DOJ attorney placed on leave after expressing frustration in court with government over mistakenly deported man

So the people upset about the wrongdoing can be punished, but the people who wrongdid are not able to be punished?
Fascinating.
- It's pronounce fascism
  
  What’s that? I can’t hear anything besides this guillotine whooshing down with its blade. Bonjour!

The headline is missing the point and downplaying what's going on here, this lawyer wasn't expressing frustration, he didn't raise his voice or make insulting remarks or anything like that. He was asked by the judge [paraphrased] "Why is your client breaking the law?" and replied [paraphrased] "I asked them that too. I guess they didn't mean to do it?" but the Trump administration wanted him to either straight up lie and say they hadn't broken the law or refuse to answer the judge's questions and pretend the court didn't have authority to ask them.
Not only is our executive branch breaking the law and ignoring court orders to follow the law, they're throwing out any attorneys who won't also break the law and ignore judges too.
- I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants' case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer's obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).
  With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn't (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn't mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.
  I'm not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.
  
  The lawyer can make any case the client wish, but not by knowingly lying to the court (note that not sharing privileged information is a very different thing). In other words, saying things like "my client's position is X" rather than making false statements of fact. And not falsely claiming their position has legal support in precedent if they know it doesn't, etc.
  More practically speaking, to ensure their client actually gets competent legal representation they would push their client to accept them presenting multiple legal arguments and not exclusively sticking to the narrative, allowing the lawyer to focus on the client's legal rights and doing what a lawyer should do (basically "the client does not concede on any point, but if the court finds X then we argue A and if it finds Y we argue B", offering legal arguments to "hypotheticals"), so you don't leave any important legal arguments from the opposing side unanswered.
  Tldr, make sure that no matter what the court finds, you're making arguments to protect their legal rights and to ensure sentencing is fair.
  And when a client is so unreasonable that their position can't be represented accurately in a legal manner without simultaneously contradicting the client, well screw that client 🤷

Just more evidence that the "weaponized DOJ" was projection.
- It always is.

No dissent will be tolerated.
So much for free speech.
- You can have all of the free speech you want, as long as it's the right speech.

You'll be hard pressed to find lawyers who are both competent and willing to directly lie to a judge.
- Why would this administration need competent lawyers, they're playing the game with cheat codes and can't lose

Maybe if more people hold up signs and occupy a sidewalk outside buildings that these oligarchs never go to will fix this! Lets organize ANYWHERE BUT their mansions, lets not inconvenience them too much and inconvenience eachother even more. That'll show em! I can't wait for the next time millions of people gather together to be ignored, just so long as we don't organize and gather at places we can't be ignored, that'll make them fear us!
Hard /s because people still seem to believe that peacefully holding signs and capitulating to the villains will fix anything.
- There are stages to escalate through and multiple channels to apply pressure through at the same time.
  Large-scale peaceful demonstrations are an important first stage, and are still required as more intense channels are opened up.
  It's a matter of "Yes, that and more" not "No, something else"
  
  Touche. Perhaps I figure that we'd already be at that stage by now, considering how broad the consensus is about who the villains are. Considering the crime that Luigi is unjustly taking the fall for, and how uniting across the board that was, I figured that was less a seed being planted and more a full grown tree bearing fruit.
- Nobody here is stopping you from organizing/doing your own whatever. There are sites like mobilize.us where you can organize a protest at whatever oligarch's mansion you want. Stop whining and waiting for someone else to do what you think needs to be done. Be the change you want to see.
- Let's discuss plans to commit civil disobedience in public forums, that's a great idea! /s