Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Finally! Back to Law & Order.

Yup, just what you said, just a fake show for TV

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She is writing the word litigation but she said filing charges. That is what she said in her statement.

it's easy to assume she's stupid and doesn't know the difference, but my bet is that she knows exactly what she is doing. She wants her MAGA followers to think she's tough as nails and the woke New Yorkers are committing crimes. Same playbook, different day, just more lies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay! Let’s go after anyone who ever dared to challenge Trump! Totally not a fascist move.

Who is surprised by this? Our democracy is crumbling…

Hahahahaha


How is it crumbling? Being an illegal alien you have broken the law by entering the country. If you are a criminal, that is even worse. Why would a city want to protect people who broke the law? The federal govt has full authority to dictate border security and immigration. A city and state do not have the ability to decline federal laws.

So this is clear cut. A sanctuary city/state violates federal law.

No problem here.

Imagine if cites all over the country could decide to go against federal law for other issues. There would be chaos.

While I hate all things Trump, if NY does have a law on the books that notifies immigrants when federal authorities request their records, that could be seen as obstruction. The feds have a lawful right to enforce immigration. States don't have to help at all. Zero. But they cannot obstruct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She is writing the word litigation but she said filing charges. That is what she said in her statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She really is a dope, who's way in over her head. This may be the only thing that will save us - that most of Trump's appointments don't know what the f they're doing.

Apparently DOJ has brought some kind of civil action about immigration - like what they did against Illinois I guess. But no one's been "charged."

Poor DOJ. There’s a lot of dedicated public servants there who are going to be asked to do things that strain the bounds of credibility and ethics

Where is the ABA in all of this? Shouldn't the ABA start proceedings to disbar attorneys who file frivilous lawsuits, or who break the law? Isn't that part of the code of Legal Ethics that the ABA is supposed to enforce?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She really is a dope, who's way in over her head. This may be the only thing that will save us - that most of Trump's appointments don't know what the f they're doing.

Apparently DOJ has brought some kind of civil action about immigration - like what they did against Illinois I guess. But no one's been "charged."

Poor DOJ. There’s a lot of dedicated public servants there who are going to be asked to do things that strain the bounds of credibility and ethics

Where is the ABA in all of this? Shouldn't the ABA start proceedings to disbar attorneys who file frivilous lawsuits, or who break the law? Isn't that part of the code of Legal Ethics that the ABA is supposed to enforce?

Anonymous wrote:One very sad silver lining to this contemptible administration is the incompetence of the cruel leaders that the Pusticle has put in place. Bondi is a pathetic "attorney". She doesn't seem to understand law. Her law school, Stetson University College of Law, is ranked #98 in law schools. She's a member of the Florida bar, where they take the bar exam in crayon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She really is a dope, who's way in over her head. This may be the only thing that will save us - that most of Trump's appointments don't know what the f they're doing.

Apparently DOJ has brought some kind of civil action about immigration - like what they did against Illinois I guess. But no one's been "charged."

Poor DOJ. There’s a lot of dedicated public servants there who are going to be asked to do things that strain the bounds of credibility and ethics

Anonymous wrote:She seems very confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yay! Let’s go after anyone who ever dared to challenge Trump! Totally not a fascist move.

Who is surprised by this? Our democracy is crumbling…

Hahahahaha


How is it crumbling? Being an illegal alien you have broken the law by entering the country. If you are a criminal, that is even worse. Why would a city want to protect people who broke the law? The federal govt has full authority to dictate border security and immigration. A city and state do not have the ability to decline federal laws.

So this is clear cut. A sanctuary city/state violates federal law.

No problem here.

Imagine if cites all over the country could decide to go against federal law for other issues. There would be chaos.