Protecting Law Enforcement Personnel. One of the Department of Justice’s top priorities is protecting law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels who protect us all. This includes aggressively investigating the all-too-common instances of violence against and obstruction of law enforcement, seeking the death penalty for those who perpetrate capital crimes against law enforcement, and backing and promoting the efforts of law enforcement when they are subjected to unfair criticism or attack.
Fuck da police, I guess
ACAB
No, he just made it legal (or unpunishable) to bribe elected officials and corporations, particularly by other countries:
Shifting Resources in the National Security Division. To free resources to address more pressing priorities, and end risks of further weaponization and abuses of prosecutorial discretion, the Foreign Influence Task Force shall be disbanded. Recourse to criminal charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and 18 U.S.C. § 951 shall be limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors. With respect to FARA and § 951, the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, including the FARA Unit, shall focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance.
The National Security Division’s Corporate Enforcement Unit is also disbanded. Personnel
assigned to the Unit shall return to their previous posts.
First amendment protections for speech expressing our grievances against our government are very well established. I think even this Supreme court will agree. We’ll see, but this is basic free speech. There are people who are against free speech or waver depending on the kind of speech. I’m all for free speech, even what some would call hate speech. I’m an advocate, and I know the law and precedents. I don’t think this has any legs.
I think even this Supreme court will agree
Something about a summer child
Just reported your comment to law enforcement.
This will be used by sheriffs widely.
Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests. The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and other litigating components of the Department shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution, including for obstructing federal functions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violations of other statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1373.
This is how they’re intending to respond to state and local authorities who, in compliance with their state law, refuse to assist ICE. This is setting the stage for federal vs state.
My money is on that they either blew through or are about to blow through the ICE budget and are going to attempt to force the local, county, and state police to do ICE jobs. These big stupid actions ICE is doing is both inefficient and expensive and while they probably have a budget to do big shit every couple of months they probably dont have the manpower or money to do it constantly. Trying to force lower level law enforcement to do it is just the type of corporate influenced stupidity Musk and Trump would come up with.
That’ll be interesting to watch. The president and his cronies seem to forget that the federal government isn’t the only group with a US military available to them.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens when a [State] National Guard receives mutually exclusive commands from [State] Governor and Little t.
God it’s gotta be nice living in a state that isn’t licking the boots.
Wasn’t it pretty much always the case that the states couldn’t prohibit federal immigration officers, its just that they gave absolutely zero help if they were resisting?
Edit: Oh, reading fail on my part " failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands". I get it now. Can that even be legal? What authority does ICE have over a state police officer?
Zero authority. But it’s a stress test. Can we get judges to go along? Juries? What can we get them to believe is a legal command? Can we get ICE into houses without warrants? Can we prosecute Mayors and Police officials for not providing data that is a request?
They’re going to push as far as people let them push. This is why the Federalist Society has been trying to pack the courts with conservative judges for decades. Defense Attorneys are going to have to step up and stop plea dealing so much stuff. But that’s a lot harder to do than to say because they’re criminally under resourced and over worked. (Not metaphorically in some states) In a system where the default is a plea deal to get out of jail there’s going to be a lot of convictions for things that aren’t actually crimes. The entire reliance on plea deals was predicated on good faith prosecutions.
You’re making the mistake of thinking they plan on obeying existing laws.
They never gave one fucking shit about “states rights.”
Only states’ rights to own slaves.
you’re not wrong but i feel like we’re dumbing it down to keep making it about race and slavery. this is just hierarchy. they want hierarchy because they’re already the ones in control. they want to reinforce that control and they will use it against anyone, regardless of race.
this is about the owners vs. the people. we will need a lot of support to fight this monster.
“States rights” is a well-abused phrase of the Lost Causers. In using it here, both @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone and I are recognizing that there is a huge amount of overlap between the current crop of shitheads and apologists for the Confederacy.
so what does that mean for solutions?
Can’t wait, guess I should buy a gun. Been stalling on that one. Not that owning a gun will make a lot of difference when the federal government decides you’re an enemy of the state.
It’ll make it so that if you have to go down, you can take some fascists with you.
Shoot twice and go home.
You should already have one and plenty of ammo for it.
Damn, those Jan 6 folks must be in a lot of trouble since quite a few directly attacked LEOs
“Not like that!”
The Republican Way™
Rules for thee, not for me.
That must be the limit. You shall only beat officers nearly to death with an American flag, any more than that and it’s illegal. Seems reasonable.
But don’t you dare express your right to free speech by (correctly) identifying a cop as a bastard!
Trump is attacking prosecutors and FBI agents.
Is the DOJ going after him?
The hypocrisy that goes into all their messaging is just wild. 1. Kill capital police you are a political prisoner. 2. Your property gets raided by the FBI while your not even present (because your own lawyers negotiated the date/time) and you fuel the narrative they were trying to assassinate you.
And not to mention all the judges and clerks and courthouse staff he has put at risk and still somehow gets this “tough on crime pro police” messaging in the media without even an asterisk.
The gall… It’s like at some point in 2016, he realized he could literally say anything, and half of the voting population will eat it up, and rub people’s faces in it.
He straight up said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would do a thing. It’s one of the few things he was right about
when they are subjected to unfair criticism or attack.
We don’t like it when you point out that we mercilessly kill people for no reason and then get a pat on the back and paid time off!
This is the opposite of a police misconduct database.
Get ready to be jailed for saying stuff like All Cops Are Bastards.
Well, so are the judges and prosecutors if they allow this shit to fly.
Exactly the line that stood out to me as well. There is way too much liberty in that wording, especially following a point of support for the death penalty.
We live in a fascist country.
do something about it
Because you chose to.
How do they chose to?
Both sides, amiright fellow citizens of the nation just north of the gulf of America?
While conservatives are obviously worse than liberals in just about every way, I don’t think rejecting the “both sides” argument in such a general way is a legitimate argument either.
It takes two to tango, and the Democratic party obviously deserves some of the criticism for the current state we find ourselves in. Mainly in their passivity in response to the rise of fascism in the conservative party.
The whole point of ‘both sides’ is both sides doing the same kinds of things.
One party failing to stop a coup because they try (and fail) to work within the legal system and making poor choices is the opposite of the side that is blatantly breaking the system. It isn’t even close to ‘both sides’. What a terrible take.
The whole point of ‘both sides’ is both sides doing the same kinds of things.
Yes, and in some areas this is a legitimate argument. Both parties are slaves to donors and the capital class, and have rarely disagreed with things like how we handle things at a geopolitical scale.
One party failing to stop a coup because they try (and fail) to work within the legal system and making poor choices is the opposite of the side that is blatantly breaking the system.
Right, but that’s also ignoring the decades of thirdway politics that allowed the conservative party to position themselves to do a coup in the first place.
I’m not saying that both sides is a legitimate argument for every topic, but it also shouldn’t be off-handedly rejected in every scenario either.
It should be dismissed because it is a false equivalence tactic used to fool people like you into blaming both parties for the actions of one party.
Lol, I’ve repeatedly said it’s not equivalent, and not a legitimate argument when utilized in generality. I’ve just noticed people like yourself are increasingly utilizing it to rebuff all criticism for the Democratic party.
Wanting to discuss nuance in an argument isn’t a blatant acceptance of an argument. You’re just trying to force a false dichotomy.
I am literally saying that ‘both sides’ is ALWAYS a false equivalence.
ALWAYS.
Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn’t make blaming ‘both sides’ valid.
Being ineffective at stopping something isn’t the same thing as enabling.
Being ineffective at stopping something isn’t the same thing as enabling.
Lol.
You’ve got your fingernails dug into a hair-thin crack here.
You might do well to stand back a bit and ask yourself why you’re so desperate to absolve the Democrats of blame.
am literally saying that ‘both sides’ is ALWAYS a false equivalence.
Then you are either misinformed or blatantly lying?
There are plenty of examples of both parties overwhelmingly agreeing on certain topics. An obvious one is the vote to go to war in Afghanistan, or the Patriot act…
Being ineffective at stopping something isn’t the same thing as enabling.
You’re claiming that conservatives and Democrats haven’t ever agreed upon anything that might be reasonably criticized…
Again, you’re just thinking in absolutes.
deleted by creator
Fuck the police and who they fucking with
Fuck them and the newly fascist DOJ.
Something something free speech absolutist?
They never were of course but they did gave Anarchist who actually are a bad name.
Transitional Organized Crime, Cartels, and Gangs.
Page 4. Either somebody lets the spell-check do auto-replace, or they are going hard on those dangerous hormone therapy peddlers.
Aww, who am I kidding? It’s both!
obstruction of law enforcement, seeking the death penalty for those who perpetrate capital crimes against law enforcement
Wouldn’t it be funny to see Elon and Snowden sitting together in Russia?
For very different reasons… One is a patriot, one is escaping consequences.
