Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. [But] late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements."
“This is being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney,” Evans wrote in a remarkably candid account of internal deliberations. “I objected in the strongest possible terms and fought it as hard as I could. It wasn’t enough.”
[...] DHS originally said Castro and the other agent were ambushed by the men and beaten with a shovel or broomstick, making Castro fear for his life and fire in self-defense. The next month, however, they dropped the charges against [the agents], and the DHS backed off its narrative in a rare admission of possible wrongdoing of its officers. “Video evidence has revealed the sworn testimony of the two agents appeared to be false,” then-acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in a statement.
Martha Stewart is probably the textbook example of someone getting screwed on these sorts of charges considering they were questions she answered in good faith and she wasn't even the subject of the investigation.
Never happens if you're working for the government though.
"The US [...] retained some vestiges of the rule of law, chiefly in matters of business, so that the capitalist economy had the basic rules it needed to keep going. But the prerogative state - Trump's political machinery - enjoyed 'jurisdiction over jurisdiction'" - Ernst Fraenkel.
Comments
Are there consequences for lying in sworn testimony?
Pretty much no.
See every false dmca filing ever.
Even Martha Stewart was "obstruction of justice" for providing incorrect answers that the prosecuters already knew the correct answer to.
Martha Stewart is probably the textbook example of someone getting screwed on these sorts of charges considering they were questions she answered in good faith and she wasn't even the subject of the investigation.
Never happens if you're working for the government though.
If you're not a cop, you'd better believe there are consequences.
"The US [...] retained some vestiges of the rule of law, chiefly in matters of business, so that the capitalist economy had the basic rules it needed to keep going. But the prerogative state - Trump's political machinery - enjoyed 'jurisdiction over jurisdiction'" - Ernst Fraenkel.
Sounds like Mr Ellison wants to start another set of riots just before an election.
How so? I didn't see any statements from Ellison cited in the article.