WASHINGTON — A jury found a woman not guilty Thursday of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE arrest outside DC Jail.https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/legal/sidney-reid-trial-not-guilty-fbi-agent-ice-arrest-assault-charge-dc-jail/65-fa3b180e-e72f-43d2-ad36-bbcc91fad9d0The verdict comes after less than two hours of deliberation on the third day of the trial of Sidney Lori Reid, which had been marred by several issues with prosecutors’ evidence. Reid smiled and hugged her attorneys as cheers came from the gallery when the verdict was announced.Reid was accused of assaulting FBI agent Eugenia Bates back in July while being detained. She was outside DC Jail filming Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who were waiting to arrest two people. As she was filming, ICE officer Vincent Liang grabbed her arms and began to detain her against a wall, surveillance video shown during the trial showed. While he was struggling with Reid, Bates got involved. Prosecutors argued that though there was no contact, a jerk movement that Reid made with her knee near Bates’ groin during that struggle constitutes simple assault. During closing arguments, assistant federal public defender Tezira Abe painted the group of ICE officers and FBI agents as a “goon squad” that thinks they are above the law. “You should be livid that the government brought this case,” Abe told the jury.A felony version of the charge was rejected three times by grand juries, before U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro’s office moved to bring this lesser, misdemeanor charge. During grand jury testimony, Liang claimed that Reid was the one who made first contact. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said Wednesday that video evidence showed that wasn’t true. He was not brought as a witness during the trial — something Abe questioned in closing.
Bates was the sole witness called by prosecutors and spent more than five hours on the stand across two days. Much of the questioning centered on her text messages following the incident, where she downplayed it and disparaged Reid as a "libtard." She didn't turn over additional text message evidence until early Wednesday morning, and in the middle of cross examination, Abe discovered one message was missing."Conveniently, the most damning one wasn't there," Abe said. "... Agent Bates’ story is riddled with holes."The missing message was just one of many issues with evidence. Just the night before trial, surveillance footage from a camera that was previously said to be inoperable turned up. Sooknanan grew increasingly frustrated with prosecutors, chastising Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis Wolfe multiple times for playing games in her courtroom. After the verdict, Sooknanan thanked jurors for being "especially patient," after they had to wait and leave the courtroom various times so she could discuss the evidentiary issues with the attorneys. The rare case was possibly the first time a defendant has been charged federally in D.C. with misdemeanor assault on a federal officer, Sooknanan said. Assistant federal public defender Eugene Ohm said Wednesday he believed the government was stuck with the case after Liang claimed Reid initiated contact to the grand jury and didn't want the embarrassment of dropping it. “They overplayed their hand on this one,” Abe said.
Remember, these idiots tried to bring Assault Of An Officer charges down on a guy who threw a fucking sandwich.
>>1448544It was a day old submarine sandwich, bread quite hard
>>1448541How long until we fire Trump
>>1448544That technically is assault but like the lowest level assault possible
>>1448549Dems have to win the House and Senate in the midterms for that to happen, and even if it does, it would just make Vance the president.
>>1448549Two more weeks.
>>1448542>Much of the questioning centered on her text messages following the incident, where she downplayed it and disparaged Reid as a "libtard." She didn't turn over additional text message evidence until early Wednesday morning, and in the middle of cross examination, Abe discovered one message was missing.is this bitch getting fired now or what?
>>1448541>Prosecutors argued that though there was no contact, a jerk movement that Reid made with her knee near Bates’ groin during that struggle constitutes simple assault.The Trump justice department everyone. A fucking rookie prosecutor would've recognized this as frivolous and a guaranteed loss.
>>1448576and they tried it THREE FUCKING TIMES
>>1448576Go ahead and look up how federal law defines simple assault you fucking retard.
>>1448589it's such a fucking waste of resources to try this for felony assault three times. don't defend this retarded shit.
>>1448594>such a fucking waste of resources to try this for felony assault three timesIn your opinion, which was rejected at the ballot box.
>>1448595>Trump got than 50% of the vote>"muh mandate"
>>1448596Yes.
>>1448597Hahahahaha you people truly are self-parodies
>>1448599Okay, and?
>>1448595>Rejected 3 times>Literally was told by a judge point blank they have no case>"In your opinion"Objective fact.
>>1448544These clowns literally can't even indict a ham sandwich. Absolute incompetence.
>>1448604Nah, whether or not to prosecute is subjective and your opinion has been rejected at the ballot box.
>>1448544That was a battery and in any other county in America they would have gotten an indictment.
>>1448608Funny how the court doesn't care and has moved on. The case is over, the ruling recorded, and the government lost according to the facts. You can move the goalpost all you want, but it's petulant to do so which discredits your opinion with the adults in the room. There's still time to listen and learn, but that wouldn't support your weltanschauung; so seek help.
>>1448618Who are you arguing with?
>>1448544But anon, it had his spit on it! That was an attack with a chemical weapon!
>>1448595what?
>>1448621You may want to take a peak at what the law actually says.
>>1448624The Roberts court has shown multiple times this year that it apparently doesn't matter what the laws say.
>>1448626Quite the opposite its rulings are correcting prior errors in the law.
>>1448627No, the conservatives on the court are just letting the Trump admin continue breaking the law through questionable technicalities, shadow docket BS, and a completely asinine version of "irreperable harm" that only applies to Trump. They are refusing to rule on the actual merits of the cases because they know what is happening is illegal and indefensible.
>>1448631In your opinion.
>>1448647Shut the fuck up, moron.
>>1448608>whether or not to prosecute is subjectiveIf you failed three times and each time the judge made it clear the lawsuit was objectively frivolous in nature, yeah no it's pretty objective.
>>1448652Judge didnt do that. Two grand juries and a jury did that. DC juries suck.
>>1448649>noo you have to agree with my subjective, layman, opinions! "No"
>>1448654The law says what it says. Stop with the "it's all subjective bro" bullshit. You literally posted this >>1448589 earlier in the thread.
>>1448653>Sooknanan grew increasingly frustrated with prosecutors, chastising Assistant U.S. Attorney Travis Wolfe multiple times for playing games in her courtroom.>After the verdict, Sooknanan thanked jurors for being "especially patient," after they had to wait and leave the courtroom various times so she could discuss the evidentiary issues with the attorneys.Judge definitely knew the case was a waste of time.
>>1448655Yes. The act in question meets the definition of assault. Hence they kept brining it. Juries in DC being hyper-partisan is the problem, not the validity of the charge.
>>1448658"In your opinion."
>>1448659Yes. Prosecutorial discretion is subjective.
>>1448660You are too stupid to even argue with.
>>1448661There is no argument. You're just wrong.
>>1448662About? You don't even seem to know what my argument is. I was pointing out what a stupid hypocrite you are to say I can't judge the legality of the President's actions while you were judging the legality of that protestor's actions ITT.
>>1448663I have an SBN and you don't. That's the difference.
>>1448653You know most people would find 36 people in 3 separate groups of 12 coming to the exact same conclusion as pretty concrete, but I guess there's still a steady supply of copium available where you are..
>>1448664Lmao.
>>1448665There is nothing to cope over. DoJ is doing what I want them to. Idk about them winning every single case so long as they bring them. Maximum enforcement of the law and zero tolerance is how you solve disorder.
>>1448658>The act in question meets the definition of assault.no it doesn't
>>1448667>Maximum enforcement of the law and zero toleranceExcept when the President is the one flagrantly violating the law, right?
>>1448663>>1448666FYI im not debating the legality of yhe protestors actions I am 1) arguing that what they did generally complies with the definition of assault 2) arguing that because it generally complies DoJ had charging discretion
>>1448668>reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive conduct Yeah. >>1448669He's not.
>>1448671>reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive conductDoes not describe what happened.
>>1448671>conduct*contact Most people confuse assault (fear of harm) and battery (actual harm). Federal law combines both under assault. So her making an agent *think* (apprehension) she was going to hit him complies generally with assault. Jury's job is to determine if the agents "apprehension" of harm was reasonable. They didnt.
>>1448671>He's not.Every time he witholds funds lawfully appropriated by Congress he is breaking the law and violating his duty to faithfully execute the laws of this country. Again, SCOTUS knows this and that's why they keep kicking the can down the line and using shadow docket rulings for these cases. They know Trump can't win on the merits (although I'm sure they would rule in his favor anyways because they're puppets).
>>1448672Does actually >a jerk movement that Reid made with her knee near Bates’ groin during that struggle constitutes simple assault.Her acting as though she was going to knee the agent in the groin and the agent thinking she was going to = apprehension of harm. Juries job is to decide if it was a reasonable apprehension.
>>1448675>Juries job is to decide if it was a reasonable apprehension.And they didn't, which the Prosecutor should have known would happen before trying this case multiple times. It's sheer incompetence.
>>1448674>Every time he witholds funds lawfully appropriated by Congress he is breaking the law and violating his duty to faithfully execute the laws of this country.He isn't. Weve been over this a thousand times. You're thinking of impoundment and its way more complicated than that. >shadow docket rulingsThere is no such thing. Its a made up idea.
>>1448676>It's sheer incompetenceIn your opinion.
>>1448677>You're thinking of impoundment and its way more complicated than that.I know ehat impoundment is, and it's actually not more complicated than that. We went through this with Nixon and Congress passed a law to stop it from happening again. SCOTUS decided that only the Comptroller General has the ability to sue the President for violating that law, even though the law specifically states that the Comptroller General is NOT the only one able to sue. This is the why I can confidently say that the Roberts court does not care about the law, because they are directly contradicting the letter of the law in their ruling.
>Its a made up idea.all ideas are made up, dickhead
>>1448680durr durr in your opinion (except when it's my opinion and then it's real)
>shill doesn't understand how ideas are madefigures
>>1448679>SCOTUS decided that only the Comptroller General has the ability to sue the President for violating that law, even though the law specifically states that the Comptroller General is NOT the only one able to sue.Its the act youre referencing that says that and the case law about standing dates back to the 1990's. You're not equipped for this argument.
>>1448680And? What's your point. Shadow docket is a lefty cope that SCOTUS is selective in its cases. Its always been selective and it deciding not to take a case is not a "ruling". Its the opposite of a ruling. >>1448681>malding
>>1448679And they used their retarded conception of irreperable harm to justify allowing Trump to continue impoundment without directly ruling on the lawfulness of that impoundment. This is what they've done all year. "We won't rule whether this obviously illegal act is illegal, just whether or not this person has the right to sue or place an injunction, even if the law we're using to prove that specifically states that they do have the right to sue."
>>1448684Apparently pocket vetos are cope too, amazing what you can learn from retards on the internet
>>1448685Yes. Because that's for a TRO not a final judgment. Irreperable harm is an essential element for a TRO. You're not equipped for this. >won't rule whether this obviously illegal act is illegal, No, they are saying they are not overturning a TRO and a TRO is not a final judgment.
>>1448683>You're not equipped for this argument.You have no argument. Citing a law that states the Comptroller General is not the only one allowed to sue for unlawful impoundment in a ruling that only the Comptroller General can sue for unlawful impoundment is absolutely cut and dry judiciary retardation.
>>1448686A pocket veto is a right defined by law that has a specific consequence. The court deciding not to docket a case is the court simply deciding not to docket a case.
>>1448687>not a final judgmentThat's my whole point retard. They won't judge the merits, just use whatever BS they can to push it back and let Trump continue to withold. The irreperable harm is to the people that money was appropriated for that aren't receiving it because Trump won't do his job as President. You need to kill yourself ASAP.
>>1448688Cite the case you don't understand.
>>1448690>right defined by lawNo, it was executives taking advantage of bills passed late in the session where they could refuse to take up the bill and let it die. Just like the Supreme Court is refusing to take cases and letting them die. Its the same thing
>>1448692>They won't judge the meritsYes. A TRO does not involve the judging of merits. Its not a final judgment.
>>1448693You've been arguing this whole time without even knowing what case I'm talking about? And you say I'm not equipped for this argument?
>>1448695It functions as a judgement in Trump's favor. He gets to keep breaking the law and the people affected aren't allowed to sue.
>>1448697its okay, the Supreme Court is going to rule its okay to gerrymander against whites and cement that racism as legal.
>>1448694>Its the same thingIts not.
>>1448699In your opinion.
>>1448697No. It's the court either saying that the US Courts of Appeals got it right or that they don't want to decide the question until they have a final judgement or that they don't think the question is worth the courts time because its settled law.
>>1448696I don't need to know the case when youre making such fundamental mistakes.
>>1448701It's the conservatives on the Court blantantly misintepreting the letter of a law to benefit the Trump administration for the millionth time this year.
>>1448700Nope. Objectively. The "shadow docket" isn't some procedural peculiarity its a fundamental aspect of the court that's been wholly uncontroversial for 99% of its existence.
>>1448702Almost as fundamental a mistake as citing a law that explicitly states that the Comptroller General is not the only one allowed to sue for unlawful impoundment to say that the law intended for only the Comptroller General to be able to sue for unlawful impoundment.
>>1448703>It's the conservatives on the Court blantantly misintepreting the letter of a law to benefit the TrumpIts not because they aren't interpreting anything. Shadow docket isn't a ruling, its just the court denying cert.
>>1448705Yes, there are exceptions but they are rare and generally most people don't have standing. Like, sorry dude but that's the law.
>>1448706>Its not because they aren't interpreting anythingYou can read the fucking opinion they wrote in which they interpret the law, tardmonkey.
>>1448707>there are exceptionsNot according to majority of the Supreme Court. You literally argued yourself into agreeing with me.
>>1448708Clearly talking about the shadow docket, dipshit
>>1448709They didn't rule on standing. They ruled on the irreparable harm question.
>>1448711>The remaining dispute concerns $4 billion of foreign-aid appropriations, which the President recently requested that Congress rescind. Congress has not acted on that request, thus leaving the appropriation intact. Under the District Court’s most recent order, the Executive must obligate the $4 billion before the end of the fiscal year (September 30), when it would otherwise become unavailable for spending. The stay the majority grants today suspends that court order. The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients—not just now but (because of their impending expiration) for all time.THAT is actual IRREPERABLE harm.
>>1448712No, its not. Money is almost never irreparable harm.
>>1448711they didn't "rule" on anything, they made a "preliminary view" with completely laughable legal basis to stay a lower court's ruling that the executive has to divest the funds that congress approved. that's anon's point. they are not ruling on merits, but they are still giving wins to trump by not letting other judiciary entities stop him from breaking the law.
>>1448713>Money is almost never irreparable harmBut apparently it is when the president has to give it out. Trump gets irreperable harm every time, no consideration for the other party. And in this case, this money not going to what it was lawfully appropriated for will lead to lives lost.
>>1448714Yes. Its an appeal of a preliminary injunction. That's not a final decision. >>1448715Irreparable harm is a well settled legal principle.
>>1448717>Irreparable harm is a well settled legal principle.No court before now has said that making the President do his legally obligated duty to follow the law constitutes irreperable harm.
>>1448717what are you even arguing at this point? it's not a final ruling but it has the effect of trump not having to do his job while the funds in question become permanently unavailable. and the legal basis for their desicion is directly contradictory to the law they cite. just because it's a preliminary view means it can be completely wrongheaded when the consequences are immediate, irreversible, and identical in outcome to a final ruling in trump's favor?
>>1448719>>1448719The people suing the president are saying not getting the money is an irreparable harm so they want an injunction. You must show irreperable harm to get an injunction, its a required element and the standard is very high. Its not an irreparable harm because if they win the case they can get compensated in the final judgment. Money is almost never an irreparable harm
>>1448720Yes. Basically that.
>>1448721the burden of proving irreperable harm is on the state department because they are the ones requesting emergency relief.
>>1448722bruh
I wish this woman well with her inevitable lawsuit now that she's beaten this bullshit charge for *checks notes* getting her knee near a cop while being assaulted for exercising her first amendment rights.Holy shit this case has everything, animus from the cop as witness and prosecution, four fucking failed attempts to get charges to stick, multiple instances of covering up evidence, unprecedented charges, malicious prosecution, and first amendment violations.
>>1448724No. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction which requires a showing of irreparable harm. The Trump administration sought a stay of the injunction which also required a showing of irreparable harm. The Trump administration won because if they spent the money they could never get it back (irreparable harm) and if the Trump administration didn't spend the money yhe Plaintiff's could get it via court order after the trial (no irreparable harm). Thus the lower courts ruling was stayed.
>>1448730>The Trump administration won because if they spent the money they could never get it back (irreparable harm) and if the Trump administration didn't spend the money yhe Plaintiff's could get it via court order after the trial (no irreparable harm).this has never been how irreperable harm worked in these situations before this administration. the law cited in the desicion was literally created to prevent this from happening. again, it is not irreperable harm for the president to have to do his job as president. it's a completely moronic decision that allows the president to supersede congress at whim.
>>1448631>No, the conservatives on the court are just letting the Trump admin continue breaking the law through questionable technicalities, shadow docket BS, and a completely asinine version of "irreperable harm" that only applies to Trump.Every post in this thread proves this right more and more.
>>1448732>has never been how irreperable harm worked in these situations before this administrationThis is how irreparable harm has worked since Sir Blackstone started writing down the common law in the 1700s. >t's a completely moronic decision that allows the president to supersede congress at whimIts not because the lawsuit is still going ahead in district court.
>>1448735No. It was that once the money was given to aid groups they could never get it back. Which is like the only way money could ever fall into the "irreparable harm" bucket. What both parties are saying is "do something temporary before the trial because we will suffer something that cant be fixed". Under the facts of the case only one party faces actual irreparable harm.
>>1448736You are just straight up wrong. You obviously have no knowledge of the case.
>>1448736The irreperable harm argument that the State Department used to request emergency relief was that giving foreign aid contradicts the President's foreign policy preferences.
