https://archive.is/2OdeD

Attorney General Pam Bondi was so furious with six federal prosecutors who announced they would resign rather than prosecute the widow of a Minnesota woman killed by an ICE agent that she fired them before they had a chance to give their notice.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 228 points 9 months ago (21 children)

There is no statute of limitations on murder, Johnathan Ross. This one is around your neck for life.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (20 children)

    He'll be pardoned by Trump. All of ICE probably will be.

    *Supremacy clause https://youtube.com/shorts/Lk6tOvIu4qw this does not look good

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Only works for federal crimes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Is murder a state or federal crime there? Genuinely don't know as a non usian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    It depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes it is federal, sometimes state, very rarely both (Luigi Mangione being a recent high profile case where he was charged with both)

    In this case state charges are probably the most appropriate since it happened in Minnesota and didn't involve crossing state lines

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    State crime under most circumstances. Federal murder generally requires that it happen somewhere directly administered by the federal government or that the victim be a member of the federal government, and that last one is still only sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    Presidential pardons only work for Federal crimes. It also does not protect the murderer from a civil suit (see OJ Simpson).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -28 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    The state of Minnesota can wait until there is a more friendly administration before bringing charges, since there is not statute of limitations on murder. Also, the supremacy clause does not protect murderer Johnathan Ross from civil litigation.

    You attached that TikTok-like video without properly reading the comment you were responding to.

    EDIT:

    Let's address @someguy3@lemmy.world 's edit below. He is not wrong, but he is being overly defeatist and thus ignoring several key points.

    • Administrations do matter. As we have seen with Trump and his failed prosecution, administrations get to install federal judges and it is up to the federal judge whether or not this becomes a federal case.
    • A presidential pardon carries an admission of guilt, which is part of your permanent criminal record, which definitely affects your ability to find employment, travel, etc.
    • Civil suits can be a terrible fate and should not be dismissed as Someguy3 is doing. A severe judgment against you can be an insurmountable and lifelong financial burdern. Even if as a convicted, yet pardoned murderer you happen to find a job, the civil suit will garner your wages. Own a house? Not anymore. People like OJ and Alex Jones have/had the means to avoid a lot of this, but murderer Johnathan Ross? Not likely without a very rich benefactor, in which case Mrs Good's widow and children would be set for life while murderer Ross would still carry that albatross around his neck for life. Ideal? No, but things rarely are.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The state of Minnesota can wait until there is a more friendly administration

    People need to stop saying "wait until after the election".

    1. that's over 2 years from now with a murderer free to kill more people.

    2. this adminstration is going to do everything they can to make sure there isn't a "next administration."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    There were two parts to this. First is criminal and second is civil, you even used the word "also" to separate them.

    Criminal: Again, Trump can preemtively pardon him and all of ICE. And the supremacy clause will be in play determined by the court. That's the whole point.

    *I guess I'll try again in more detail. There are two parts to criminal. 1) state criminal charges. This is where Supremacy clause comes in. This is determined by a judge, not by the administration. Administration does not matter. 2) federal criminal charges. Trump will likely preemptively pardon him. So future DOJ (appointed by future administration) will not be able to federally charge him. Administration does not matter.

    Civil: I don't think civil charges are what anyone wants here. If you are satisfied with possible civil charges, you are missing the entire big picture. Like seriously you think possible civil charges is going to fix ICE shooting people in the face? JFC. I didn't respond to it because you and everyone else should want criminal charges. Ciao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Border patrol agents have no jurisdiction over US citizens. They didn't have the authority to stop her and try to remove her from her car in the first place so, what they were doing was unlawful from the start. That should disqualify him from using the supremacy clause, before we even get into debate on whether lethal force was justified or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    ICE isn't border patrol.

    As for whether this was part of their duties, that's the question and oh boy this is going to be messy in the courts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Ah, I thought he was border patrol, but he's ICE, and you're right. ICE also doesn't have jurisdiction over US citizens though. I think it's pretty clear that there was no probable cause to believe she, or her wife, were potentially illegal immigrants, were aiding illegal immigrants, or were impeding the agent's investigation in any way, given that she was initially trying to wave them to go around her.

    If/When we have a functioning DOJ again, Ross is going to prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    I posted this elsewhere and got a lot of flack, but I'm pretty certain that there was nothing illegal with Ross stopping to see what was going on as that would have been a consensual encounter.

    It's when the 2nd ICE vehicle arrived 30 seconds later that shit went sideways and became a detainment, illegal and murder.

    Had he pulled her over that would be another story as the pull over constitutes a detainment, but she was already sitting there. At the start he also didn't order her to do anything or prevent her from leaving, and didn't turn on his police lights while stopping, which likely makes the whole thing a voluntary consensual encounter.

    Petty much any law enforcement officer can approach/talk to anyone as long as its voluntary and no detainment/search/seizure happens.

    Edit: Just as an example, Ross could have seen the vehicle stopped in the road, and decided to see if she needed any assistance. He could have approached the vehicle, and said something like, "Hello ma'am, is everything okay? Do you need any assistance moving your vehicle off the roadway?" If she refused and said no, assuming there is no case for impeding/obstructing, the correct answer would then be, "Okay, I'll have to call this into the local PD, but you're free to go. I can't guarantee what will happen once they arrive though"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    Border patrol has jurisdiction within 200 miles of the border or any point of entry including airports and ports. So if they're operating within 200 miles of the Minneapolis airport, they do have the legal authority to detain citizens. It's BS, but that fact has stood up in courts for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 101 points 9 months ago* (29 children)
  • [–] 51 points 9 months ago (23 children)

    I'm sure I read some suggestion of charging her with felony murder; as in she committed a felony (anyone's guess what that would even be) and as a result her wife got shot, which somehow makes it her fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 9 months ago (16 children)

    Almost certainly the felony murder rule. This is a first-year law school concept that they are twisting and perverting - par for the course for this administration - but it basically means that a group committing a felony are all liable for any murders that happen during the course of that felony.

    The idea of using it on an innocent murder victim's wife to feed into an already ludicrous narrative that the victim was the perpetrator is outright evil. It's not surprising that these people resigned, because if you have morals, you will feel your skin crawl at the very idea of doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Imagine being able to kill a coworker you don't like and someone else goes to jail for it. I'm not saying the cop who pulled the trigger did it on purpose, but this is literally precedent if you wanted to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It is asinine, but the person convicted of felony murder doesn't take the place of the actual murderer, it is in addition to. The felony murder has no impact whatsoever on a person more directly responsible for the death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Since ICE was there in the first place and shouldn’t have been, shouldn’t we charge them with the murder?

    I mean if we’re playing cutesy baby games with the rules, those motherfuckers shouldn’t be operating armed terror squads on US soil and they have no jurisdiction over US citizens, so any assault they make on a US citizen is 100% a felony so I think we should charge Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi right away

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    Oh, I think that's what all reasonable people agree on. ICE, and at least Jonathan Ross, the murderer, should be charged. But qualified immunity is the reason why this guy and ICE more generally hasn't already been charged.

    Edit: I misspoke, see TipRing's explanation below.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Qualified Immunity is a protection against civil suits. Committing crimes never falls under its protections. The current issue is that the Federal Government can use the Supremacy Clause to pull any criminal proceeding into Federal Court by making the argument that Ross was executing his duties as a federal agent, if successful the co-opted DoJ can just spike the case or Trump can pardon the crime.

    The state has to prove to the court that apprehending a US Citizen is not within ICE's jurisdiction so the Supremacy Clause should not apply, this is a largely untested situation so we can probably guess how our current Supreme Court will rule on this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I guess they should have used that one on tramp's many crimes...but instead they need RICO?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    It's always different for them. For some reason. Somehow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It's Wilhoit's Law:

    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition ... There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Morals aside, I'm not sure on a practical level what felony they would be able to even try and argue the wife was committing here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Attempted murder of a federal agent.

    The exact same completely bullshit story that they lead out with.

    Also felony murder is a bullshit law exclusively used by power tripping assholes. John Oliver did a story on it and how there was a guy who let his roommate borrow his car for a night, his roommate committed armed robbery, and the guy who unknowingly lent his car out went to prison for life.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 16 points 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

    Who is that?

    Damn hes got a great hairline

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 47 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    The need to dehumanize the victim because even some Republicans are upset that they are shooting white ladies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah but they'll let it slide because she was LGBTQ... /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    "After a brief investigation over mimosas and a cheese platter, we have found credible evidence that Good was a member of the Alphabet Mafia. The agent was justified in his use of lethal force against a dangerous criminal. No charges will be filed."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 62 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not surprised that Hannity finds it "almost impossible to comprehend" that someone would resign to uphold their principles.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Both of these talking heads are puppets with the hands of the same puppeteer up their asses.

    FOX news needs to be destroyed. Preferably with everyone still inside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    I had the chance to give the staff diarrhea but I felt bad for people like the camera operator or whatever... I worked for a company involved with Dairy Queen and Carvel ice cream and at the start of the "ice cream season" fox does a morning show with them as a advertisement. I was so close to putting exlax in the mix but I decided against it... I still kick myself for not doing it but it wouldn't have reached assholes like Hannity anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    As a Minnesotan, I've had a lot of conversations with friends, family, and neighbors lately about what is going on

    Most are pissed about ICE being here, and how they're acting. Some, however, are 100% MAGA, and happy ICE is here

    There is one thing everyone seems to agree on though: ICE being in Minnesota is political retaliation

    We're a state with ~2% of the population of the US. We have less than 2% of the immigrants due to our location and climate. Yet 20-30% of ICE agents are now here

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 174 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    They should have just not said anything dragged their feet while at work while slowly eating up annual/sick leave to really slow everything down. Now there are 4 vacancies that could have been tied up for the better part of a year.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 103 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Bingo. Drag your feet, use up time. File shitty motions you know won't work to tie up the courts. Sabotage is hard work, but slowing the gears of the Orphan Crushing Machine is important and actually pretty easy to do when it's the federal government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    This has to be the hundredth time I'm saying this. But no. What you are wishing for the prosecutor's to do, is not only illegal, but highly unethical. We're talking disbarred levels of unethical.

    The right course of action is what they were doing. Resign. Make headlines. Bring attention. And if the government want to shoot themselves in the foot and fire you without cause because you wished to resign. Well, I'm sure they're wiping their tears with their separation pay package.

    Win win.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    We also dont know the situation that led up to them resigning and getting fired. They very well could have been trying to drag their feet but were already under immense pressure to file charges immediately. No amount of feet dragging can help if the Nazis are literally hovering over you as you fill out the paperwork.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    "Oh, yeah, you see how they checked this box here? That means we also need a DD-2319 form signed in triplicate here. That'll need to be approved by two levels of management, so we'll need to form a committee to assess its suitability before raising it for a vote during our Change Control Board meeting, which only occurs monthly. Sorry about that. Don't worry, I'll get it fast-tracked for you."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    They aren't going to be able to fill these because fed attorney jobs pay dick and there is zero prestige to these postings now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Well, maybe true for qualified people, the job title is no longer prestigious.

    But for the scum of the earth? That job title legitimizes them, by comparison.

    I think I know which type will be the ones applying...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Right, but the defining characteristic of those people is that they are also bad at their jobs. Look at what happened to their prosecutions of former prosecutors that charged Trump. The guys that left were undoubtedly CONSIDERABLY better at their jobs than whoever will replace them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Weren't these the people earlier this week who supposedly resigned, of which people were complaining about. Now it comes out they were actually fired before they even could...

    Maybe people should realize there might have been more going on that we aren't privy to.

    All this 'not good enough' thinking does is breed toxicity and in-fighting. Both of which are not good when trying to form a solidarity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    Weren’t these the people earlier this week who supposedly resigned, of which people were complaining about. Now it comes out they were actually fired before they even could…

    The prosecutors announced their intent to resign, and would have done so after using up their allocated PTO. A fairly standard practice in professional environments. Pam Bondi fired them in retaliation for announcing their intent to resign

    She claimed it was because they wanted a tax payer funded vacation, but anyone who understands the basics of unemployment, especially in Minnesota, can tell you she just gave them even more tax payer money (if they want it). Not only will they be entitled to their PTO, but they are now also entitled to unemployment

    Edit: Fixed typo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 38 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Damn Pam. Ok,you broke up with them. Not the other way around. We got it.

    Somebody literally needs to remind this lady to stop and take a breath before she passes out mid rant.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Correct me if I am wrong here: Are there women in ICE? All I have seen are men who look like they are divorced and not paying their child support.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    A quick search brings up stats from 10 years ago, and at that time about 7% were women.

    No idea what the number is now, but I've seen recent information (news reports, vlogs, etc.) mentioning, and showing women in ICE uniforms.

    I believe there are women in ICE, which isn't surprising, but not very many.

    Just yesterday, we had the story of a female journalist who claims she was admitted to ICE with no vetting. So, they at least allow women to enter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I’ve seen photos with feminine appearing stature / eyes doing on the street enforcement, I would assume them to be in the extreme minority in that context.

    There’s also back-end desk work where physical characteristics aren’t really going to matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 9 months ago

    Dumb of her. You have more protections when fired than if you just quit. It's almost always in your best interest to have a shitty boss fire you and have those protections than leave voluntarily and have almost none.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago

    The fact that these monsters would even think of going after the victim's wife tells you all you need to know about the conservative mind.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Man who would think a corrupt AF soulless scumbag like her would do such a thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    It wasn't her intention, but she did effectively help those prosecutors

    She handed them a bulletproof unemployment claim. Now they'll get their PTO paid out in a lump sum, but they'll also be eligible for unemployment on top of it

    Minnesota unemployment decisions are very favorable to workers

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    You can't quit! I fired you first! LOL

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    I so want to see her on the stand at some point. Under oath, and not in an environment controlled by conservatives, either.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Daily reminder that ICE is a manufactured distraction from the Epstein Files.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    “They wanted the taxpayers to pay for them to go on vacation because they decided they didn’t want to support law enforcement,” she said. “So, the breaking news tonight? I fired them all! They are FIRED from the office.”

    Not a major point, but when an employee wants to resign they are saying that they want their PTO paid out, as they are entitled to under law or contract. That’s what those former employees were saying. Bondi is saying she fired them, but she will still have to pay out that PTO all the same.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Suck it Nazi Barbie.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    More posturing to look like they’re taking charge. I don’t know if any of what I’m about to say is true but if those attorneys already had the accrued PTO, they will get their pay for that time anyway, at least that’s how it’s worked anywhere else I’ve worked in the US. Also, if they can prove that the firing was retaliatory, they may be able to get further compensation and payouts.

    Like I said, I know nothing of their employment/contracts so I could be talking out of my ass, but if what I said is true then the government is paying more money than they would be if they just let the prosecutors resign. I could be wrong once benefits are included.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Overall, my theory lines up with yours. They knew thr simple minds at the top would fire them, and somehow that benefits them. They are lawyers after all, and getting hired into the jobs they had makes it very likely they were at least savvy in political maneuvers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    She is trying to save her job.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    She calls them the "deep state" lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    Policy failure? Deep state. Polls down? Deep state. Your revenge prosecutions are getting thrown out of court? Deep state. The few people in the DOJ that have a teeny bit of integrity quitting? Believe it or not, deep state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    What a Bondi thing to do. She fucking bondied that so bad! What an absolute pathetic human.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    She should lose her head

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›