What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

So as long as one deportee doesn't get due process another deportee who does get due process is also arbitrary, illegitimate and lawless?  I don't get that thinking as a mental excercise.  I do get the rhetoric as an attempt to stop any and all deportations.

FYI, no one is required to cooperate with ICE.

[Valmy]

FYI, no one is required to cooperate with ICE.

You sure? Seems like they are pretty excited to lock up people who don't cooperate.

[Admiral Yi]

You sure? Seems like they are pretty excited to lock up people who don't cooperate.

Pretty sure.  I personally have not seen them lock up anyone who doesn't cooperate and by definition I haven't seen them excited about something they haven't done.

If you know of an example of them getting excited about locking up people who don't cooperate, please direct me to it.

[Sheilbh]

No, I think that's totally missing the point.

These aren't accidents but deliberate policy. The administration is defying court orders over this - I think they're line is they can't return people who they've deported without due process because they're now out of jurisdiction so it's not their responsibility. That is arbitrary, illegitimate and lawless - it is Charles I.

As I say legalistically looking at this on a case-by-case basis gives the pretence that that's what the state is doing. We know they're not, we know they're defying court orders and we know when they weren't. It's not some philosophical impossibility.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I get your point but also think you're not getting mine.

Going case by case stakes out the position that if you stop doing the bad stuff and only do the legal stuff you will no longer be arbitrary, illegitimate and lawless.

[Sheilbh]

I get what you're saying, my point is more poison tree to an extent. I think the rule of law is really, really important - I actually think it's really important that states are able to demonstrate control of their borders and deport people who shouldn't be there.

But you have a government that is disappearing people without due process to foreign prisons and then saying they're not able to comply with (Supreme) court orders of basically habeas corpus. This is not an accident or people unfortunately caught up in a system that is trying its best but the deliberate choice of this administration, which is worth disobeying at personal cost.

So when that changes - when the government complies with court orders and directs its agencies to comply with law there's no need for civil disobedience. Whatever your position is you can campaign for a change in law politically but it's behaving legitimately.

It's an extreme comparison but I think your view is a bit like saying that some people caught up in the Star Chamber or a put in a show trial were actually probably guilty, so we need to assess them individually. It's irrelevant.

[Admiral Yi]

No.  If I object to the Star Chamber or a show trial then I say what a real trial is and announce I'll be happy with that.

[Sheilbh]

But I think I've said that many times - comply with the court orders and follow the law. It's not like this is the natural state of immigration enforcement in the US that Trump has unfortunately inherited.

Something changed - in my view a government that does not consider itself bound by the rule of law, that is literally in this area behaving in a lawless and arbitrary way.

It can change back. You may agree or disagree with whatever policy or laws it is enforcing - that's a political question that should be argued politically. But at the minute the policy is not to comply with law even at the direction of the Supreme Court - that's different and it's profoundly dangerous.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, profoundly different and dangerous.  I feel like we're back at square one.

[Syt]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-poised-accept-palace-sky-gift-trump/story?id=121680511

Trump administration poised to accept 'palace in the sky' as a gift for Trump from Qatar: Sources
The luxury jumbo jet is to be used as Air Force One, sources told ABC News.

In what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government, the Trump administration is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar -- a gift that is to be available for use by President Donald Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement told ABC News.

The gift is expected to be announced next week, when Trump visits Qatar on the first foreign trip of his second term, according to sources familiar with the plans.

Trump toured the plane, which is so opulently configured it is known as "a flying palace," while it was parked at the West Palm Beach International Airport in February.

The highly unusual -- unprecedented -- arrangement is sure to raise questions about whether it is legal for the Trump administration, and ultimately, the Trump presidential library foundation, to accept such a valuable gift from a foreign power.

Anticipating those questions, sources told ABC News that lawyers for the White House counsel's office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution's prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts "from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Sources told ABC News that Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump's top White House lawyer David Warrington concluded it would be "legally permissible" for the donation of the aircraft to be conditioned on transferring its ownership to Trump's presidential library before the end of his term, according to sources familiar with their determination.

The sources said Bondi provided a legal memorandum addressed to the White House counsel's office last week after Warrington asked her for advice on the legality of the Pentagon accepting such a donation.

The White House and DOJ didn't immediately respond to request for comment. A spokesperson for the Qatari embassy did not respond to ABC's inquiries.

The plane will initially be transferred to the United States Air Force, which will modify the 13-year-old aircraft to meet the U.S. military specifications required for any aircraft used to transport the president of the United States, multiple sources familiar with the proposed arrangement said.

The plane will then be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation no later than Jan. 1, 2029, and any costs relating to its transfer will be paid for by the U.S. Air Force, the sources told ABC News.

According to aviation industry experts, the estimated value of the aircraft Trump will inherit is about $400 million, and that's without the additional communications security equipment the Air Force will need to add to properly secure and outfit the plane in order to safely transport the commander in chief.

As the Wall Street Journal first reported, the aviation company L3Harris has already been commissioned to overhaul the plane to meet the requirements of a presidential jet.

Both the White House and DOJ concluded that because the gift is not conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery, the sources said. Bondi's legal analysis also says it does not run afoul of the Constitution's prohibition on foreign gifts because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, the sources said.

The primary aircraft used in the current Air Force One fleet includes two aging Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets that have been operational since 1990. The Air Force contract with Boeing to replace those aircraft has been riddled with delays and cost overruns.

The original contract was signed in 2018, but as of last year, Boeing anticipated the aircraft would not be ready until 2029, after Trump leaves office.

The president has expressed deep frustration with the delays, tasking Elon Musk to work with Boeing and the Air Force to speed up the process. Those efforts have been modestly successful. Boeing's most recent estimated delivery date is now 2027, but Trump has made it clear he wants a new plane this year.

[Syt]

Meanwhile, Trump's budget cuts have ended free lung screenings for coal miners in West Verginia:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/west-virginia-coal-miners-lose-black-lung-screenings-trump-slashes-worker-safety-agency-niosh/

[celedhring]

Pity the Mriya was destroyed, the Ukrainians could have painted it gold and turned it over to Trump.

[Zanza]

Pepperidge Farm remembers when the Emoluments clause was law in the United States.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems

Joan left out some relevant bits.  The judge the Feds go to the chief judge's chambers and escorted Ruiz out while they were in discussions there.  She never did hear Ruiz' case.

From the article

While that conversation was taking place, the courtroom deputy approached two federal agents (DEA Agent A had left the chief judge's chambers to join his "inconspicuous" colleague, DEA Agent B) waiting outside Courtroom 615 and told them that Judge Dugan was "pushing" Flores-Ruiz's case, which the DEA agents understood to mean expediting it.

The courtroom deputy works for the judge. If the intent was to help Flores-Ruiz evade, why tip off the agents in this way?  And then shortly afterwards send him out in the corridor where two agents were then known to be present?

Several witnesses described what happened inside Courtroom 615 while these other conversations occurred. Judge Dugan "forcefully motioned" for Flores-Ruiz's attorney to approach, and the attorney then appeared to engage in what the courtroom deputy thought was an off-the-record conversation about the next court date

All this is perfectly consistent with the most logical, Occam's razor reading of the situation - that the judge was frustrated that a large ICE enforcement team was causing disruption and she wanted to get rid the cause of the situation rather than proceed leisurely through the usual calendar.

The root problem with the prosecution remains - if you assume the intent of the judge was to assist in the evasion of Flores-Ruiz, her actions make no sense.  If you assume she was frustrated and just wanted to bring an obnoxious and disruptive situation to a close, her actions do make sense.  Since the government would have to prove the former beyond a reasonable doubt, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is for show and not a good faith prosecution.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would add that the analysis so far is based entirely on what is alleged in the charging document.  Dugan was not given her own side of the story, nor have we heard independently from other witnesses. Everyone talking about the case to date is relying solely on the allegations selected to prosecute her.  The fact that the government's own charging document contains so many apparently exculpatory facts is not a good sign for a prosecution.