Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump's claims about violence are falling apart in court
Normally, there is a legal assumption that parties do not tell the court falsehoods. trump has had the DOJ tell some many lies that the courts are reluctant to assume that the DOJ is being honest with the court. trump's lies are getting old and judges are rejecting these lies.
Trump’s claims about violence are falling apart in court much like his claims about election was stolen in 2020 fell apart in court.
— Lieutenant (@lieutenent.bsky.social) 2025-10-12T16:44:49.987Z
Liar liar, pants on -full of shit!
www.cnn.com/2025/10/12/p...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/12/politics/trumps-violence-court-claims-judges?cid=ios_app
There is a major problem with this, though. And that’s that – as with so many of Trump’s claims – he rests his case on a series of falsehoods and exaggerations. That doesn’t mean there aren’t real problems in our country, but they are not as Trump says they are.....
This happened twice in the last week alone, as judges have ruled against Trump’s deployments of the National Guard to Chicago and Oregon.
‘Untethered to the facts’
In Chicago, Trump has compared the city to a warzone and suggested a war-like response. He at one point posted a meme parodying the Vietnam War movie “Apocalypse Now,” with the president is superimposed in front of a burning Chicago skyline as helicopters fly overhead.
His administration has defended its deployment of troops by saying that local police can’t handle the situation and that there is either “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States” – two circumstances in which federal law allows the president to federalize the National Guard.
But US District Court Judge April Perry said Thursday that there was no such rebellion or danger of one. (In fact, she said the deployment itself could actually fuel “civil unrest.”) She said the protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility did not exceed about 200 attendees, and that there were about 100 state and local law enforcement officers there to handle it.
She said the Department of Homeland Security’s version of events was “simply unreliable” and suffered from a “lack of credibility.” She said the government’s evidence was contradicted by local and state law enforcement.....
Judges refute ‘invasion’ claims
Judges have also rejected Trump and the administration’s frequent claims of an “invasion” of migrants.
Trump has used such claims both on the campaign trail and in court to justify his use of the Alien Enemies Act (which requires an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” if used outside wartime) to rapidly deport migrants. In the latter case, Trump claimed we were essentially being invaded by Venezuela, via the gang Tren de Aragua.
Even Republican-nominated judges have said this didn’t add up.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” US appellate Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush nominee, wrote in an opinion last month. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”
This happened twice in the last week alone, as judges have ruled against Trump’s deployments of the National Guard to Chicago and Oregon.
‘Untethered to the facts’
In Chicago, Trump has compared the city to a warzone and suggested a war-like response. He at one point posted a meme parodying the Vietnam War movie “Apocalypse Now,” with the president is superimposed in front of a burning Chicago skyline as helicopters fly overhead.
His administration has defended its deployment of troops by saying that local police can’t handle the situation and that there is either “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States” – two circumstances in which federal law allows the president to federalize the National Guard.
But US District Court Judge April Perry said Thursday that there was no such rebellion or danger of one. (In fact, she said the deployment itself could actually fuel “civil unrest.”) She said the protests at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility did not exceed about 200 attendees, and that there were about 100 state and local law enforcement officers there to handle it.
She said the Department of Homeland Security’s version of events was “simply unreliable” and suffered from a “lack of credibility.” She said the government’s evidence was contradicted by local and state law enforcement.....
Judges refute ‘invasion’ claims
Judges have also rejected Trump and the administration’s frequent claims of an “invasion” of migrants.
Trump has used such claims both on the campaign trail and in court to justify his use of the Alien Enemies Act (which requires an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” if used outside wartime) to rapidly deport migrants. In the latter case, Trump claimed we were essentially being invaded by Venezuela, via the gang Tren de Aragua.
Even Republican-nominated judges have said this didn’t add up.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” US appellate Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush nominee, wrote in an opinion last month. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”