General Discussion

elocs

(24,043 posts) Fri Apr 11, 2025, 10:48 AM Apr 11

Trump lawyers claim that even a U.S. citizen may be deported if they can get the person

our of the country before a judge or court intervenes.

The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. Audio only, scroll down for transcript to audio at 4:59.

This would seem to be big news for all and any of us.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump lawyers claim that even a U.S. citizen may be deported if they can get the person (Original Post) elocs Apr 11 OP

"Due process? Never heard of it" Are unreported crimes, crimes? marble falls Apr 11 #1

Your argument is with Lawrence O'Donnell. I'm just posting what I heard on his show this morning. elocs Apr 11 #2

Not arguing with Larry or you, arguing with the Fed attorneys. What they don't get is ... marble falls Apr 11 #3

I would not use the term "deported". It's more like "disappeared". nt CousinIT Apr 11 #4

Thank you, Putin. Kid Berwyn Apr 11 #5

Do these clowns realize that using their logic malaise Apr 11 #6

Who is John Rawls Nasruddin Apr 11 #9

Wow. As if some of us had already been telling others about this. OldBaldy1701E Apr 11 #7

How much do you see about it now on the front page of GD? elocs Apr 11 #11

The same as GW Bush with his "extraordinary rendition." CaptainTruth Apr 11 #8

As Malaise pointed out... GiqueCee Apr 11 #10

marble falls

(64,714 posts)

1. "Due process? Never heard of it" Are unreported crimes, crimes?

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 10:52 AM

Apr 11

elocs

(24,043 posts)

2. Your argument is with Lawrence O'Donnell. I'm just posting what I heard on his show this morning.

Reply to marble falls (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 10:56 AM

Apr 11

The Trump regime is not a big fan of due process and seems to be able to ignore courts when they choose to do so.

marble falls

(64,714 posts)

3. Not arguing with Larry or you, arguing with the Fed attorneys. What they don't get is ...

Reply to elocs (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 11:32 AM

Apr 11

?si=5Q7IJ3QYbJizmKa1

CousinIT

(11,242 posts)

4. I would not use the term "deported". It's more like "disappeared". nt

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 12:17 PM

Apr 11

Kid Berwyn

(19,971 posts)

5. Thank you, Putin.

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 12:22 PM

Apr 11

Putin's puppet put in place three of the worst Just-uses to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

malaise

(283,038 posts)

6. Do these clowns realize that using their logic

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 12:25 PM

Apr 11

they may all end up in foreign prisons?

Nasruddin

(993 posts)

9. Who is John Rawls

Reply to malaise (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 01:20 PM

Apr 11

Von Neumann shrugs

OldBaldy1701E

(7,669 posts)

7. Wow. As if some of us had already been telling others about this.

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 01:14 PM

Apr 11

But no one wanted to believe it.

How interesting.

elocs

(24,043 posts)

11. How much do you see about it now on the front page of GD?

Reply to OldBaldy1701E (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 02:52 PM

Apr 11

Trump and all the rest will try and get away with whatever they can no matter how ridiculous it sound. But Lawrence O'Donnell talked a lot about it in his show last night. I'm betting the guy they illegally took and told to get back won't be here anytime soon. I hope he survives this though.

CaptainTruth

(7,548 posts)

8. The same as GW Bush with his "extraordinary rendition."

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 01:17 PM

Apr 11

The Bush administration asserted they had the right to abduct US citizens on US soil & take them to foreign "black sites" if they were labeled as "enemy combatants".

It's deja vu all over again.

GiqueCee

(2,133 posts)

10. As Malaise pointed out...

Reply to elocs (Original post)

Fri Apr 11, 2025, 01:54 PM

Apr 11

... Trump's idiot lawyers could find themselves on the receiving end of this diseased and indefensible interpretation of the law. Are they not legally entitled to decline to represent a position that they consider morally repugnant, and is obviously unconstitutional?

Reply to this discussion