Spyke
politics·politics byMicroWave

Trump administration threatens to arrest House Democrats over ICE facility incident

Democratic members of Congress who were part of a scuffle with law enforcement officers at an ICE facility in New Jersey may face arrests, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to Axios Saturday.

Why it matters: It would be a major escalation in the Trump administration's arrests of politicians and other public servants, including the mayor of Newark and a judge in Milwaukee.

  • DHS is accusing the House Democrats of assaulting law enforcement. The lawmakers say they were the ones who were assaulted.
  • The lawmakers involved in the incident: Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) and LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.).
Trump administration threatens to arrest House Democrats over ICE facility incidenthttps://www.axios.com/2025/05/10/trump-ice-arrest-house-democrats-new-jerseyOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
lemmy.world

They released some body cam footage but it doesn’t show that so I’m assuming they aren’t releasing the video of the ICE agent getting body slammed by a Congressperson because it’s rad as fuck and that Congressperson would instantly be named Speaker of the House, Smack Down Champion, and a Cardinal by Chicago Pope regardless of their faith tradition.

Or maybe it just didn’t actually happen.

134
CaptDustreply
sh.itjust.works

The rabid Congresswoman that did the alleged assaulting:

Contrast with these softies got their asses handed to them

This checks out!

161
lemmy.world

She body slammed one and threw the rest off the prison roof like when Undertaker threw Mankind off the cage in that Hell in the Cell match.

https://youtu.be/9hMp65SzyTU

“God almighty! God almighty! As God as my witness, he is broken in half!”

71

For the unaware, u/ShittyMorph was once a prolific redditor, who was a mainstay on the website, so much so he became the beta testers for tips on reddit. While haven't been on reddit for years, I do fondly remember most of the interactions he had with people. I don't think I'll ever forget how he donated his kidney to someone who was there in nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcers table.

18
lemmy.net.au

Assault includes things as simple as unwanted touching. Not all assault is body slamming someone. Spitting at someone is assault.

-20
CaptDustreply
sh.itjust.works

Yes however someone said there was body slamming. Still waiting for the footage

27
lemmy.net.au

By the politicians? I’d love to see that so hopefully if it exists it comes out haha

My point however was that the “rabid congresswoman” absolutely could have assaulted the police.

-21
CaptDustreply
sh.itjust.works

"We actually have body camera footage of some of these members of Congress assaulting our ICE enforcement officers, including body slamming a female ICE officer. So we will be showing that to viewers very shortly."

  • Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, speaking to CNN

But sure, she could have by strictest definition. No disagreement. Cops could have stayed on their side of the fence too though, never allowing Grams to body slam.

26
xyzzyreply

She'll get around to it once she finishes finals week

4

You're missing the fucking point. Nobody is disputing that there might have been assault. Congratulations on winning an argument that you were having with your imagination

5
lemm.ee

Battery. Assault is threatening, battery involves physical touch, no matter how light.

3

No, Assault includes threatening, but also can be actual physical touch no matter how light. Battery is more often used when there is physical touch, but Assault can be too and is still the correct term.

-2

The Atlantic has a great piece this month about how we saying the judicial system split in two, Watch for more of this and increasing penalties, some of them won’t be let out of jail eventually. And we’ll just be disappearing our political opponents.

103
lemmy.world

Democrats didn't have the will to arrest Trump, and now guess what...

78

Good thing Merrick Garland dragged his feet, probably so the democrats could fundraise on Trump.

13

And Schumer will send another strongly worded letter.

Freaking ass had the chance to alter history potentially and he fucked it up.

60

Oh right, between ICE agents and house politicians, the latter really are the ones who everyone would believe to be the ones physically assaulting someone.

57
lemmy.myserv.one

Spineless Democracts "Relax everyone. It is totally normal in a healthy democracy when the Executive branch, in this cause President Trump is threatening to arrest Legislators."

49
AmidFurorreply
fedia.io

Yes! The take home message of this article is that Democrats are spineless and wouldn't risk themselves to stand up against fascism. You put it so succinctly that I felt the need to highlight your comment.

We need to air as much ire against Democrats as possible and consider sitting out the next election if they don't start doing something to try to stop these illegal detentions by that other party that doesn't really need to be our focus right now.

15
lemmy.myserv.one

There is a definetely a faction of Democracts who are willing to fight back. It seems that facton is the minority while the majority sit on their ass.

12
lemmy.ca

Yea sit out the election and really let the republicans win! That’ll show them!

7
Alaikreply
lemmy.zip

I don't know why someone downvoted you. Your comment couldn't have been dripping with more sarcasm if you tried.

6

It's hard to go sarcastically with a comment so blatantly stupid when so many people appear to believe it already.

9

The downvotes are more likely to be from people who share the sentiment of the original comment.

1
lemmy.world

It is the blue MAGA and neoliberals. There are plenty of them in Lemmy. Any thing that will say their policies no longer work and it what led us to Donald Trump, and they be like: "Don't touch my precioussss! I am filthy richesss!"

At least they not as loud as they were and chanting "vote blue, no matter who" since Chuck Schumer gave the Republicans the pass on the previous budget bill.

0
AmidFurorreply
fedia.io

Are you saying the blue MAGA downvoted my comment because they didn't understand it was sarcastic or because you didn't understand it was sarcastic?

5
lemmy.ca

It is the stupidity of participation that equals what they call it “blue maga” because someone else declared it. “Don’t touch my precious” is something cast upon you… it’s your curse and you now wear it… only because someone views being liberal a terrible effort that deserves a name. You don’t value civil rights… apparently you are blue maga… you are a label not a human.

-5
lemmy.world

The "blue MAGA" usually refers to tone-deaf centrist Democrats who maybe socially progressive, but economically on the right. They refuse to acknowledge the ramifications of jobs outsourcing, without offering alternative jobs to replace the outsourced one, and then call the working class -- who by the way used to vote Democrat-- as "stupid, imbecile and red neck Hillbillies". Blue MAGA are also NIMBYs who tend to object to building more affordable housing because it will bring down the property value in their area.

In other words, blue MAGA believe in social justice, but think economic justice is a step too far. The working class who try to voice their genuine economic concerns, are scoffed aside as idiots and condescended by elitist blue MAGA. And then they wonder why the working class turned to right. The blue MAGA (let's just call them neoliberals because that's what they are actually called in the rest of the world), are just as complicit in the rise of fascism. The neoliberals don't want their precious stocks and corporate lobby money touched and would rather see Trump and Republicans remain in office, than actually return to keeping in touch with the working class.

2

From the way they act like a cult around their preferred political party, similar to the non-blue variety, and attacks anyone that criticises the Democrats regardless of the validity of the criticism. They're a vocal minority, but part of the DNC support base, nonetheless.

0
lemmy.myserv.one

There is a definetely a faction of Democracts who are willing to fight back. It seems that facton is the minority while the majority sit on their ass.

Source.

4

Are these spineless democrats in the room with us now?

I mean, this is lemmy. So yes.

1

I know the police aren't allowed to detain a congress person heading to DC for congress business, does that not apply when they are at a federally run facility to conduct official business? They let them tour eventually so obviously they are aware of why they showed up, contradicting any claims they make about unlawful entry or whatever excuse they come up with.

30

They need to pull a "No u" with dRump and release an arrest warrant for the treasonous 47th and his goons. 😬

Too bad they don't have the balls to do things even at these level... Hopefully they get their heads out their ass before it's too late. 🫩

20
feddit.org

Is there no immunity of parlamentarians in the US? Not a rhetoric question, I just don't know.

14

Unless they're on their way to a session of Congress (in which case they get to ignore a multitude of vehicular laws), not really LEGALLY. De facto, they've been immune from prosecution in a lot of cases (and moreover immune to actual consequences) because congresspeople are, by and large, wealthy, white, and male.

17
lemmy.net.au

If there is there shouldn’t be. Things like diplomatic immunity are terrible and should not exist.

2
B-TR3Ereply
feddit.org

Would you mind to elaborate? That fact that you think something was "terrible" is not an argument. I think, you don't really have an idea how immunity actually works. It's not synonymous to "impunity".

-1
lemmy.net.au

Sure - someone with diplomatic immunity shouldn’t get to break any law they want without facing any consequences.

1

First of all we were talking about parlamentary immunity which is quite different. Secondarily if diplomatic immunity weren't, diplomacy would be dead. But, I guess you don't need diplomacy, so it's a bad thing, anyway.

1
feddit.uk

If they get arrested, time to surround the facility in which they are held and prevent anyone from entering and leaving until they are released.

11

Trump starting to arrest his political oppenents. Germany 1933, chile 1973, so many other historical examples...

Here you are, USA. Enjoy the ride.

11
Optionalreply
lemmy.world

Because the Dems need to get off the floor and start attacking. They - and let’s face it, most everyone with half an ounce of reason - is hoping they can hang tight until the midterms, win the house back, and undo everything in four years.

1
fedia.io

So they get off their asses and fucking do something? I thought they were clear about that.

5

Would they get off their asses? The ones being arrested are probably not the ones that would sit on their asses, so the whole premise of his argument is that we assume the ones who would sit on their asses would even care enough about their colleague to do something other than capitulate to the fascist even more than what they are already doing now. I hope you guys are right.

4
lemmy.net.au

If they broke the law arrest them and charge them. If not, leave them alone.

Seems pretty straight forward.

-32
lemm.ee

You again? Well it’s not illegal and you don’t care about the law because so many of these republicans are breaking it and you don’t care about that.

22
lemmy.net.au

Oh I’m flattered that you know who I am. I have no idea who you are and don’t intend to even attempt to remember. Rent free baby!

What’s not illegal? Did you even read my post? I said IF THEY BROKE THE LAW ARREST THEM AND CHARGE THEM. What on earth is there to get your knickers in a bunch about in that statement?

Seems you can’t argue the point, but the person instead.

-36
Doomreply
ttrpg.network

Because the law isn't always right and ICE is a dog shit thing anyway so honestly nah if the representatives broke the law shoot ICE anyway fuck em.

Also I dunno you never heard of you or seen you post but you seem like a smarmy little swine

11
lemmy.net.au

Because the law isn’t always right

Well the law is what is legal. If people break the law, they should be charged. This is hardly a new concept. You don’t think lawbreakers should be charged?

-18
Doomreply
ttrpg.network

No I don't because if they were this country wouldn't exist.

It is American to resist bullshit laws. The founding fathers made that clear so no you're wrong now sit down and shut up

5
JasonDJreply
lemmy.zip

You're not wrong, but that idealism assumes that the law is just and supported by due process and the writ of habeus corpus...not the desires of an unchecked tyrant.

We are currently in the latter.

It's very concerning that people like you are unable to foresee the consequences of that.

5
lemmy.net.au

So when I said:

If they broke the law arrest them and charge them. If not, leave them alone.

Where did I say leave out due process?

Also there is no “unchecked tyrant” lol. Literally everything the US President is trying to do is being “checked” and litigated against.

-10

Ah...so you're ignorant. That explains it all.

Due process is being skirted for these deportees to Venezuela. There's no trial and no recourse. It's already happening.

Sure, some of our tyrants actions are getting challenged in court...but without the right to an attorney, individual "lawbreakers" have an expensive uphill challenge against them. Assuming they even have the opportunity, unlike the deportees. They only have the court of public opinion, and that's assuming they get the attention of our news cycle.

And we only hear a handful of the stories of these incidents with ICE. You know there are more that aren't making headlines and you know that means there are plenty of innocent people swept up into them, permanently disappeared without so much as a fair trial.

1
SpaceShortreply
feddit.uk

The law has no inherent moral value. It requires at the very least democratic legitimacy to do so, and even that is subject to conditions.

2
lemmy.net.au

Absolutely. I'm not the one saying that the law isn't always right - I'm saying the law is what determines what is legal/illegal.

-1

the law is what determines what is legal/illegal.

bootlickers creed

1

Say it with me: randomly generated username.

Also someone being for freedom doesn't mean they don't believe in the rule of law.

0
lemmy.ml

Democrats: break the law

Trump: "Well ok arrest them"

Democrats: Pikachu

-45

Please stop assaulting me, you’re breaking the law.

See how easy it is to just say things?

9

When the law is unethical, breaking it is a moral duty. The democrats going to jail now have infinitely more spine than the republicans who hurried off to the underground tunnels during J6 only to turn around and claim it was a totally peaceful tour.

6