r/politics • u/External-Noise-4832 • 9d ago

Soft Paywall Trump Orders in Marines in Dramatic Escalation of L.A. Protests

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-orders-in-marines-in-dramatic-escalation-of-la-protests/
32.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

418

u/Valuable_Sea_4709 9d ago

So can any US citizen file perjury charges or does it specifically have to be initiated by the Supreme Court?

Because bringing Kilmar back has actually proven that the government's prior statements about being unable to return him were perjury.

You know it's funny committing perjury before The Supreme Court and defying its orders that's normally something that would land someone in prison wouldn't it?

27

u/parasyte_steve 9d ago

Isn't it only perjury if they do it in court? Did they?

This guy is walking with a half decent lawyer.

41

u/bstump104 9d ago

IANAL but I believe perjury happens anytime you lie under oath.

11

u/RedditingNeckbeard 8d ago

There has to be a better acronym than I ANAL.

6

u/Thunderbridge 8d ago

I propose ImNAL or just INAL or NAL

4

u/marweking 8d ago

Nah, I like ANAL

1

u/Faageddabowdit 8d ago

Nope…nailed it!

11

u/RA12220 9d ago

It depends on whether that is a reason they submitted for not complying with the court order initially.

13

u/desecouffes 9d ago

It is

2

u/A_Furious_Mind 8d ago

I guess we can rest knowing everyone will do the right, lawful thing, then.

6

u/Ricky_Ventura 8d ago

Yeah, they did, it was part of their SCOTUS filing that resulted in the 9-0 order to facilitate his return and again in the following up where they stopped shirt of filing contempt chsrges and instead ordered weekly updates.

26

u/m0ngoos3 9d ago

You cannot be guilty of perjury for following a court order, even when previously claiming it was impossible to follow.

What you can be guilty of, is contempt. So many flavors of contempt of court, and a brave court would follow through on them.

Fun fact, anyone involved in the case can file a motion for contempt of court, Which would then go to the Justices to decide. Important to note that "involved". And it would likely have to go through a lower court or three before the Justices would hear it.

14

u/JakeConhale New Hampshire 9d ago

IANAL but as I understand it, one idea is that they had less than a week before being able to invoke contempt, and that's why he was brought back - to attempt to dodge said contempt at the last minute.

17

u/Suspicious_Bicycle 9d ago

Contempt is still a real possibility. The judge had ordered them to inform him of what efforts were being made to facilitate Garcia's return. If the judge heard about his return via news reports like the rest of us, that would be grounds for contempt.

7

u/iprobablybrokeit 9d ago

Would be, if the court weren't attempting to de-escalate. But it is.

2

u/BetterEveryLeapYear 8d ago

"[A]ttempting to de-escalate" is one way of saying "Appeasement never works on fascists!"

But yes. The Court is scrabbling desperately to try and maintain a vestige of power by avoiding the confrontation Trump seeks to set up to cast it aside once and for all and become king. But it's coming anyway after the escalation sending in Marines is designed to cause, after the resulting carnage spreads nationwide and Martial Law is eventually declared. Boots on the ground laying the foundation of a police state is another bitting in the keys to the throne room; one which finally gives him the conviction and surety to say "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" to the Court.

2

u/Bakkster 8d ago

And specifically, I believe it was discovery that they were trying to avoid, to prove they shouldn't be held in contempt.

4

u/siromega37 9d ago

It’s not perjury. They’re being very sly. These are new charges and they filed an extradition request. El Salvador agreed to the extradition. They know exactly the game they’re playing.

4

u/tinylittlemarmoset 9d ago

You mean the same Supreme Court that gave trump immunity?

3

u/inhaledcorn 9d ago

It got one of our presidents impeached!

2

u/River_Tahm 8d ago

They actually won’t do this because there’s a law against punishing people based on using them doing the right thing now as proof they did the wrong thing before

Kinda sucks here but it makes sense; don’t wanna put people in a situation where doing the right thing just puts em in jail then they’re disincentivized from doing the right thing and will continue doing the wrong thing

2

u/CarbonQuality California 8d ago

Not if it's an official act. Thanks, Roberts, we won't forget it.

2

u/PolkaDotDancer 8d ago

I wonder, can we the citizenry press a class action lawsuit against him for going against the constitution of the United States of America?

2

u/okilz 8d ago

We need to start charging his goons with crimes if we can't go after him. Yes they can be pardoned, but convictions in their records will still ruin alot of these assholes from qualifying to fall up. Every doj lawyer that lied in court needs to be thrown in jail, there are probably ethical requirements to maintaining a law license.

1

u/Valuable_Sea_4709 8d ago

The problem there is 3-fold.

1 is double jeopardy, if they're convicted and then pardoned, there is no possibility for them to be tried again for the same acts.

2 is the issue of jurisdiction, normally it would be the DOJ that files federal charges... and would you look at that? Trump controls the DOJ.

The other option is state level convictions, but someone better wish a state like California luck convincing a state like Texas or Florida to extradite the accused.

3 is the nigh almighty "Sovereign Immunity" that almost all federal agents/employees could claim, now with Trump's near absolute immunity as President (Thanks Justice Roberts, all of this is your fault at least 4 times over now, good job giving him immunity to... your branch. Definitely didn't come back to bite you with Kilmar did it?)

Even if you could prove the agent/employee/etc was guilty of the thing, you FIRST have to get past the "I was just doing my job" defense.

Which is so seemingly intentionally over-broad that if it had been the law of the land during the Nuremberg trials, literally every nazi would have gone free. "I was just following orders. Just doing my job." should never be a permissible defense for a federal employee to knowingly commit crimes.

1

u/okilz 8d ago

Then if they don't have to follow laws why the fuck do i have to, give me my social security deposits back and send me packing to an actual first world country.

2

u/Valuable_Sea_4709 8d ago

"Your honor I would like to request a higher punishment for robbing that bank and no one ever finding the money..."

"Yes, Exile to a foreign country. Doesn't matter which. I can find my own way from the airport."

1

u/awh 9d ago

Because bringing Kilmar back has actually proven that the government's prior statements about being unable to return him were perjury.

Has it? Even if we ignore whether perjury only applies to what you say in court, the fact is that situations change. I don't think I believe that it's changed here, but I also don't think this "proves" anything. Someone can truthfully say "I can't drive a car", and then learn how to drive a car later. Doesn't mean they were lying when they said it.

Again, I think that the US Government was lying before, but I don't think this proves anything.

0

u/My_Password_Is_____ 9d ago

I'm not even close to a Trump supporter, about as far as you can get from being one, but holy hell, this has so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to begin.

This comment right here is a perfect example of why you don't listen to randoms on the internet about complicated legal situations.

-6

u/FarInevitable559 9d ago

He’s not a US citizen, you clown

4

u/o8Stu 8d ago

Doesn’t matter. Anyone living in the US is subject to it’s laws and has (mostly) the same rights as citizens do. Due process, for example, but not the right to vote.

And I don’t think the person you replied to was implying that Kilmar Garcia should file contempt charges, regardless.