492
Trump-appointed judge 'quickly' blocks admin from destroying evidence in new DHS killing
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
492 points (100.0% liked)
politics
27463 readers
2959 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is the job of judges- to interpret existing law. The news here is that a judge agreed that it is illegal and told them not to do it.
Again, how is there not precedence in law of or being illegal to alter or destroy evidence? You have a confident response by tone, but respectfully, I don't hear any substance you've offered?
It's as if a judge explicitly ruled that murder is illegal... Nice to reestablish, Y but yes, that's established. I'm just trying to understand what this does distinctly?
Are you familiar with how common law systems in the US and other former English colonies work? Essentially the way it works is
Party A does something they believe is within their rights under the law. In this case, trying to destroy evidence. Now, the crucial part here is that Party A can be wrong about their claim, but our legal system determines that courts are the ones that have to decide whether that is true.
Party B sues in court claiming that Party A did something illegal. In this case, the state of Minnesota is claiming that Ice is trying to do something illegal by trying to destroy evidence
The judge looks at the facts of the case and determines if Party A did in fact do something illegal, taking things like precedent into account.
If the judge believes that Party B is right and Party A's actions were indeed illegal, like they did in this case, they issue a judgement that both parties must abide by.
In this case, it is blatantly obvious that the actions are actually illegal but our legal system is set up in a such a way that this must be proven in court.
I appreciate the expansion. Again though, we go to court to convict an accused murderer and the judge/jury rules eventually, but is there a preliminary statement by the judge in every case to reestablish for the record, the illegality of murder as an act?
My point is that it feels odd that there isn't established law that states this clearly prior to the act where a judge is required to make a preliminary statement like this, where they wouldn't with a murder charge in my experience.
Ah I didn't see what was tripping you up. In this case, this is normally not noteworthy at all. Consider a case where a local car dealership owner is accused of committing tax fraud. If he was taken to court over it, the judge would issue an order like this saying not to destroy evidence that could be used. The noteworthy part is that our judicial system, particularly Trump appointed federal judges, has been mostly unwilling to reign in Trump's abuses at all and so something like this feels like a win