sight the moment he stepped out of the courtroom.
“Presidential immunity and judicial immunity are significantly different in a large number of respects.”
So, the point is still valid. SCOTUS ruled that official acts cannot be used as evidence to prove a different charge is valid. It appllies to the judge as does the president because it applies when the president is out of office too.
“False. And not at all the same. Please read the case.”
Perhaps you should read the case again. SCOTUS was pretty clear about that. SCOTUS did not say it applied only to the president.
“My bet is a plea agreement for a suspended sentence, resigning as judge, suspending he law license, and a felony conviction with no time, that is expunged after a year or two.”
ROLF! You just want to see her punished to the maximum extent possible regardless of the law.
“ I do not see dismissal. That is far too dangerous. Not even other judges if they think for a second want to see judges or anyone else beleiving they can interfere with law enforcement while they are performing their jobs.“
That’s the problem. She didn’t interfere with law enforcement. They had Ruiz in their sights the moment he stepped out of the jury room exit. The judge did not prevent his apprehension or obstructed it. That’s your assumption not the facts.
Judges have a lot of leeway in what goes inside their courtrooms and you even admit the majority of the charges she has immunity. Her argument on immunity will most certainly lead to a dismissal of the charges upon the totality of the circumstances.
“It is way too dangerous.”
It’s dangerous because Trump’s DOJ wants to undermine the courts in any way possible. He’s threatened impeachment of any judge that rules against him and he’s called for the prosecution of judges who defy him. Dictators tend to do that kind of thing. Why do you support dictators John?
George – Please keep arguing for lawless conduct by judges and congressmen.
One of the HUGE issues in these events is that immunity REALLY does not matter.
But Dugan and the congressmen were seeking to prevent the deportation of violent criminals.
They were NOT trying to thwart the deportation of an illegal immigrant mother and her us citizen daughter.
John Say,
Nothing say it better than There’s No Love Like the Democrats’ Love of Illegal Alien Criminals
https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/05/19/theres-no-love-like-the-democrats-love-of-illegal-alien-criminals/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
“George – Please keep arguing for lawless conduct by judges and congressmen.”
It’s not lawless conduct. They have not been found guilty of anything yet and more likely that they won’t.
“One of the HUGE issues in these events is that immunity REALLY does not matter.‘
Apparently it does. Even you make the point that judges have more immunity than a president.
“But Dugan and the congressmen were seeking to prevent the deportation of violent criminals.‘
Wrong, Congressmen were seeking to inspect a facility and judge Dugan was seeking to clarify policy regarding ICE apprehensions in courthouses. Dugan did not prevent anyone from apprehending Ruiz, in fact ICE was in full view of Ruiz as he exited the courtroom.
They have not been found guilty of anything yet .
Then don’t count your chickens
Dustoff,
Unfortunately I think the good professor is correct, they will have jurors who will vote find them innocent even if the evidence is overwhelming and the defense is non-existent.
Yes, calculated. Lots of publicity. It’s a very expensive stunt. Hand the case over to someone, Alina, and get on with other work. LaMonica wants publicity and find out who’s paying for her defense. Hopefully not her gigolo with vacays…
“It’s not lawless conduct. They have not been found guilty of anything yet and more likely that they won’t.”
Of course it is. They have not been found guilty of the alleged illegal conduct.
But the conduct is both illegal and WRONG.
“Apparently it does. Even you make the point that judges have more immunity than a president.”
You are still fighting the legal battle. What matters is the political battle.
The lawfare against Trump failed – because most people did not perceive the conduct alleged as a crime or lawless.
Trying to keep murders rapists and violent thugs from getting deported is to 90% of people lawless conduct – whether it is an actual crime or whether the accused can be proven to have engaged in the conduct.
The SCOTUS immunity decision – which I beleive was incorrect. The correct decision is impeach, remove, prosecute. There is no role for the courts in determining the scope of presidential immuntiy.
Regardless a major but not constittuional factor was that the alleged criminal conduct was NOT perceived to be criminal.
People heard the go peacefully and protest speech.
They KNEW trump was angry about the stolen election.
The left was trying to criminalize challenging elections – only those they had won.
And while that was not the issue before the court.
People understand that even if you are wrong, you should never br prosecued for doing everything legally in your power to fight what you perceive as injustice.
As Homan has said repeatedly – protest, go to court, but DO NOT directly interfere with a LEO doing their job.
“Wrong, Congressmen were seeking to inspect a facility”
ROFL
They were after a sound bite.
Frankly they were likely after exactly what they got.
What you and the left do not grasp is you are NOT coming off like MLK or Ghandi,
You are coming off as lunatics defending criminals.
And no they were not seeking to inpsect a fascility – while they were doing that – because it was what the law allowed – and I am fine with that.
All you need to know their intentions was to listen to their and the crowds chants.
You are opposed to deporting violent criminals.
Please say that as loud as possible as often as possible.
“and judge Dugan was seeking to clarify policy regarding ICE apprehensions in courthouses.”
No clarification is needed. While the court is in session – ICE can not interfere – unless they have a judicial warrant. When the court is not in session, ICE can come into the court room and remove anyone they want.
That is not policy – it is the LAW.
It is not even just the law regarding ICE.
If someone assaults someone in a courtroom – the sherrifs are going to arrest them and drag them out of court, and the judges can not stop that.
Judges are not given superpowers. Except while court is in session they are no different from ordinary people. They may not break the law, they may not impeded law enforcement in the execution of the law.
As the constitution states – judges preside over cases and controveries.
A judges authority STARTS when OTHERS bring a case to them – not before,
and it is limited to the case before them. They do not get to go off on their own.
“Dugan did not prevent anyone from apprehending Ruiz”
She attempted to and failed.
” in fact ICE was in full view of Ruiz as he exited the courtroom.”
Not true and not relevant.
Dugan was unaware that there were 6 rather than 5 DEA agents.
She THOUGHT she was sneaking him out.
Regardless, she made the arrest much more difficult.
But even if the DEA agent had arrested Ruiz just as he exited the jury room.
It would still be a crime.
Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime.
Bank robbers do not get away with bank robbery if they are surrounded by LEOs and can not escape.
“No clarification is needed. While the court is in session – ICE can not interfere – unless they have a judicial warrant. When the court is not in session, ICE can come into the court room and remove anyone they want.”
Actually there was clarification needed because the ICE did not have a judicial warrant. There was a policy about arrest inside courtrooms which are NOT allowed regarless of a court being in session or not. A courtroom is the domain of a judge. It’s not a public space. The hallways of the courthouse are a public space.
“A judges authority STARTS when OTHERS bring a case to them – not before,
and it is limited to the case before them. They do not get to go off on their own.”
Judges authority is within their courtrooms. They control what happens and what goes on in them. Their authority does not diminish when the court is not in session and not while they are in the courtroom.
“You are opposed to deporting violent criminals.
Please say that as loud as possible as often as possible.”
I never said I am opposed to deporting violent criminals. Putting words into people’s mouths is beneath you John. Don’t go there.
“ Dugan was unaware that there were 6 rather than 5 DEA agents.
She THOUGHT she was sneaking him out.
Regardless, she made the arrest much more difficult.‘
False, you’re making assumptions based on nothing but your imagination. You don’t know what the judge was thinking and you don’t know what her motives were.
“But even if the DEA agent had arrested Ruiz just as he exited the jury room.
It would still be a crime.”
But it’s not a crime to let someone out thru the jury room. It would be very hard to prove intent and you know that. There’s a very strong likelyhood that the charges will be dismissed and the most she would get is a reprimand or a strong rebuke from the chief judge. We’ll just have to see how her case goes.
I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the breakdown of civil society led by progressive Democrats and supporters of illegal immigration. They, and some of the illegal migrants, are embracing the lawless society and lawless politicians from which the illegal migrants are fleeing. The concern is that our progressive politicians and judges, and progressive citizens, are not smart enough to see how they are being duped.
Professor Turley, I enjoy reading your commentaries that harken back to a time before Trump Derangement Syndrome sweep the country. The Democrats you are writing about are terminally deranged. Dealing with the Democrats of today is like deal with an elderly relative with advanced Alzheimer. I have done the latter and refuse to even try to do the former.
Looking forward to the US House expelling LaMonica McIver (D-NJ).
When pigs fly – no reference to LaMonica
Why was George Santos expelled from the House? Here are the charges and allegations against him
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-santos-charges-allegations/
McIver and House Democrats insisted that McIver’s forcing her way into the facility might be trespass and assault for other citizens, but she was merely exercising “legislative oversight.”
Then the J6ers were merely exercising constitutionally protected “citizen oversight” of the Legislative branch.
No there were execising the first amendment right to petition the government which is MORE protected than congressional oversight.
Dude, it was meant in jest to reflect their hypocrisy.
I understand that – but there is an order of magnitude difference between exercising a constitutional right, and exercising a congressional privilege.
The constitution says SHALL NOT INFRINGE about the former.
What you don’t seem to understand is that I don’t need your lecture. My estimate is this blog doesn’t need 99% of the comments it gets. JT provides fairly comprehensive posts that don’t require further clarity for those with a basic understanding of constitutional law and common sense. Yes, we have the deeply afflicted TDS sufferers that may lack the former, but they most certainly lack the latter. George is a different creature altogether. It would not shock me in the least if it were revealed that George was your alter-ego. You’re like opposite sides of a magnet. I only need to read one side and I already know what the other side will respond.
But hey, you do you. I’m certain plenty of people enjoy it.
That comment was from OLLY.
“No there were execising the first amendment right to petition the government which is MORE protected than congressional oversight.‘
Using violence is not exercising their first amendment right to petition the government. Assaulting police officers and destroying government property and tresspassing is not petitioning the government.
congressional oversight.
******************
This was NO congressional oversight, it was a fight with officers. You cannot push or grab them. Period!
“Using violence is not exercising their first amendment right to petition the government. ”
Correct – and provide the video of exactly that and I will convict.
The congressmen is on video shoving police officers multiple times.
The Rose Boylan video has Boylan and others Sheilding themselves from blows by CP officers.
No doubt there are some at J6 that ACTUALLY initiated violence – but the left so corrupted the invvestigation that sorting that out was not worth the effort.
“Assaulting police officers and destroying government property”
Correct, and again provide evidence of that.
“tresspassing is not petitioning the government.”
Entering congress while it is in session is not tresspassing.
Congressional sessions are public. Our legislatures conduct their business in PUBLIC.
You can not tresspass on the legislature doing its business.
Either the certification was open to the public or it was not constitutionally valid.
Take your pick.
You can not thwart petitioning govenrment, by denying people access to government.
You are NOT free to use power to game constitutional rights.
George we get into this with those of you on the left all the time.
The law – particularly first amendment law is extremely well developed.
We have already looked in nearly all the nooks and crannies.
There are few cases that occur that are NOT issues that have long ago been worked out revised worked out again and again, in a process that moves towards perfection without reaching it.
The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law”
long ago SCOTUS established that the government can not use an otherwise legitimate law as a pretext to infringe on constitutional rights.
The law regarding Tresspass is perfectly valid – until it infringes on first amendment rights.
Then it MUST yield.
If you could charge people with Tresspass for trying to petition congress in the capital while congress was in session – Congress would NEVER allow the public into the capitol.
Pelosi used covid as an excuse to thwart protests. But even if that was NOT her intention – if that was the effect – then the application of the laws is unconstitutional.
This is not new, and it is not specific to the first amendment.
When SCOTUS tossed the 18USC1512c convictions it did so because DOJ’s read of 1512C was over broad.
That Sounded like just the personal views of justices.
But what does overbroad mean and why is it unconstitutional ?
The constitution does not mention overbroad.
Overbroad laws or interpretations of them are unconstitutional for many reasons but top among them is that overbroad laws ALWAYS infring on rights.
While SCOTUS did not specifically cite the first amendment in its decision – the entire bill of rights as well as unenumerated rights are ALWAYS implicate d by over board.
Overbroad is supreme court “jargon” for creates a super highway to large scale violations of numerous rights – including the first amendment.
There have been myriads of decisions specificly about protestors in the capitol in the past.
They are almost never prosecuted because the 1st amendment is ALWAYS implicated.
“If you could charge people with Tresspass for trying to petition congress in the capital while congress was in session – Congress would NEVER allow the public into the capitol.”
Free speech does not trump violent tresspass and assaulting LEO’s. Petitioning congress does not mean breaking into secure areas of government and ransacking the place while attacking and threatening law enforcement. Free speech rights are not absolute.
Trump is using the threat of deportation to silence dissent making any arrest to deport unconstitutional. I’m sure you would agree since a courts have already found two students were unlawfully arrested for exercising their free speech rights. Ozturk, and one other. Khalil should be next.
Sounds like language naming sabotage. Look up the penalty for sabotage. Free speech you say? Not when it’s followed by actual sabotage of a known group, Democrat. It is sabotage.
Intermittent Explosive Disorder is real. It’s emotional. The constant barage of emotionalism by media is the cause. Free speech?
It’s simple sabotage. Two come to mind. One, Mayorkas overwhelming the immigration system and then announcing to congress the immigration system is broken. Now fix it. Simple fix is to employ mass deportation because mass importation was employed. Two, Pete Buttigieg DOD with train crashes and explosions and others.
It’s sabotage. How many legs do people have, KBJ? I can’t say. You have your pants on. I’m not a tailor and 53 Senators confirmed her?
Left Wing Radical Woke DEM thugs get what they deserve. Throw her in Jail.
Under this logic, the J6ers did noting wrong. I say arrest each and every one who obstructs federal law.
While there are similarities, there are substantial differences with respect to J6.
ICE fascilities are NOT government created public forumns for free speech. The Capitol is.
J6ers were excercising a constitutional right. Further contra the DC courts Tresspass while congress was in session is impossible.
The claimed obstruction of the certification was always bogus. While SCOTUS ruled on the narrow grounds that 18 USC 1512 did not cover this. The real issue was that any law that actually did cover the efforts of J6ers to protest certification would be unconstitutional.
On J6 democrats had absolutely no intention of allowing the voices of J6ers to be heard.
Conversely congressmen have a constitutional right to conduct oversight.
While Turley is correct that does not mean showing up whereever you want whenever you want and forcing your way in, ICE was actually accomodating – ICE/DHS under trump have said they WANT 24 hours notice. But even at this instance – where these represenatives showed up unannounced, The fascility was attempting to provide access – and ultimately did.
This was a secure fascility with dangerous people. They could not just let congress in when they knocked on the door. They had to move dangerous detainees where they would not be a threat to congress, and they had to coordinate with DHS and DOJ regarding access.
This took about 90minutes to accomplish.
Frankly I m surprised they got in at all. They would not have under Biden or Obama.
“While Turley is correct that does not mean showing up whereever you want whenever you want and forcing your way in, ICE was actually accomodating – ICE/DHS under trump have said they WANT 24 hours notice.”
ICE does not require 24 hr notice. None. They MAY request a 24 hr notice, but Congressmen or their staff can show up unannounced at any time.
“a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Homeland Security by this Act may be used to prevent any of the following persons from
entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the
Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens, or to make any
temporary modification at any such facility that in any way alters what is observed by a
visiting member of Congress or such designated employee, compared to what would be
observed in the absence of such modification:
(1) A Member of Congress.
(2) An employee of the United States House of Representatives or the United States
Senate designated by such a Member for the purposes of this section.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide
prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of
conducting oversight.
(c) With respect to individuals described in subsection (a)(2), the Department of Homeland
Security may require that a request be made at least 24 hours in advance of an intent to enter
a facility described in subsection (a).”
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention/iceFacilityVisitationCongressional.pdf
That they WANT 24 notice is irrelevant. They are not required to be notified at all. ICE cannot deny congressmen and their staff entry for the purpose of oversight.
George you can not read your own cites. Please read what you wrote, and please read the entire document you linked.
It does NOT say what you think.
Separately as a practical matter – only a Moron thinks that an alleged congressmen is showing up as part of a mob and being allowed in a facility with dangerous people instantly.
The policy you cite REQUIRES Congressional staff to provide 24hrs notice.
And limits access to congressmen and their ACTUAL staff – not a mob or local mayors.
Further the policy allows ICE to verify the ID of congressmen. That is NOT something that can be done instantly.
It allows ICE time to secure the fascility for EVERYONE’s safety before allowing the congressmen it.
These congressmen were allowed in the fascility within 90 minutes – that seems quite reasonable for a surprise visit.
“The policy you cite REQUIRES Congressional staff to provide 24hrs notice.”
Wrong.
Policy requires STAFF not Congressmen to provide 24 hrs notice. Congressmen are not staff. They make that pretty clear. It seems you are the one who is not paying attention to what you re reading.
“Facility Entry Requirements:
• Members of Congress: ICE will comply with the law and accommodate Members seeking to
visit/tour an ICE detention facility for the purpose of conducting oversight.
• Congressional staff: ICE requires at least 24-hours advance notice of an upcoming visit by
Congressional staff. Failure to meet this requirement will result in denied access to the
facility.”
They make a distinction between STAFF and Congressmen.
“(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide
prior notice of the intent to enter a facility described in subsection (a) for the purpose of
conducting oversight.”
Here it talks about a MEMBER OF CONGRESS, not staff.
“Further the policy allows ICE to verify the ID of congressmen. That is NOT something that can be done instantly.”
Sure it can. Every Congressman has a congressional ID. It takes no time to identify as a Congressman. Just as simple as showing ID to vote.
“ It allows ICE time to secure the fascility for EVERYONE’s safety before allowing the congressmen it.“
Every facility should already be secure. You think they are not secure when congressmen are not there? These facilities should always be secure, not just when officials visit. It’s not a supermax prison. It’s just a detention facility where immigrants are detained. It’s not like they are roaming around freely inside. It shouldn’t take more than 2 hrs to “secure” the facility. The purpose of unnanounced visits is to prevent any hiding or removing evidence of abuse or violations, right? You won’t catch any violations or abuses by giving them more than 2 hrs to “tidy up” any issues.
Facilities should be secure the moment they are to be inspected and access shouldn’t take longer than 15mins after ID’s and security pat are done. Your excuses and that of ICE are meant to delay and hide things.
The congressmen showed up with a small army – many were not even staff.
Most were not allowed in at all.
Many without 24hrs notice.
Congressmen are allowed in by POLICY without notice – but NOT instantly.
There identity must be verified AND the fascility secured.
In this case that took 90minutes – by the congressmen OWN admission.
You get into a rant about ID – there are 535 members of congress. ICE officers do not know each by sight. ID can be forged. If I were to bet most ICE officers have never seen a congressional ID, They have no idea how to tell a forgery.
And you are a moron if you think that if congressional ID will get you into a secure fascility that no one will forge a congressional ID.
Drivers licenses have antiforgery measures, passports have antiforgery measures.
And still they get forged.
Elsewhere on Turley there is some wing nut ranting that Student ID’s are not accepted to vote in some states.
Student ID’s are far easier to forge, further Student ID’s do NOT prove eligibility to vote. Some states allow student ID’s – but they then impose requirements on the colleges that those ID’s must meet.
No a congressional ID is not enough. But it is a start. Given some time, ICE can verify that the person at the gate is actually a congressmen.
“Every facility should already be secure. ”
They must always be secure – in that those inside can not escape.
They are always secure in that random people on the outside can not get it.
They are SUPOSED to be always secure in that staff are kept safe from prisoners.
None of that is to say that they are secure such that Congresmen or random people can wander arround inside without risk to anyone.
“You think they are not secure when congressmen are not there?”
My use of Secure in THIS context is that people other than staff can wander through the facility safely.
“It’s not a supermax prison.”
This specific NJ fascility is pretty close to that.
It is specifically dedicated to violent criminals.
At the time that the congressmen were visiting there were several murderers and rapists in detention.
“It’s just a detention facility where immigrants are detained.”
No this specific fascility was for immigrants who were also criminals.
“It’s not like they are roaming around freely inside.”
In most prisons there are large areas where prisoners wander arround freely.
In most detention centers there are not Cells for detainees.
So NO securing the fascility so that people who are NOT staff can enter is non trivial.
“It shouldn’t take more than 2 hrs to “secure” the facility.”
I would bet that ICE staff have DAYS of training before they are allowed to enter a detention fascility. Congressmen have NOT had this training.
Staff must keep them safe.
Keeping someone ELSE safe is completely different from keeping yourself safe after extensive training.
“The purpose of unnanounced visits is to prevent any hiding or removing evidence of abuse or violations, right?”
Nope, the purpose of congressional oversite is to assure that the law is faithfully executed.
“You won’t catch any violations or abuses by giving them more than 2 hrs to “tidy up” any issues.”
Congressional oversite is NOT policing. It is not about “tidying up”
“Facilities should be secure the moment they are to be inspected and access shouldn’t take longer than 15mins after ID’s and security pat are done. Your excuses and that of ICE are meant to delay and hide things.”
I am a huge proponent of congressional oversight.
As I noted in another post, I would let members of congress and their staff into any govenrment fascility with reasonable notice and give them exactly the same access as DOGE. Lets have congress – each party independently root out corruption waste fraud and abuse.
But no I am not allowing a congressmen into a fascility that holds rapists and murders without securing the fascility first.
I do not think there is a one size fits all rule. You note this is not a supermax prison – but some ICE fascilities are very dangerous places, this one is one of the more dangerous ones. Others are not. ASAP does not mean the same in all cases.
I am NOT especially worried about the executive branch hiding conditions.
I am worried about their hiding documents. And that is addressed by subpeonas, not oversite visits.
What is it you think that ICE was doing for 90minutes ?
Hiding the medeivil torture devices in the closet ?
If you are going to presume evil behavior that you are trying to catch, you should have a rational idea of what you think might be covered up.
I would further note 99% of the staff is people who were here under Biden.
Probably 60% were here under Trump 45, probably 25% were here under Obama.
If anything the staff is vast majority democrat. ICE staff is not some horde of MAGA cultists anywhere except in your head.
They are people doing a difficult job.
Their BOSSES might be people you hate.
But they are not.
George PLEASE read before you respond.
24hrs notice for STAFF is REQUIRED.
We both agree.
The law cited”
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-93), Division D –
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2020, Sec. 532:
Specifically refers to DHS spending money to HIDE things from congress.
While there is a note that allows DHS to require prior approval for congressional staff.and And no such requirement for congressmen.
Nowhere does sec 532 say if a congressmen shows up on your door you must let him in instantly or in 5 minutes. Only that they do not need 24hrs notice.
They got in in 90minutes on an unannounced visit – as surprise inspection.
I am fine with that.
If your not – cite law that provides differently.
You have not done so thus far.
George – you are citing to a policy – that policy separately cites to a law that you do NOT provide.
The Policy says ICE wants 24hrs notice. It does NOT say that notice is optional.
The LAW might – but you do not cite the law.
“The Policy says ICE wants 24hrs notice. It does NOT say that notice is optional.
The LAW might – but you do not cite the law.‘
John, I’m sure you can find it on your own. I have high confidence that you can easily find it.
It does not matter what ICE wants. The law does not require a 24 hr notice. The whole point of showing up unannounced at any time is to prevent the hiding of abuses and/or violations of policy and standards that might be in plain view.
The notices IS optional for members of Congress. It’s not for STAFF.
You never cite rules, laws, or statutes when you argue certain issues. I’m sure you are prefectly capable of finding it yourself. But the policy itself makes it very clear that members of Congress are not required to give 24 hrs notice. Only that ICE may request it.
Staff on the other hand ARE required to give 24 hrs notice.
John, I’m sure you can find it on your own,
__________
In other words. I don’t have the answer…. Jezzzzz george
i am not trying to claim policy is law.
The burden is on YOU.
Further you have no credibility here.
You have been caught lying so many times.
And like this you constantly cite non authoratative sources.
This is actually better than your norm.
Usually we get “some reporter says that an anonymous source said that what Trump really meant to say was …”
When we have what Trump actually said.
“You never cite rules, laws, or statutes when you argue certain issues. ”
False, what I cite depends on the circumstances.
I constantly cite primary sources to deflate nonsense from idiots like yourself.
What I do that anoys you is that even though I very frequently do provide primary sources.
I legitimately claim that so long as I sustain a reputation for accuracy and for correcting my rare errors I do NOT need to cite sources.
And that is true.
I also assert that those such as yourself who are almost always wrong – not only need to cite sources, but PRIMARY sources.
I have zero intested in a cite or link from you that says
“some reporter says and anonymous sources says that what Trump really intended was X”.
Those of you on the left constantly Tell us what you BELEIVE trump and others said, not what they actually said.
You have done that to me several times today.
You have even quoted me, said I was wrong, and then said exactly the same thing I said.
You do not even read what YOU wrote.
Absolutely I can demand primary sources from you.
You are incredibly innaccurate.
Very sloppy. and it is rare that you string 5 words together with out atleast one error and a fallacy to boot.
Reputations are earned, they are individual.
Yours and mine are not the same.
They are based on the accuracy of our past remarks.
A reputation for credibility and accuracy entitles you to assert things without sources,
so long as those naked assertions prove over and over to be correct.
A reputation for sloppiness, and error, and lies entitles the rest of us to demand primary sources for everything you claim.
“I’m sure you are prefectly capable of finding it yourself.”
I am and I did. And you didn’t.
But more importantly again you made claims without primary sources and you do not have the credibility to do so.
“But the policy itself makes it very clear that members of Congress are not required to give 24 hrs notice. Only that ICE may request it.”
Correct. Policy is not law, further the policy (and the law) does not specify whether less than 24hrs notice can be asked – 23 ? 12 ? 2 ? 90 minutes.
One of the reasons for asking for the law, is because laws must be read narrowly
The relevant section of the law is mostly about funding
It does not require notice for congressmen. It does not say how quickly they must be let in without notice.
“Staff on the other hand ARE required to give 24 hrs notice.”
I have said exactly that multiple times and you have said I am wrong.
Even if Congressmen were legally permitted to have immediate access, that does NOT permit them to FORCE their way in or assault LEO’s
George,
Please have every single Democrat congressmen and their staff show up unannounced at facilities detaining dangerous criminal illegal aliens and demand immediate access and force their way in. assaulting LEO’s.
As Maya Angelou wrote – “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time”
or as Sun Tzu wrote “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”
While you are wrong on the law – though only by a little. The big deal was this all looks Horrible – so PLEASE keep alientating voters.
This is not members of congress throwing themselves between ICE and an illegal immigrant mother being separated from her US citizen infant.
This is the left engaging in criminal conduct for the worst of the worst.
For rapists and murderers.
Please keep it up.
Please continue to to everything you should NOT DO when engaged in “civil disobedience”
Please disregard everything that Tolstoy or Ghandi or Martin Luther King said about non-violent civil disobedience.
Please keep making yourselves look like fools.
John Say,
Oh, they are making themselves look like fools alright. Yep, keep on defending those criminal illegals, Democrats. Keep insisting you are fighting against something when the only thing you are fighting against is law and order. But to Democrats, law and order do not apply to them.
Upstate
If the GOP was smart. They could run adds on how the dems support game members
Dustoff,
I know you meant “gang members,” and not “game members,” but it still made me LOL!
I agree. I myself have pointed out how it is Democrats who are supporting rapists, murderers, human traffickers, spouse abusers, and more, with the evidence to back it up. They either ignore it, or try to use some lame word salad to refute the evidence of the arrests, charges, convictions, rap sheets, etc.
People are going crazy!
Maybe Christ’s return is earlier than Isaac Newton believed!
https://isaac-newton.org/statement-on-the-date-2060/
Imagine that. Democrats breaking laws, committing acts of violence against LEOs for doing their duty. Why am I not surprised. After all, the Democrat party has become the party of lawlessness.
Lawlessness, the party of… surely you jest. Really wanna stick with that?
You’re a farmer for reason and it ain’t because you think your an intellectual.
because you think your (sic) an intellectual
Yet another reminder, as if anyone needed one, that the DNC troll on here is a moron
I never claimed to be an intellectual. But I do have a degree of common sense to see what these people are doing and promoting is lawlessness.
And from what we have seen that supposedly passes for an “intellectual” in academia, that is a stain I would choose to avoid.
He right. You on the other hand….. ZIP
No, even Inspectors General cannot “wander at will” through executive branch agencies, lol. I recently retired after 32 years in a three-letter, executive branch agency, and I’ve never known an IG agent to not make an appointment when he or she wanted to interview an employee or manager.
what does this have to do with IG’s?
does the first word work???? Inspector
There is no Democrat party. What the “Democrat party” has morphed into is a group of various minorities, haters, perceived victims, socialists, Marxist and political fraudsters who are perverting our republic for their personal benefit.
Amen
It began in earnest during the “Summer of Love” in 2020, when outrageous, unlawful, and unruly behavior was tolerated and then celebrated. As long as there are no consequences for such behavior, it will continue, and now we see to sitting members of congress. This may be the operational strategy of the DOJ, as in “It will not stop until it is stopped.”
I disagree it started in the later 1960’s or early 70’s, and as of yet it hasn’t ended.
The real seeds of our national dysfunction began with woodrow wilson (a progressive academic by trade) encouraged the immigration of radical socialists and help ensconce them within our academic communities. The rot started their by inculcating socialist ideologies within our government and educational institutions. Joe McCarthy had the correct message but he was the wrong messenger. We would be better off at this point if the, already, progressive media and academia hadn’t so aggressively shut him down in order to hide their already functioning agenda.
When the leader of the Democratic Party says that the riots should not stop the riots will continue. Kamala gave the marching orders and her foot soldiers are simply carrying out her orders. The courts may not find them guilty but their comeuppance will occur on election day when only twenty seven percent of the American people approve of their flouting of the law. Immorality plain and simple.
I would hope that your 27% was accurate but there are far too many dependent on the government teat (by this I mean the entire spectrum from welfare recipients, government employees, government contractors to government grant recipients/student aid) that will fight to the end to protect the flow of government monies to themselves.
They stole a national election, an entire government, so of course they expect to get away with lesser crimes.
Republicans have to stop being nice!
Democrats HATE America…they need to be DESTORYED!
Destroyed huh? Why don’t you go out and destroy a couple and let us know how it went? Go ahead you stupid bigmouth.
Who supported BLM & ANTIFA. Yep the dems.
They even helped to raise money to post bail.
two part answer to DESTROY the Democrat Party for their 2nd Civil War Against America
Defund it
Time to END all Federal Aid to non-profits, cities, states, colleges/students
Ban all public unions, they are a political army for Democrats
JAIL IT
Punish Fascists Dems with a Nuremberg Trial, Germans LEARNED!
Jail by 1000’s across gov., (Judges, congress, etc) for their crimes
– Lawfare Trump and his people
– helping Illegals
– protecting Bidens and his people
– Sex change minors
– Cheating voting
– Taking Bribes
– COVID
More symptoms of a half century of brain damaging, mind altering FDA approved food poisoning, for greater Big Food, Big Med and Big Pharma profits. More details at https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d?view=about CGS
This is about money
The worse democrats make it…the more money they get.
Look at the absolute appalling people they install!
What is ironically hilarious about these prog black politicians and their base is that they have become the “Uncle Toms” of the old KKK party of dems. They bow to the prog ideology in order to keep their “massas” sending food and stuff their way. They can’t see themselves as the toadies that they are because the shiny objects that the dems toss to them keep them thinking that they are part of the power structure when they are merely props for the base of ignorant parasites.
You might be on to something there.
I seem to recall John C. Calhoun has been roundly criticized for this sort of nullification theory.
If these prog politicians can’t comprehend the rule of law then they have no business being part of any form of government – and that includes dog catcher. There should need to be an minimum test for mental proficiency to work for our government.