FAFO: AOC Is Headed to Jail!!
- Thread starter Here_4_a_Day
- Start date
Last I checked, the head of ICE has precisely zero authority to 'file criminal charges" against anyone.
We'll surely get some chime in from more knowledge folks, but isn't the first step a criminal complaint (usually from law enforcement) and then the prosecutor decides to file charges? Is there not a distinction between the two (filing a complaint, and filing charges)?
But the DOJ can, right?
Didn’t actually read the OP, eh?
Precisely. Agencies and subagencies can make referrals, but the DOJ has sole and exclusive authority to represent the United States in the federal courts, and is the only agency authorized to institute a criminal proceeding.
Not at all. BTW, you too can "officially" make a complaint, but it don't mean squat unless/until an AUSA decides to sign his name to a criminal information or indictment.
How would you defend what she has done from a charge of obstruction?
Intent, letter of the law criminal conduct.
So, let's make sure i know what you mean by "what she has done". Please clarify. Because what holman says is that she put out some sort of general materials about how to stay in the country. So, among other things...
1. To have obstruction, you have to have obstruct something specific -- an official proceeding, a specific investigation, etc. Here, I've seen or heard nothing , and Holman's comments don't suggest anything, along those lines. So first from a simple process perspective, issuing some general guide in the abstract simply ain't obstruction. For example, consider a hypothetical where ice is going after an illegal - let's call him Phenomenelio Frantastico - and Phenomenelio has never seen nor heard of AOC or her programs. Has AOC obstructed ICE's investigation or arrest of Phenomenelio? I don't think so.
2. Now of course I have no idea what whatever she put out actually says. But, let's just say I have my doubts - notwithstanding AOC's stupidity and ego - that it suggests some vigorous network of safe houses, sources to access to fake documents, or the like. Rather, I'd bet that it includes things like advocacy hotlines and the like.
3. I also don't know much about the context of her publication. Depending on what those are, she may be simply immune under the speech and debate clause.
Last edited:
Likely difficult to charge her with any crime as she did not attend or present during the webinar. Her office hosted it on the office's Facebook page.
She did release a pamphlet, but that was limited to "rights" afforded people, so again, not sure there is a crime available to actually charge AOC with in this scenario.
She did release a pamphlet, but that was limited to "rights" afforded people, so again, not sure there is a crime available to actually charge AOC with in this scenario.
Similar threads
