644
Trump-appointed judge 'quickly' blocks admin from destroying evidence in new DHS killing
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
644 points (99.7% liked)
politics
31185 readers
2480 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this not covered by standing law? When it is ever legally allowed to alter or destroy evidence?
Is the distinction more that typically this would be a slap on the wrist for law enforcement, but the TRO makes it explicit that there would be consequences?
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
It's more that the judge wants the punishment to be greater than the typical punishment for tampering with evidence. When the victim is dead the law tends to give undue credence to the statements of the survivor as there is only 2nd hand testimony provided for the prosecution. We should interpret it as a judge making a stand and vowing harsh penalties and the supreme court/appeals should interpret it as the judge making it much harder to overturn the eventual decision.
Very clarifying. Thank you
I mean did you ever throw out a bill? If you did you destroyed evidence you bought something
Sorry, what in the everloving name of shite are you talking about?
I think thats only true if you have knowledge of a potential crime and willful intent to destroy it?
Well but you still destroyed evidence this guy is obviously against destroying any evidence ever