As I said in the previous comment, state prosecutors would be unsuccessful due to the supremacy clause. State kidnapping laws cannot punish Federal officials for deporting foreigners in accordance with Federal law, or with a good faith belief that they are enforcing Federal law.

Federal court orders can, of course make a deportation illegal, and did in this case. Still, criminal contempt would only apply to officials who knew about the court order, which has not been alleged with regard to the initial decision to deport Abrego Garcia. There was, however a separate order from judge Boasberg to turn the planes around. As yet unnamed officials who knew about that order and had the ability to carry it out discussed it and decided not to obey. They are guilty of criminal contempt.

Who’s going to prosecute it? The DOJ certainly isn’t. State prosecutors would be unsuccessful due to the supremacy clause. Congress could appoint a special prosecutor, but then we’re back to political will.

What judges can have prosecuted without the DOJ’s cooperation is contempt of court, and they do have the power to appoint special prosecutors themselves in that case (but not for ordinary crimes like kidnapping).

The trouble is the same Supreme Court gave him criminal immunity for official acts (even corrupt ones), which this certainly is. Impeachment and removal is probably the only remaining legal pathway to enforce compliance, and the political will isn’t there.

It’s probably somewhat intentional that he provoked a conflict of this sort early using an issue few elected Republicans will risk their positions over. The next one will be bigger, and he wants the pattern established.

Yes. Return rate influences future product design.

And before you admonish and ridicule these people for not going to such and such website to get the truth etc.

Clearly everyone who isn’t getting their news from Lemmy is irresponsible!

Sure, there are valid complaints about the media, but anyone who heard Trump say

I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have

and still voted for him had everything they needed to know better, and who didn’t hear that excerpt from the Raffensperger call?

How was anyone expecting the guy who openly tried to steal an election after losing to be anything but lawless?

I see no betrayal here. He said what he was going to do, and the trees voted for the axe.

I found this response appropriate.

It’s on a VPS. Whether that’s really self-hosted may depend on how much of a purist you are, but it’s fully self-managed, not SAAS.

It’s recommended to have a PTR record mapping your IP address to your domain, which you wouldn’t be able to do with a residential connection from a typical ISP. I do send mail from multiple domains though and I haven’t had issues with deliverability. What I do not send is any kind of high-volume mail, which would likely attract a different kind of scrutiny.

For example it is terribly difficult to self host email, and very few people actually do it.

I read this a bunch of times and put off trying it because it sounded like such a hassle. Eventually I did and… it wasn’t bad at all. I just had to add a few extra DNS entries. I haven’t had any delivery problems.

Sort of. This is apparently done on-protocol so anyone can issue verifications, but they’re only shown in the official client if they’re from BlueSky or someone approved by BlueSky.

A better way to do this would be to let users subscribe to verifiers the way they can labelers. Better still would be for the label to indicate what the verifier has verified about the account, like “nytimes.com says this person is an employee of the New York Times”, which is something labelers can already do.

So I really think they should have just leaned into labelers.

It appears to depend on Bluesky designating entities to do the verification.

I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon’s verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is… not what I hoped for.

Anyone doing a poll would be negligent not to include the previous nominee and former vice president. That’s not to imply she’s a good choice, only that she’s an obvious choice.

If you don’t like it, turn it off.

This would be a valid complaint if it was forced on you, but it isn’t. You can both ignore the warnings and disable the feature entirely.

As to why it does that, it’s using heuristics based on the APIs the app calls and maybe a bit about how it calls them. If there are enough patterns similar to malicious apps, you get a warning.

The actions of a lunatic cult leader who promptly killed the entire cult including himself afterward aren’t really comparable to the actions of governments attempting to retain the appearance of legitimacy.

They really are stupid when it comes to undermining their own case, aren’t they?

No, they are not. It’s a mistake to think of them as stupid, as that leads to underestimating the threat they pose.

They don’t care about winning this case in the conventional sense. Trump and his allies couldn’t care less what happens to Kilmar Abrego Garcia; what they’re after is the power to exile or imprison people without due process of law.

And is he seriously asking the Trump administration to self-identify who should be punished for all of this? Does he honestly think that the DOJ is going to hand over a list of names to be sanctioned? Because if so, I want a lifetime supply of whatever he’s smoking.

He’s asking, and he almost certainly believes he’s legally entitled to an answer. He almost certainly believes the DOJ will not cooperate, but potential noncompliance by defendants shouldn’t influence rulings.

The only thing for the judge to do is issue rulings and orders as if things are normal.

I’ve read that it’s because fairphone has to pay a fee for each unlocked device, but it sounds a little weird so no idea if that’s real.

The posts seem to suggest that Google is charging them a fee in that case, but that would be a little surprising given Pixels have a no-fuss unlock, and Google permits third parties to redistribute its proprietary add-ons to Android free of charge for installation by end users.

In any case, you’ve convinced me this probably isn’t Fairphone being evil, though some sort of public explanation would be nice.

I don’t understand why this requires a code rather than a toggle in developer settings like a Pixel. That doesn’t seem like openness and a commitment to treating users fairly since they could change their policy at any time.