Trump's DOJ facing criminal contempt of court

[Vod]

So I did not follow the original story about six protesters doing a peaceful protest and being arrested and indicted.  Apparently the judge looking at the case is very unhappy.

• Judge asked for transcripts, DOJ said "no need, nothing in there about misconduct - trust us"
• Judge demands transcripts, they come in heavily redacted.  DOJ says "trust us judge, nothing redacted has anything to do with misconduct"
• DOJ drops charges, says now there is no need for the transcripts.  Judge demands unredacted copies.

Guess what the judge found?  Massive coverups, violations of policy, vouching of the grand jury, etc.  And now she is considering criminal charges against the DOJ.

I have no idea how any of this will work.  The most powerful public servant against the most powerful justice system.

[programmer3666]

Watching the ecosystem of politics for years has taught me that many people criticize certain actions only when they are outside power. Once they get the same position, they either do the same thing, do worse or suddenly become silent. Before Trump took office, some of his current cabinet, appointees and some key officials spent years accusing their opponents of weaponizing the justice system, suppressing evidence or abusing power. But when they got the opportunity to hold higher office themselves, many of those same concerns seemed to disappear under their watch. Power can surely change people. It is easy to point fingers from the outside, but real character is shown when you have authority and choose to hold yourself to the same standards you demanded from others.

[EluguHcman]

So I did not follow the original story about six protesters doing a peaceful protest and being arrested and indicted.  Apparently the judge looking at the case is very unhappy.

• Judge asked for transcripts, DOJ said "no need, nothing in there about misconduct - trust us"
• Judge demands transcripts, they come in heavily redacted.  DOJ says "trust us judge, nothing redacted has anything to do with misconduct"
• DOJ drops charges, says now there is no need for the transcripts.  Judge demands unredacted copies.

Guess what the judge found?  Massive coverups, violations of policy, vouching of the grand jury, etc.  And now she is considering criminal charges against the DOJ.

What was the agenda of the protesters?

Were they protesting on behalf of the masses or parading on their self advocates?
Protesters can somehow challenge the judiciary especially when they are in mass because they represents the public and requires to be listened to.

Considering how politics has also lingered extraordinarily, it is also possible for those protesters to had been hired and projected to cite commotion over certain public events. Yes it is possible if you consider the level politics todays.
Perhaps these 6 protesters behind the scene might be innocent or not as I can not take a stand since the Judge and the DOJ are playing smart over each other.
Indeed is a need for the transcript to transparently justify their judgements and arguments.

My points are taken from the fact that OP did not read from the original story and no source to comprehend the reality of the story.
Yeah it is better I am not blindly biased but let justice prevail in the jury

[Doll2233]

Court works on different cases but in this situation the original protest is not standing out but the conduct of the prosecutor is the main issue. If DOJ was trying to hide the information and hide the documents then the judge being upset is clearly justified as Court depends on prosecutors honesty and truthfulness,  if the original information was with held then trust cannot be built. In all this mess the original case has lost it's important. Before making any final judgement the court needs to go through proper legal process and then the final judgement can be made. If the rules were broken and traditional information was trying to hide then the court has all the rights to investigate this issue in details and punished concerned person. No person or institution is above the court secretary including DOJ everyone is at the same level.

[BADecker]

Court works on different cases but in this situation the original protest is not standing out but the conduct of the prosecutor is the main issue. If DOJ was trying to hide the information and hide the documents then the judge being upset is clearly justified as Court depends on prosecutors honesty and truthfulness,  if the original information was with held then trust cannot be built. In all this mess the original case has lost it's important. Before making any final judgement the court needs to go through proper legal process and then the final judgement can be made. If the rules were broken and traditional information was trying to hide then the court has all the rights to investigate this issue in details and punished concerned person. No person or institution is above the court secretary including DOJ everyone is at the same level.

So simple.

Accused need to stand unrepresented, not even representing themselves, as men/women, then the only thing they can be accused of is harm or damage of someone else.

Their paperwork in court should include, "i, man, jon doe, require that there be proof that i am the PERSON on the indictment. Does the PERSON bleed? Or is it simply a fake PERSON that somebody made up in their head?."

Learn the significance of that, and of what you are (man, not a fake PERSON) and indict the attorney's and judges for, at least, harassment if they try to force their PERSON on you.

[Vod]

So I did not follow the original story about six protesters doing a peaceful protest and being arrested and indicted.  Apparently the judge looking at the case is very unhappy.

• Judge asked for transcripts, DOJ said "no need, nothing in there about misconduct - trust us"
• Judge demands transcripts, they come in heavily redacted.  DOJ says "trust us judge, nothing redacted has anything to do with misconduct"
• DOJ drops charges, says now there is no need for the transcripts.  Judge demands unredacted copies.

Guess what the judge found?  Massive coverups, violations of policy, vouching of the grand jury, etc.  And now she is considering criminal charges against the DOJ.

What was the agenda of the protesters?

Were they protesting on behalf of the masses or parading on their self advocates?
Protesters can somehow challenge the judiciary especially when they are in mass because they represents the public and requires to be listened to.

Considering how politics has also lingered extraordinarily, it is also possible for those protesters to had been hired and projected to cite commotion over certain public events. Yes it is possible if you consider the level politics todays.
Perhaps these 6 protesters behind the scene might be innocent or not as I can not take a stand since the Judge and the DOJ are playing smart over each other.
Indeed is a need for the transcript to transparently justify their judgements and arguments.

My points are taken from the fact that OP did not read from the original story and no source to comprehend the reality of the story.
Yeah it is better I am not blindly biased but let justice prevail in the jury

I did say six protestors, and they have the right to demonstrate peacefully.   I don't know the intent of the DOJ, just the narrative I told you, based on watching a story I saw on TV.   

[caroasi]

Court works on different cases but in this situation the original protest is not standing out but the conduct of the prosecutor is the main issue. If DOJ was trying to hide the information and hide the documents then the judge being upset is clearly justified as Court depends on prosecutors honesty and truthfulness,  if the original information was with held then trust cannot be built. In all this mess the original case has lost it's important. Before making any final judgement the court needs to go through proper legal process and then the final judgement can be made. If the rules were broken and traditional information was trying to hide then the court has all the rights to investigate this issue in details and punished concerned person. No person or institution is above the court secretary including DOJ everyone is at the same level.

So simple.

Accused need to stand unrepresented, not even representing themselves, as men/women, then the only thing they can be accused of is harm or damage of someone else.

Their paperwork in court should include, "i, man, jon doe, require that there be proof that i am the PERSON on the indictment. Does the PERSON bleed? Or is it simply a fake PERSON that somebody made up in their head?."

Learn the significance of that, and of what you are (man, not a fake PERSON) and indict the attorney's and judges for, at least, harassment if they try to force their PERSON on you.

I believe that process is only done in civil court though. Criminal courts typically need a common law grand jury for such a concept to work, if there is such a thing that happens. Please provide citations to actual court cases in which this is acknowledged to be valid. I believe you're talking about common law? This sounds like the sort of "sovcit" suggestion that might be considered valid by USA federal court. I believe the options for prosecution are state (general sense) attorney general or grand jury for prosecution, while judge is not an option. In the Caroasi writing I write how I think a civil government could work (as opposed to unciivl government we have now), and it more or less defers, without explicitly saying so, to common law.