It appears that the Trump admin lied (numewrous times) in their case presented to the Supreme’s about repsonse times from the Chiacgo police in a incident that they are using to justify National Guard Troops deployments in immigration situations that should not be according to Law against milkitarty law enforcement situations…
NY Times….
The Trump administration made erroneous claims to the Supreme Court, mischaracterizing the responsiveness of local police and the actions of protesters in a filing asking the justices to sign off on the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops to Chicago, a New York Times investigation found.
The emergency request, filed by the solicitor general, D. John Sauer, which draws heavily from court declarations made by two Homeland Security officials, misstates what happened in the aftermath of a car crash and shooting on Oct. 4 in Chicago that involved Border Patrol agents.
A Times analysis of hours of police radio and hundreds of videos posted to social media refutes the federal government’s claims that the Chicago Police Department didn’t respond quickly to the scene, leaving federal agents to fend for themselves during what they called a riot.
That contention is central to the administration’s legal rationale for deploying the National Guard: that “violent protests” are preventing agents from enforcing immigration law….
…
The Times’s investigation found that Chicago officers responded to the shooting within seven minutes and were present at the ensuing protest. While at 12:30 p.m. one police district was ordered not to respond to the protest, other districts sent officers to the scene. The analysis also found that the protesters were peaceful for the first two hours, before a forceful federal response….
…
The administration cited the declarations by the Homeland Security officials 30 times in its Supreme Court filing. The veracity of those declarations was questioned by a district court judge in her opinion granting a temporary block on the Chicago deployment. Judge April Perry noted the officials’ “potential lack of candor” and questioned “their ability to accurately assess the facts.”
The Supreme Court will decide based on filings alone, without oral arguments or the trial court judge building a clear factual record, and likely with the police investigation still ongoing. It’s also likely that more evidence about Oct. 4 will emerge — and be contested — during the district court trial.
The Homeland Security Department “stands fully behind the testimony we gave in this case, which was given under penalty of perjury,” Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman, wrote in an email. A White House spokeswoman referred questions to the Justice Department. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment….
…
The Times fact-checked three claims in the Trump administration’s filing about Oct. 4. Here’s what the evidence shows….
…
While inaccurate claims sometimes turn up in Supreme Court filings and opinions, J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal appeals court judge and a critic of the administration’s approach to law, said that the factual errors that made their way from Mr. Hott’s declaration to the Trump administration’s filing would appear to be particularly serious. Mr. Luttig is a prominent conservative jurist for whom Mr. Sauer clerked early in his career. He was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush.
“It is the responsibility of the solicitor general to ensure that declarations cited before the Supreme Court are truthful and accurate,” Mr. Luttig said. The factual issues with the government’s filings were “unsurprising” and “damning for the president, the attorney general and the solicitor general,” he added.
Note…
It HAS come to the media fact-checking the Trump Govt.’s actions as they present inaccurate testimony to the nation’s Highest Court?
Things have gotten so much out of hand under Trump’s rein…..
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.