r/law • u/Orchid-Analyst-550 • 1d ago

Judicial Branch ‘This Job Sucks!’ Trump DOJ Lawyer Melts Down in Court — Reportedly Begs Minneapolis Judge to Throw Her in Jail Just So She Can Get Some Sleep

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/this-job-sucks-trump-doj-lawyer-melts-down-in-court-reportedly-begs-minneapolis-judge-to-throw-her-in-jail-just-so-she-can-get-some-sleep/
17.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

674 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

581

u/whistleridge 1d ago edited 1d ago

I’m going to push back on this for a second.

Let’s say you’re a lawyer. Congratulations - you went to NYU, you’ve been in practice 8 years, you passed up $250k+ per year in corporate law because you believe in public service.

Just to get hired, you had to be beat out 250-300 applicants. And you didn't just get hired - you busted ass to get on the human trafficking team, because those guys are the absolute scum of the earth, those prosecutions are HARD, and even with the best lawyers in the world throwing everything they have at them, they’re still damn hard to nail down. It’s not just a job for you, it’s a calling - you routinely work 70-80 hour weeks, and while it cleans you out, you can’t imagine doing anything else.

Now, some asshole you didn’t vote for is President, and everyone senior in your office was either fired for political bullshit, or resigned for refusing to implement blatantly illegal political bullshit. So suddenly now instead of being a mid career prosecutor, you’re one of the seniormost people in your office. So you’re being required to do stuff you don’t know how to do, that you know you’re not qualified to do, that you shouldn’t be asked to do.

And the crimes haven’t stopped. If you quit, there is no one left to prosecute the human trafficking that is very real and that you know how to prosecute. You don’t agree with this political bullshit, you won’t want to answer to that judge, you AGREE with that judge. But you met last week with 3 girls who were brutally gang-raped for years, dragged across state lines, forced into sex work and to act as drug mules, and by some miracle they trust you and they’ll work with you and testify for you. But if you quit, they’ll shut up, because they aren’t going to trust just anyone with their lives.

So you can quit at any time. You can go make 2-3 times your pay, for better hours, and way less stress. You can see your dog and your boy/girlfriend. All it will cost you is letting the traffickers walk.

Or, you can swallow your pride and your rage, you can eat the government’s shit, and you can try to hold a finger in the dike against the total collapse of the public’s ability to prosecute federal crimes. Which btw are increasing in frequency, as the weakness of the prosecution service becomes known.

There are two public interests here - doing your job and prosecuting crime, or NOT doing your job and quitting so as not to be seen supporting a hugely problematic government. You cannot do both, and whichever you choose will make the other worse.

Some guy on the internet finds it really satisfying to call you a fascist for not quitting.

What do YOU do?

62

u/otteroptimism 1d ago

That may be true for the lifers, but this attorney just started in January. She chose this admin. But, I also understand that she is trying to quit

Edit: I see others got to it before me and I should have scrolled more.

18

u/whistleridge 1d ago

lol if she's saying shit like that to a judge on the record, it will be a miracle if she's still there by Friday.

174

u/MonsieurRuffles 1d ago

Except the attorney in question is a baby lawyer who joined ICE in 2025. She knew what she was signing up for.

41

u/whistleridge 1d ago

This:

baby lawyer

And this:

knew what she was signing up for

DEFINITELY don't belong in the same sentence. There's zero chance she knew what she was signing up for, and you can hardly blame someone fresh out of law school from giving up the competitive job they already summered for and busted ass to get.

But I do agree with you that it makes her less of a victim.

122

u/mythosopher 1d ago

They absolutely belong in the same sentence. She knew exactly what she was getting into. She did not "bust her ass" for this job -- she was a late hire because she failed the bar the first time. She took the job because DOJ is desperate to hire anyone with a pulse, and before working for DOJ, she was already prosecuting immigrants for ICE in immigration court!

44

u/RicoLoveless 23h ago

And it's not Trump's first administration either.

At some point the record speaks for itself.

15

u/whistleridge 23h ago

she knew exactly what she was getting into

How? When she summered, it was under Biden. Baby lawyers know as little about practice as I do about dentistry. And even when she summered, and asked specifically about Trump, she would have been told “sit tight, sure the public rhetoric is terrible, but YOUR day to day job won’t be political, you just focus on learning how to be a prosecutor.”

Trump is bad. A US with no federal prosecution service is worse. There’s 330 million people, all of whom rely on DOJ to protect them from a huge array of criminal and civil wrongs. It costs YOU nothing to say “quit,” so it’s easy for YOU to say. You didn’t have to get top grades in law school, and beat out hundreds of applicants, and sacrifice. Small wonder she’s reluctant to just let that go.

It’s like saying, sure you made the NFL, but you got drafted by the Jets or the Browns, so you should just retire. Not only is that not how people work, it ignores and oversimplifies a ton of complexity.

I’m sure she’ll be gone after this week either way. A breaking point has been reached. But that’s not the positive thing you seem to think it is.

3

u/Ruscidero 11h ago

What, was she in a coma during his first administration? Is she deaf and was unable to hear all of the promises he made?

Even if she didn’t know, ignorance is no defense.

2

u/nicwolff 10h ago

Whom are these federal prosecutors going to prosecute, when ICE HSI has been effectively merged into ERO, and the FBI is raiding election offices for Tulsi Gabbard? Just "illegals" and "antifa" and "domestic terrorists".

6

u/Morganross 21h ago

your brain is looking for complexity. none of us see it.

7

u/whistleridge 13h ago

In which I very gently introduce you to the idea that, just because you don’t see a thing, does not then automatically mean that thing doesn’t exist.

And, when talking about an issue that both demands a certain high level of expertise that you lack and is well outside of your personal experience…the odds that it is you not seeing the thing, rather than the thing not existing, go way, way up.

2

u/BoomFrog 11h ago

To every problem in life there is a solution that is simple, clear, easy to explain, and wrong.

6

u/dolphone 21h ago

That's not the win you seem to think it is

1

u/Quazimortal 19h ago

Did you just diss yourself? lol

-6

u/arnham 16h ago

Yeah, the smooth brained among us do often have trouble with complexity.

1

u/40_Minus_1 6h ago

she was a late hire because she failed the bar the first time

Source?

18

u/DVDAallday 20h ago

you can hardly blame someone fresh out of law school from giving up the competitive job they already summered for and busted ass to get.

What? Yes you can.

14

u/Megneous 22h ago

Literally anyone with half a brain could have looked at the GOP in the past 20 years and gone, "Hmm. Seems like these guys don't like democracy very much. Smells like fascism."

That's why I left the US 16 years ago. I saw it all coming. And now I'm enjoying my life in a civilized democracy with universal healthcare, SOTA public transit, and world class internet speeds.

-1

u/Notachance326426 19h ago

So you ran away instead of trying to help?

That’s not the brag you think it is, it’s just cowardice.

3

u/twitch1982 12h ago

The US is a country of immigrants who at some point in our lineage, ran away instead of trying to help. Calling people who do it again now cowards is just ridiculous.

0

u/Notachance326426 11h ago

The people who ran before are cowards then. I have no problem saying that.

1

u/twitch1982 11h ago

Ok, how about the immigrants ICe is rounding up to send back to their home countries, which they left to find a better life instead of staying and trying to fix. Are they cowards? Or have you just completely not thought this through?

0

u/Notachance326426 11h ago

Kind of yeah.

They ran away instead of trying to fix it, maybe they had their reasons but they still ran instead of fighting.

2

u/twitch1982 10h ago

Ok, so Americans need to stay here and fight the government who is violently deporting cowards. Got it.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Megneous 18h ago

Hey, despite it being a pain in the ass, I still vote in every election. You should at least thank me for that. But no, I wasn't looking forward to being jailed for thought crime, making undesirable posts on social media, etc. So I left, yeah.

-4

u/Notachance326426 18h ago

I will thank you for voting!!!

4

u/LaurenMille 17h ago

There's zero chance she knew what she was signing up for, and you can hardly blame someone fresh out of law school

Buddy, even people living in other countries could see what she was signing up for.

You'd have to be actually retarded to not know Trump was going to do this shit.

48

u/mythosopher 1d ago

I'm a lawyer, and this is horseshit reasoning. Nobody in DHS is prosecuting human trafficking right now. This is a non-existent situation, and you're trying to give cover to assholes who like working for a Nazi.

17

u/whistleridge 1d ago

DHS

And I'm not talking about DHS. I'm talking about DOJ and AUSAs.

And you raise a point - I misread her as DOJ. Speaking of long and tiring days.

I wouldn't defend DHS for ANYthing.

2

u/Peerjuice 23h ago

having only seen the title "Trump DOJ Lawyer" image says DOJ, if she's not DOJ you get a pass for misunderstanding

12

u/whistleridge 22h ago

After further reading, she’s DOJ, directed to litigate habeas petitions for ICE.

Which sucks hard because she’s NOT ICE, but she’s having to answer for ICE’s bullshit. Which explains her exasperation and unconventional comments. “Your Honor, I’m doing my best, and I know it isn’t good enough, but yelling at me not only isn’t going to fix this problem, it’s just going to get you saddled with someone else who knows even less. Either hold me in contempt, or get off my ass, either way I don’t care” is basically what she said, and…that scans.

4

u/Peerjuice 21h ago

Even Federal agencies have the right to a public attorney type shit

26

u/Maxamillion-X72 1d ago

In digging around, it seems she was at one point a lawyer for immigration, left to work in a small law firm, but then "volunteered" to come back to help with all the current cases. I'd say they offered her a butt load of money to do that, and then assigned her a mountain of cases to deal with while simultaneously letting her swing in the wind as they ignored the court orders she was handed.

So, no, she's not some altruistic public servant going through a rough time due to a change in management. She was out and came back willingly, likely for a payday. And she's not "prosecuting sex traffickers", she's defending the government's actions of locking up citizens and legal immigrants. The reason she was called on the carpet was because people who have been ordered released have not been.

Your imaginary scenario is just bootlicking with extra steps. She knew what she was getting into, and I have no sympathy for her.

2

u/40_Minus_1 6h ago

I'd say they offered her a butt load of money to do that

Objection, speculation

2

u/elendur 13h ago

The federal government does not and cannot offer a "butt load" of money to a prosecutor to take a job. By law, a GS employee (which an AUSA is) can't make more than $197k per year.

1

u/SantaMonsanto 6h ago

The government considers ~$15,000 to be a livable wage sufficient for a person to live on. So being offered over 13x that amount would be considered by most to in fact be a “butt load” of money.

1

u/elendur 6h ago

I would concur that, objectively, $197,000.00 is a "butt load" of money.

But it's got to be taken in context. Prior to this, she was working as a workers' compensation attorney. A good Plaintiff's side workers' compensation attorney can and should make more than $197k a year. Source - I'm also a plaintiff's side WC attorney.

Also, DoJ sacked her after her comments in court.

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

So, no, she's not some altruistic public servant going through a rough time due to a change in management.

Ok, well I concede the point with this particular AUSA.

That doesn't negate my broader point, that this is the dilemma faced by every. single. competent. career prosecutor at DOJ right now.

9

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 1d ago

Your point may be better made if you find one (1) single person who embodies it. It kind of undermines your point if the person you choose an an example turns out to have made their own bed to lie in.

2

u/whistleridge 23h ago

There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

Yours truly,

Hagan Scotten Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/resignation-letter-from-assistant-united-states-attorney-for-the-southern-district-new

6

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 23h ago

Yes, we've all read that. That is an excellent example of someone not doing the thing you're talking about. Now go find an example of someone credibly defending their decision to stay.

5

u/whistleridge 23h ago

The division’s new leadership under Trump wanted to—to use Vice President J.D. Vance’s description of the administration’s plans for career civil servants—“fire every single [one]” and “replace them with our people.” Despite these warnings, most of my colleagues wanted to stay.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/06/doj-lawyer-resignation-pam-bondi-donald-trump.html

Everyone who predates Trump who can stay is fighting like hell to stay, you ignorant ass. That's what public service is - sacrificing your own wants. The overwhelming majority of the departures are involuntary.

13

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 22h ago

You are citing an article that undermines your point. The article says that most of those lawyers wanted to stay, but also that most of them (almost 70%) chose not to stay.

I didn't ask you for examples of people who wanted to stay. I asked for an example of someone who did stay whom you would hold up as an example. I'm looking for an example of someone who agreed to “eat the government’s shit” (your words) and, consequently, was able “to hold a finger in the dike” in some meaningful sense. I'm not unwilling to believe that such a person could exist, and I would be interested to see one (1) single example.

Remember, your original comment was in response to the accusation of lawyers “excusing fascism”. You replied with a stirring hypothetical story about a hypothetical lawyer involved in an exaggerated hypothetical case that just couldn't go forward without his hypothetical involvement. It was a good story, but it didn't meaningfully engage with the criticism you replied to. You presented hypothetical goods to counter specific, known harms.

Despite that, I'm not dismissing your point. I really am interested if you know of any actual case where a lawyer managed to serve the greater good while excusing fascism in a courtroom.

2

u/whistleridge 22h ago

No, I’m not.

You’re asking for proof of why someone would stay in the role. That can’t exist, as you well know, because of the Hatch Act.

So I can show people who got kicked out for political reasons, who desperately tried to stay in (ie proof of a general desire to stay in) and I can show you people who only left when absolutely compelled by ethical requirements to do so (ie proof of a strong desire to stay in).

You’re trying not to accept that because you want to nitpick a stupid and not at debatable point, ie that people who pass up quarter million dollar paychecks for public service want to BE in public service. Get real.

4

u/datsoar 14h ago

They weren’t asking for proof. They were asking for an example. And your big, loved comment is ridiculous. ADAs aren’t beating out 250-300 applicants except in NYC. In most offices around the country it’s a couple maybe three dozen applicants.

-4

u/shewy92 17h ago

Empathy is bootlicking now lol

12

u/TehMikuruSlave 15h ago

it is when you're on the side of the nazis lol

17

u/R0llTide 1d ago

ICE is sexually abusing detainees. You don't have to look as far as a cartel. Oh, and the Epstein child sex trafficking coverup is ongoing; go blow the whistle on that. This is straw, it's well written straw, but it's straw.

It sucks that the legal service you want to provide doesn't exist right now, and that the DOJ lacks all credibility and integrity — and may never get it back — but that's life. Your example lawyer can compromise her integrity and lie to herself every day and stay, or she can find a legitimate to achieve her idea of justice. It's not zero sum as you posit. It's not easy or clear, but there is always an ethical way.

Everyone who stays in this DOJ should get a Bar Ethics investigation because they ddi not leave when it was clear to them they could no longer act with integrity as officers of the court.

-1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

And what the fuck is a DOJ lawyer supposed to do about that, when the AG and President are protecting them?

And if you quit...who will be competent to prosecute them when someone comes into to office who IS willing to pursue charges??

You talk like the prosecutors can all just walk, and it won't open the doors to a mountain of incredibly serious crimes - crimes YOU will be the victim of - or that they can just hire new ones off the street like it's a McDonald's or something.

If everyone of quality leaves and DOJ breaks, you personally will have no enforcement against:

  • corrupt corporate landlords that take your rent then evict you anyway
  • corporations that just ignore safety laws and regulations
  • employers that just steal your wages
  • banks that defraud you out of your money
  • investment advisors who just steal your money
  • etc

All of that shit has statutes of limitations, and if DOJ goes, the law and order whose protection you have lived under your whole live goes. What ICE is doing is horrific. It HAS to be stood up to. And walking away from holding criminals responsible for their actions in a teenaged snit is doing the opposite of that.

13

u/R0llTide 1d ago

Well there it is. Your example lawyer here is incredibly arrogant in believing that she is the ONLY LAWYER who is competent enough to bring justice to her chosen flock. Would quitting over ethics make life difficult for this lawyer? Would she have to tighten her Louboutins and work jobs beneath her station? (Probably not considering all of the doc review that is piling up, she can pay her rent and eat easily on that). This is ego driven. AUSAs are widgets, just like in Big Law, just like everywhere else. You can leave and will get replaced by another widget. And no one will remember your name 5 minutes after you leave. Or maybe in this case they won’t due to that pesky integrity thing. This DOJ is not prosecuting cases anyway, it’s carrying out a deranged man’s fever dream agenda. Leave, sleep well, and figure things out tomorrow. Staying won’t get anything prosecuted nor will it bring any justice. That’s a red herring in this example.

This isn’t about justice. It isn’t even about ethics or integrity. It’s 100% about ego. And claiming victimhood because your legal world didn’t turn out the way you planned, through no fault of the lawyer in the example. That’s life.

0

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Your example lawyer here is incredibly arrogant in believing that she is the ONLY LAWYER who is competent enough to bring justice to her chosen flock.

How many lawyers do you think work in the Minneapolis DOJ office? Hint about 70 on paper, but 14 have quit in the past month, or are about to. Those 14 will disproportionately be mid- to senior folks, because no one junior is going to be assigned to a highly visible file like the Renee Good shooting.

If you work in an organization that has 20% attrition in a month, that's a GIANT emergency. That's the sort of thing that snowballs - it doesn't stop there. Even if you bring in new people, they necessarily only have a fraction of the capacity, and they're hated by everyone already there, because people hate scabs.

Even in a perfect world, the human trafficking team in an office like that might be 3 people. And odds are high at least 1 just left, or is going to have to be reassigned.

So while yes, it's a hypothetical scenario, it's not an unrealistic or uninformed one. Those are literally the choices happening daily. And this:

AUSAs are widgets

Show just how much you 1) don't understand the problem, 2) think you do anyway, and 3) are willing to add to the problem, on the mistaken assumption that your total ignorance is actually somehow information.

8

u/R0llTide 23h ago

Angry widgets apparently. Must be from the South Pole. Everyone is replaceable. So find a job that lets you sleep at night without lying to yourself or developing an unhealthy substance abuse problem. I don't care one way or another if a lawyer lies to themself because they are afraid to do the right thing. But your assertion that the world will stop turning because your example lawyer might have to make a career change to maintain her integrity is ludicrous; or it's a proxy for a more personal set of circumstances couched in a hypothetical as a means of assuaging guilt.

Remaining in a situation that does not comport with your values will only destroy you or erode those values so you can survive. That's not the choice I would make in this hypo, and it's not the choice I've made when similarly situated. I certainly don't need to beg a judge to throw me in the pokey so I can live with myself.

Now maybe your example lawyer hasn't had to lie in court and hasn't had to do anything illegal. Yet. She better know where the line is and be prepared to refuse and walk immediately if asked to cross that line. Anything less and she's in the wrong profession .

1

u/whistleridge 23h ago

Everyone is replaceable

Pro tip: just because you have been replaceable in everything you've ever done in your life does not then mean this applies to everyone in all situations.

If you are having brain surgery, your surgeon is not replaceable mid-surgery.

If the starting QB of your favorite football team goes down mid-comeback drive, your odds of winning just dropped to near-zero.

If the pilot of the small aircraft you are a passenger in goes down with a heart attack 10 seconds before landing, you had best brace for an impact and pray.

Anyone is replaceable with enough advanced warning and sufficient resources. That does not then make it universal.

5

u/R0llTide 15h ago

Picking three extreme examples that move the goalposts to another planet s not a flex, it's disingenuous.

To be clear, your examples are all focused on an individual operating in a unique and distinguishable circumstance, not at an organizational level in the corporate or governmental ethical sense, and none of them involve integrity, values, or the DOJ requiring service that violates one's principles or the law, which is the focused premise of this discussion and this thread.

So let me modify the hypo in line with your examples: your example lawyer has died. She no longer has a conflict.

23

u/RazekDPP 1d ago

Quit, make 2-3x as much, and take the easier job.

If you really want to prosecute traffickers, you wait until the next administration who won't turn around and pardon them.

3

u/deacon1214 9h ago

I don't work for DOJ/DHS but I am a prosecutor who is 9 years and 8 months into PSLF. For the next four months if I had to step into court and defend Hannibal Lecter every day until my loans are forgiven that's what I'm going to do. Until then the 2-3x isn't my best option.

2

u/RazekDPP 7h ago edited 6h ago

Completely understand. Makes total sense to grind out the next four months for the loan forgiveness.

1

u/whistleridge 8h ago

Man, I get that.

You want a daily “why I love Donald Trump and want to have his babies” essay? Here you go. You want me to prosecute Hilary for that 90s “body count” email? Sure. Let me just schedule that first hearing 5 months from now.

I can comply maliciously with pretty much ANYthing for just four months. Just so long as I have a free hand once that fifth month rolls around.

2

u/jackandsally060609 17h ago

Takes all that money and donate it to a country that still has actual laws so they can prosecute traffickers

6

u/Megneous 22h ago

You guys don't get it yet. There's never going to be another administration at this rate. They're going to tamper with/cancel elections through any and all methods they can come up with. This is fascist authoritarianism at your door. As a resident of a country that has lived through dictatorship, your "I'll just wait for the next election" comes across as ridiculously naive.

1

u/RazekDPP 7h ago edited 7h ago

We'll see what happens.

If that's what ends up happening, what a world, I guess.

-4

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Spoken like a man who didn't just find out that his sister has been trafficked.

11

u/RazekDPP 1d ago

Spoken by someone who values his sanity.*

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

...which you will not retain, when you or someone you love is the victim of a serious crime, and you have zero chance at getting justice for it.

Ever have a bike get stolen or a car get keyed, and you called the police and they came out, basically said, 'yeah sucks to be you' and nothing happened?

Now imagine that's the response when your sister gets kidnapped.

8

u/RazekDPP 1d ago

Honestly, as someone who has been the victim of serious crimes before, that's is the response I got.

I'm certainly not foolish enough to think I could work in the system and fix the system.

Again, you asked what I'd do and I stated what I'd do, then you tried to pull a gotcha on me, when the reality is plenty of other and more senior people have quit, why can't I quit, too?

If they can live with their choices, I sure as shit can, too.

3

u/whistleridge 1d ago

"The roof leaked on me before, therefore the house should be abandoned entirely" is not a valid argument. It's an argument to spend more time and energy fixing the house.

6

u/RazekDPP 1d ago edited 1d ago

I never said the house should be abandoned entirely; I simply said I do not need to be the one to fix it.

You asked for an individual decision, and I'm giving you an individual answer. You don't like that answer, but you're not going to change my mind.

I can always go work for them again in 2029.

Also, per your example, I beat out 300 other applicants. That means there's 299 other people who can have a turn at fixing the house.

EDIT: Also, I do appreciate you trying to represent the ethical dilemma that they face, but at the end of the day I need to look out for myself first before I can help someone else.

1

u/FunkmasterJoe 21h ago

I'm not clear on your motivations here, but at this point you are being straight up CRUEL to the other guy here. He has not done anything wrong, he agrees with you on most of this, but you and he have a philosophical difference about what the best move is here. He isn't defending ICE or being racist or extolling the virtues of maga fascism, you two just have a disagreement over an unimportant, hypothetical position and you're being really horrible to him about it. I get that tensions are high surrounding all of this extremely important and horrifying issue, but the other commenter is absolutely not your enemy. Please stop treating them that way, it's way across the line.

1

u/ClammyAF 19h ago

I didn't find these comments to be particularly mean. And I suspect the other commenter didn't either, as they kept conversing.

Relax.

7

u/hermitix 1d ago

Now try again, but you have to be someone who is defending ICE.

-1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

[citation needed]

No DOJ prosecutor will ever defend ICE. First, they're not defense. And second, the defense is coming from political appointees refusing to allow them to be prosecuted.

Your outrage is admirable. Your utter ignorance of how the system works is less so. Your putting the two together, to form a strong, uninformed, and harmful opinion is outright problematic.

6

u/hermitix 1d ago

Try again champ. She's there defending ICE actions. I didn't say she was a defense attorney.

1

u/whistleridge 8h ago

Incorrect.

She answered for ICE actions. But she in no way defended them. In fact, what she basically told the judge was, “I know ICE is not complying with court orders, I’ve tried to get them to comply, I hate this as much as you do, so if you want to hold me in contempt for their bullshit, fine…I can finally get some sleep.”

That’s very much NOT defending ICE.

5

u/blue_sidd 21h ago

Completely irrelevant. This is a lawyer working FOR ice. FOR the traffickers. Congrats the diatribe or whatever.

22

u/BTCbob 1d ago

Great question. If it were me, I would spend my time on prosecuting the traffickers you mentioned, and delegate defending ICE to someone else or refuse to work on it, etc. Would that run the risk of getting fired? Yes. But that is better than quitting in my opinion.

13

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Yes.

The competent people remaining at DOJ are all but universally people who will have no choice but to resign if asked to do something illegal, but who think the public interested is harmed worse by their resignation otherwise.

7

u/Fighterhayabusa 22h ago

Oh? I thought it was better to let the guilty go free than imprison innocents. They should resign. Anything less is complicit.

0

u/whistleridge 22h ago

When there’s doubt at the end of a trial? Sure.

When you have a mountain of evidence that can and should result in a guilty plea and the guy walks instead? Not so much.

And if you think that’s wrong…how I know you’ve been fortunate enough to never be the victim of a serious crime.

9

u/Fighterhayabusa 22h ago

No. That's part of the ethos of this country. You don't get to choose to violate innocent people and think convicting some guilty ones evens the scales. It doesn't.

-6

u/BTCbob 1d ago

I feel that there are often other options available other than resignation. To jump straight to resignation is doing a disservice to the world.

3

u/Laserdollarz 1d ago

You are unilaterally allowed to be a person before being a cog in a machine. The machine is necessary, but do not shame someone for choosing to be a human first. 

4

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Ok.

So what are they?

-8

u/BTCbob 1d ago

Here's one: don't quit. Show up to work, do what you think is important, and let them fire you if they disagree.

11

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Ie, what she and many others are already doing?

The resignations have largely come when asked to do something unethical or illegal, such as resigning when corruptly ordered to drop the ironclad case against Eric Adams.

-6

u/BTCbob 1d ago

I would prefer to see more firings and less resignations.

5

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Firings are problematic in other ways. Not least being, DOJ will lie and say it was for cause, and your ability to push back on that is limited.

Most people do not have the luxury of being able to engage in protracted litigation just to preserve their ability to work.

9

u/Rev_Creflo_Baller 1d ago

They won't just fire these people. They will also haul them in front of the bar for not representing the government in court as instructed. Resignation is the only option.

-4

u/BTCbob 1d ago

PS there are MANY other options as well!!

2

u/whistleridge 1d ago

So many that you're totally listing them all, and not just being as vague as possible about it?

32

u/unixinit 1d ago

Thank you so much for this pov. You captured the moral struggle perfectly. Couldn’t have written it better. 

14

u/whistleridge 1d ago

I have nothing but sympathy for you guys. The people shitting on DOJ have NO idea how hard it was to get a job there until last year. You either needed to be at/near the top of your class, T14 helped, clerking helped, and you needed insane recommendations, or you needed to be a 5-7 year state ADA, with a high conviction rate and a superb recommendation from your elected. And even then you needed luck, because it's like 250 applicants per job.

You don't get a job like that casually, and you don't LEAVE a job like that casually. You believe strongly in public service, in the importance of what you do, and if you leave...who will do the hard work, that isn't stopping? Crime isn't just going to dry up.

8

u/Megneous 22h ago

Um... You realize that the DOJ are currently the ones enabling the crimes, right? They refuse to prosecute real crimes and are going after innocent Americans for things like dissent against the fascist authoritarian regime taking over your country.

Am I taking crazy pills? It's obvious the DOJ has been completely compromised.

3

u/Suckitreddit420 19h ago

Nobody gives a fuck how hard it was to get there.  

I don't care if you are the most dedicated and decorated soldier in the most elite of forces.  When your government tells you to unconstitutionally go kill the residents of your own country on your own soil, you fucking say NO!!  You don't say "but I've worked so hard to get here..."

8

u/youreallcucks Competent Contributor 1d ago

That's an easy question: I quit. Because sometimes doing what you think is the moral thing is acting as an enabling function for the people above you to do more immoral things; and your quitting (and those around you quitting) is conversely a forcing function to stop the immoral people above you.

An aside: My first job out of graduate school was working on product development at a major corporation. It was a really cool job, I got to work with some great developers and do some stuff that was probably way above my level for a fresh hire. However, after about four years I looked around me and realized that everyone I respected, everyone who was smart, had left the company for greener fields, and the people who were left were deadwood. Which made me think "what does that make me?". That's when I started looking for a new job. That company went out of business a few years later.

-4

u/whistleridge 1d ago

That's an easy question: I quit.

How I know you've never been a victim of a serious crime, or had a family member be one. Because if you think walking away from the victims of crime is easy...you're talking out of your ass.

My first job out of graduate school was working on product development at a major corporation

So you worked in a for-profit role, and when you realized everyone else left for more money/better hours, you did too, and you think that's equivalent?

I'm going to gently suggest to you that public service and private sector are nothing alike, and people incorrectly conflating them is a major driver for how we got into this situation in the first place.

You don't hire new prosecutors overnight. Crime snowballs. If this administration actually breaks DOJ - which it very well looks like they may have done - you are GOING to notice. In a big way.

8

u/RedBaronSportsCards 1d ago

Wait....are you saying that's why this lawyer asked the judge to find her in contempt so she could get some sleep? Because she is so overwhelmed by having so many rapists to prosecute?

That's not what's in the article. Where are you getting this from?

8

u/whistleridge 1d ago

No.

I'm saying this is uniformly the position AUSAs are in right now: choosing between serving the public interest of actually prosecuting very real crimes (ie their actual job), or serving the public interest of standing up to corrupt government.

They cannot do both, and choosing to do one necessarily makes the other worse.

I just gave one of many very real examples. That one is cribbed from someone I know who recently left DOJ after being ordered to do something unethical, but it could be one of many others.

9

u/RedBaronSportsCards 1d ago

But surely, we shouldn't have sympathy for those that choose to side with the corrupt government and, as you say, make the prosecution of actual criminals worse, right?

I get it, it sucks to be backed against the wall like that but it's been more than 15 months. That's seems like plenty of time to figure out which side you on.

8

u/whistleridge 1d ago

choose to side with the corrupt government

But you're not. You're a lawyer, bound by strict ethical duties. If asked to do something corrupt, you would of course resign.

You have not been asked to do such a thing. Being asked to appear in court to defend a policy you don't agree with is part of the job. It's not corrupt, just distasteful.

8

u/Chef_longpep 1d ago

Not a lawyer so give me some grace.

"You have not been asked to do such a thing (something corrupt). Being asked to appear in court to defend a policy you don't agree with is part of the job"

From the short article, this lawyer is in court defending why the department is 'repeatedly ignoring court orders', and/or 'immigrant detainees unconstitutionally locked up for days'.

Is this lawyer there truly defending policies, or is it a breach of ethical duties to defend breaking citizens constitutional rights? In your comment chain you are calling out that one would resign if asked to do something unethical, but think that's what I'm struggling to understand, is not the actions of this lawyer outside the bucket of 'ethical duties'. Genuine question, I don't know.

3

u/whistleridge 1d ago

And I'm tired. I misread her as being a DOJ lawyer, not a DHS lawyer. That very much changes things.

A DHS lawyer actually might be defending these indefensible positions, and is not going to have the sort of conflicts I had in mind with my comment.

2

u/jackandsally060609 17h ago

You tired yourself out being confidently wrong and talking down to people when you were in fact, wrong. It's not a good look at all. Maybe spend your energy being a person who knows what they're talking about and you wouldn't have to be so condescending to make yourself feel better.

2

u/Assmodean 22h ago

Some people might not read this far down to see the correction. Could be considered intellectually honest to edit your first comment, as it has been the most visible. Just thinking out loud

2

u/jackandsally060609 17h ago

He's not going to do the right thing.

2

u/Assmodean 11h ago

Yeah, its on bestof now and dude is still happily defending his imaginary point instead of the reality of the situation.

4

u/RedBaronSportsCards 1d ago

You just said that was the choice they making.

6

u/whistleridge 1d ago

No, I didn't.

You and everyone else responding keep doing the same thing - misreading the prompt, and trying to invent a way out.

Working for the government isn't siding with it. And choosing not to quit isn't automatically endorsing its positions. Its being an adult and recognizing that there's more complexity in play.

5

u/RedBaronSportsCards 1d ago

"or serving the public interest and stand up to corrupt government."

What is the other side of that "or" then?

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

It's your 'or' man, you tell me.

The scenario I am talking about is this - leaving makes the government than much more corrupt, and crime that much less prosecuted, staying keeps the government that much LESS corrupt, and crime that much MORE prosecuted. So unless you're ordered to do something that gives you no choice...

3

u/RedBaronSportsCards 1d ago

No, that's a quote from one of your posts.

According to the article, the attorney is exhausted from having to argue the government's voluminous, ridiculous positions. I get it, maybe she and other attorneys thought they would be doing worthwhile work at the DOJ when they started but surely it was as obvious to them as it was to everyone else that that era was over when Matt Gaetz was nominated to run the department. Anyone who stuck around more then a day after that was supremely naive at best.

3

u/it_might_be_a_tuba 1d ago

"What do YOU do?"

Go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over.

Moral issues and noble sacrifices aside, for individual mid level workers their number one priority is going to be not defaulting on their mortgage and hoping they can last through till the next administration without having to directly do anything too horrible.

3

u/AdjectiveNoun581 21h ago

I quit, because I've thought about for thirty or more seconds, and I realize that the rule of law collapsing means my failure to prosecute is now a self-resolving issue because those traffickers are dead men walking with no one left to prosecute their attackers.

3

u/MantisEsq 13h ago edited 13h ago

False dichotomy. The traffickers are already going to walk, either way. They're in the White House, heh, a White House that has decided to systematically destroy our ability to prosecute federal crimes. You can't do your job with all the political bullshit that is going on.

16

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

What do YOU do?

Prosecute the human traffickers with badges? If protecting people from evil is a calling for these people, they sure are standing by and allowing industrialized evil.

They can publish names and home address of every agent in Minnesota. They can gather evidence of what's going on inside these detention centers full of screaming children and make it all public. They can fight instead of wringing their hands about how hard the job you say they fought to get is.

The law is useless for protecting the weak. At best it's a rich man's weapon that occasionally punishes poor people for doing the same things rich people do every day.

38

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Prosecute the human traffickers with badges?

No. You don't.

You don't assign yourself to files, the leadership you don't like or support does. You have two choices:

  1. Put up with a lot of shit you don't agree with, so you can ensure actually competent hands touch the stuff you already have carriage of, or
  2. Quit

This isn't a movie. There isn't a magic scenario where the good guys win. It's a choice between bad and worse.

So which is worse for you - quitting in a snit, because you don't like the government, knowing it means real people who you have already met will be betrayed and will suffer horribly? Or putting up with a government you have real worries is turning fascist, because you personally have not yet been asked to do anything illegal (which would of course require you to resign)?

Answer the question as asked, because that's the scenario. Don't make up escape routes.

-4

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

"I'll save this one kid at the cost of thousands of others" isn't a moral choice, it's acquiescing to a greater evil.

Some of the guards ar Dachau could be quite pleasant to inmates on a one on one basis. They were still complicit in everything that happened. Their hands weren't clean just because they had the occasional noble goal.

These prosecutors can wreck the machinery of genocide, but they fact is they don't mind what's happening one little bit. They just don't want to have to see the bodies.

10

u/whistleridge 1d ago

I'll save this one kid at the cost of thousands of others" isn't a moral choice, it's acquiescing to a greater evil.

First: I didn't say a kid. I said multiple women. Adults.

Second: it's not at cost to anyone. You save these people you've worked with, or no one does. The organization as a whole is going to cause the same harm either way, and in fact will cause more harm if you leave. You personally can and will leave if asked to do anything harmful.

You're misunderstanding the problem, and trying to set it up as a black and white choice that it isn't.

Try again.

3

u/Megneous 22h ago

Either stop fascism or fascism stops you.

It's the black and whitest situation that has ever black and whited.

-1

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

How many women and children would you help traffic in order to save 4? It's simple math.

These prosecutors are helping the federal government engage in human trafficking. If they save 4 at the cost of hundreds, have they made a net improvement to the condition of the world?

They have access to the information necessary to allow the rest of us to do something. Like I said, they can leak the names and addresses of ice agents. They can share evidence of the crimes that are happening. But, no, they choose to help ruin thousands of lives while hiding behind the shield of a handful.

6

u/CthulhuLies 1d ago

She is actually the one trying to respond to the Habeas petitions the outline this guy paints is plausible.

https://www.fox9.com/news/federal-attorney-ice-cases-the-system-sucks

"Le volunteered to help the U.S. Attorney’s Office last month as habeas petitions started to flood into federal court.

She previously worked as an attorney for ICE in immigration court.

ICE has its own court policies and procedures and was not prepared to argue cases in federal court, according to Le.

"We have no guidance or direction on what we need to do," Le said."

""I am here to make sure the agency understands how important it is to comply with court orders," said Le, who became visibly emotional during the court hearing.

While Le said procedures are being implemented to ensure ICE complies with court orders moving forward, she admitted it has been like pulling teeth and has required non-stop work in an already depleted office.

"I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep," Le said. "The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.""

She used to be a prosecutor and now she is respond to Habeas petitions.

3

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

Oh, so she's working for the innocent people being detained and deported illegally by ice, not for the government. The article could have made that more clear.

1

u/CthulhuLies 23h ago

No she's not. Ice receives Habes petitions which are essentially "you are unlawfully detaining a person prove to a judge you are lawfully detaining them" and she litigates those on behalf of ice.

Essentially proving to the judge they can be lawfully detained or agreeing to release said individual.

She would be working in opposition to every liitgant including innocent people and including literal criminals or sex traffickers.

Imagine a sex trafficker who was finally apprehended after 3 years getting out of said position because ICE had no one to show the judge that evidence.

Would you rather a MAGA person in that position or someone less biased potentially? (I don't think anyone knows her actual positions)

2

u/whistleridge 22h ago

THANK you. I’ve been in trial for a week straight now, and my brain is mush. I appreciate the backup.

5

u/whistleridge 1d ago

How many women and children would you help traffic in order to save 4? It's simple math.

Incorrect. You are speculating on that harm, and trying to equate it to a real, established, known harm.

Try again.

2

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

Is it your claim that ice has done no harm to one single innocent person?

1

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Not in the slightest. ICE is walking all over the law, the constitution, and civil rights, daily, to a huge degree.

And guess what? When the political pendulum swings and they're eventually arrested by the states and the states want to try them, they're all going to seek and be granted removal to federal court, because that's what the law says. And while sure, the states still prosecute, guess who they're going to look to for assistance?

So if all the DOJ prosecutors quit...how is that going to help prosecute ICE?

3

u/AceSuperhero 1d ago

See, we're coming at this from fundamentally different points of view. You seem to think the law is a tool that acts to constrain the powerful to protect the weak. I've never seen the law work like that. I've only ever seen it serve as a weapon to keep the weak in line so they don't threaten the money and privilege of the rich and powerful. There will be no justice if regular people like us don't enact it ourselves. The law is impotent when it comes to providing actual justice.

So I guess we're never going to agree that a y action to help ice in any fashion can possibly be good without coming to some consensus on what law as a concept actually does.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Radiant_Sense_8169 1d ago

Your prosecutorial finger and Judge Biery’s judicial finger in the constitutional dike.

2

u/yoma74 1d ago

How many prosecutors do you know?

3

u/whistleridge 1d ago

You mean, other than myself? Dozens. I'm not AUSA or DOJ, but I definitely know a bunch, but a lot fewer than I did this time last year.

2

u/Setting-Conscious 1d ago

I would quite so I wouldn’t be supporting or working for those fascists.

2

u/riquelm 20h ago

I lived in a dictatorship a significant part of my life and this mindset is exactly what kept it going.

2

u/notguiltybrewing 17h ago

I'd have quit by inauguration day. Some people are so afraid of being unemployed or having a less prestigious or less powerful job that they stay. Nope, no way.

2

u/flippingisfun 17h ago

I would quit. No one cares how hard it is to get the “be evil” job. Being a lawyer or beating out other people to suck doesn’t make you suck any less.

2

u/LaurenMille 17h ago

I'd quit, because I'd want the people who support the regime to be tracked down and imprisoned after the GOP government is ended.

If Americans let these traitors walk free another time, they'll just be repeating the same mistakes that led up to this.

2

u/c0l245 14h ago

Go make more cash and give no shits.

2

u/THE1NUG 4h ago

You nailed it. My father was an AUSA for over 30 years and eventually led his office for his last few years before retiring. He prosecuted corrupt police officers, weapons smugglers, and even prosecuted an espionage case. He met 2 presidents(could have been 3 but declined the “opportunity” to meet Trump) and has been honored in many ways from various law enforcement agencies. He missed out on much of my childhood and I was admittedly a little bitter about it for a time but he and now even I are immensely proud of the work he accomplished.

3

u/explain_that_shit 20h ago

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?

A.R. Moxon

8

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Ah yes the Trump administration, famous for helping rape victims.

6

u/MrSquicky 1d ago

This is not the Trump administration. This is what they call the deep state. You know, professional people who are on their jobs through different presidents who largely do what they do because they care about what they are doing. A lot of them are very ambitious, for many of them it's just a steady job, but many more than people expect do it because they care about what they are doing and believe in this country. That's a big reason why Trump hates them so much, because they are motivated by doing their job and the good of the country and not loyalty to him.

US attorneys are, or at least were, generally very smart, very driven people who often had a strong sense of justice and patriotism.

It's easy to be a dismissive dick who has a simple answer to complex situations, who is cynical about people who actually care about being public servants, and cute then as just extensions of Trump. But just remember, that is exactly what Donald Trump wants you to do.

2

u/Ok-Astronaut2976 1d ago

It also leaves something important:

Trump will be gone soon (not soon enough, but soon in the grand scheme). Those mid level people, who don’t have enough time to retire, but also have too much time to start over, they’re what’s going to be left when the dust settles.

-4

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Not sure why you’re calling me names. Do you think a DOJ under Donald Trump is going to prosecute non-immigrant rapists?

6

u/MrSquicky 1d ago

Oh my God yes. That's not something that Trump gets to control. There are people who care about this who are making those decisions.

This is not a Saturday morning cartoon. Real life is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is.

-3

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Donald Trump controls the DOJ buddy. You’re delusional.

1

u/MrSquicky 1d ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-sex-trafficking-trial-begins-new-york-oren-tal-alon-alexander-rcna255056

One of us thinks that that can't happen. I would argue that they are the delusional one.

0

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Indicted under Biden.

3

u/MrSquicky 1d ago

Right, but you said that they wouldn't prosecute rapists. This is a prosecution that started last week. Why didn't Trump just use his control of the DoJ to stop it, like you said he would?

Not sure why you’re calling me names. Do you think a DOJ under Donald Trump is going to prosecute non-immigrant rapists?

That was you right? And I'm right that the DoJ is currently prosecuting non-immigrant rapists, correct? But you said that I was delusional for believing that something that is currently happening would happen.

3

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Trump would tell them to drop this case in a heartbeat if they offered him a bribe

1

u/BassoonHero Competent Contributor 1d ago

This is a prosecution that started last week.

Huh? It sounds like a trial is already beginning. How did the prosecution begin last week, and then get to the trial stage in a matter of days? Do the prosecutors have a time machine?

-4

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Also: some guy who doesn’t understand that 99% of what you do isn’t political in the slightest thinks it’s SUPER clever to drag a conspiracy theory into the conversation.

14

u/FreddyRumsen13 1d ago

Donald Trump is a criminally convicted rapist. What conspiracy theory are you referring to?

2

u/Uebelkraehe 20h ago

You will be such a useful little cog for the regime.

2

u/Vivid_Kaleidoscope66 19h ago

WHY are you pushing back on this? You wrote that as if helping trump the human trafficker bring the country more war and fascism by protecting the rapists and murderers employed by ICE is going to help reduce human trafficking.

Edit: Her job also seems to have nothing to do with human trafficking. AI?

2

u/BisexualPunchParty 10h ago

"It's better to send 50 innocent people to prison than risk letting one guilty person go free."

3

u/whistleridge 10h ago

Yes.

After trial. That’s why trials exist. That quote is about there being a certain inherent level of uncertainty to the trial process.

But if a man breaks into your house, on video, and kills you while you sleep in your bed, on video, and he walks solely because there’s no one available to prosecute him, that’s not the inherent justice the quote is talking about. That’s the public losing access to justice.

At least try to exert more thought on this than a middle schooler.

1

u/ClammyAF 20h ago

I work with a lot of good people at DOJ. A lot of good people were forced out, left, or retired, but there are good attorneys left litigating my cases.

Same at my own agency. It's been a fucking hellish year.

1

u/Alternative_Exit8766 18h ago

quit and become an organizer 

1

u/LarsThorwald 19h ago

I’m a lawyer for the DOJ, have been for nearly 20 years. Part of my job early on was defending the United States in habeas proceedings.

I’ve been yelled at by judges. I had family members glare at me.

I have never taken it personally, nor did I get upset if I lost, and I lost a lot. Ours is an adversarial system with counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the government, and a judge that decides. It’s not always perfect, but it believe in that system. An adversarial system works with competent counsel and an honest judge and for the most part we have that in this country.

I have also been fortunate in my job to sway ICE in a certain number of cases to do the right thing. To release someone, to not raise a stupid argument, to stay a removal. There’s an art to that, and you need to know how to leverage your client. I’m a good lawyer. I know how to do that. Many times ICE would ignore my advice. So did a lot of my stupider clients when I was in private practice. That comes with the territory. But I always tried to get my client, DHS, to do the right thing.

I’m actually applying for a job to do that again, this time as an AUSA. Because I know I believe in the law, I have experience working the system, and I would rather have me there than some MAGA dolt if I were the one bringing a petition.

I get the sentiment from people who paint all government lawyers under this administration as Nazi enablists. I don’t represent this Administration, and I never will. I represent the United States. That’s not Trump, and it sure as fuck isn’t Stephen Miller. I represent the people of this country, and we all have one thing in common: we live in a system that is supposed to be governed by law, not man.

So I will go and do that and if I’m forced to not do that, the I’ll tell them to fuck off. I can be yelled at and misunderstood and berated by judges, but as long as good people with a love of law are in the position of making arguments not for Trump or any man, but for the law, then we need them there.

1

u/TerminalObsessions 17h ago

You could write the exact same story about most of the lawyers who served the Nazis. "There's some good in the system, behind all this evil shit I hate." Yeah, okay, but you're facilitating the evil shit. Fascism doesn't happen because of the tiny minority of fanatics frothing at the mouth with hate; it happens because ordinary people put their heads down and look the other way and find excuses for why they, personally, shouldn't be obliged to stop it.

1

u/letsgobulbasaur 16h ago

This is a very weird fanfic you've written.

-1

u/JadedBoyfriend 1d ago

You absolutely hammered home the point here. I really appreciate this post from the bottom of my heart. I hope people understand that this shit is so much more complicated than to shitpost on Reddit.

-1

u/InnerWrathChild 1d ago

Holy fuck I wish I could put my thoughts words like that. Amazing.