Comment by llm_nerd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by llm_nerd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Bondi -- an outrageously partisan hack who is destroying the DOJ -- reached peak irony when she stated that "no one is above the law" in talking about that case.

Donald Trump and his administration are on an absolute crime spree[1]. Insider trading, launching shit-coins and engaging in self-dealing, completely disregarding both the constitution and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

The US is currently a lawless banana republic with the dumbest autocrat in history. That's the one saving grace: This herd of absolute imbeciles are so catastrophically stupid -- a cluster of plastic-faced Fox news clowns -- that they are bound to destroy everything so completely that they are overthrown out of necessity. Will the US survive this? Given that it voted for this rapist, charity-stealing moron twice, hopefully not. The fractured nations that come out of this hopefully have a better path.

[1] Ignoring that he is giving the most laughably corrupt pardons in history, to outrageously guilty thieves, fraudsters and human effluence. Trump's grotesque abuse, and quite literal selling, of pardons should be the impetus for whatever husk remains of the dissolved United States to abolish presidential pardons.

You have a way with words, you should really consider running for office.

I absolutely love your summary

I try to not let it get to me by telling myself they all are just victims of lead poisoning

> when she stated that "no one is above the law" in talking about that case

My reading is that the judge lied to the FBI in order to help the subject escape, AFAIK this is a felony (obstruction?) and anyone else would be charged - so why isn't it equally applicable to a judge? I think people are assuming the judge has some form of power that she doesn't.

Not going to discuss Bondi or Trump, on a GBA basis.

>the judge lied to the FBI

These were ICE "agents" with an administrative warrant. Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating courtroom -- which she was 100% right to do.

So nothing you said is accurate.

There is a 100% chance she will be completely exonerated, but of course this clown administration -- full of in-the-open criminals of the worst kind -- doesn't care about that, they just care about intimidation. Which is precisely why they brought up charges without a grand jury, which is basically unprecedented, because a grand jury would never have levied such a charge, and then arrested her in public with a perp walk with a photographer at the ready. And they know it won't stick. But because they're an administration of criminal garbage they just want to put the judiciary in its place, while supplicants and smooth-brains cheer them on.

Apologies, It was the FBI that arrested her, but may not have been to whom she lied; This is described as:

"Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the US"

-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/d62bd73e-a370-40e4-...

My understanding is that even in the case of an ICE agent, can also be a felony:

https://www.birdsall-law.com/legal-implications-of-interferi...

The agents are described by the FBI agents as "Agents from [DHS], [ICE ERO]" without scare-quotes - are you implying that they weren't legitimate agents? That said, FBI and CBP agents are also described as being present, so the distinction between ICE/FBI, and a judicial/administrative warrant seem unimportant.

> Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating courtroom

She appeared to co-operate (leading them away to talk to the Chief judge), while actually helping the subject evade arrest (returning and actually instructing them how to escape).

The first part, the deception, is what makes the lie rather than a mere upfront refusal.

> which she was 100% right to do

obstruct the agents? In which case they are right to arrest her.. I'm not sure what your angle here is.

> nothing you said is accurate.

Seems to me your own corrections are just as inaccurate. The above should clarify.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com