New York Times reports Michele Beckwith’s firing came after she reminded Border Patrol to comply with courts

Donald Trump fired a top federal prosecutor in Sacramento just hours after she warned immigration agents they could not indiscriminately detain people in her district, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times.

Michele Beckwith, who became the acting US attorney in Sacramento in January, received an email at 4.31pm on 15 July notifying her that the president had ordered her termination.

The day before, Beckwith had received a phone call from Gregory Bovino, who leads the Border Patrol’s unit in El Centro, a border city 600 miles south of Sacramento. Bovino was planning an immigration raid in Sacramento and asked Beckwith who in her office to contact if his officers were assaulted, the Times reported, citing Beckwith.

  • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 days ago

    Or sometimes they say it’s definitely illegal but they’ll let it stand anyway.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 days ago

      SCOTUS will conveniently say “oopsie, I guess those firings were illegal after all”. In the meantime, those people are still fired, Trump still appointed replacements, and those replacements are now protected against being fired if somehow a Democrat accidentally wins the Presidency again…

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        protected against being fired if somehow a Democrat accidentally wins the Presidency again…

        Just as protected as they are right now. If there are no penalties for the firing, and the firing can’t be undone, then is it really illegal? The only thing keeping a Dem president from doing it is a desire to follow the law.

        • oyo@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 days ago

          You’re overestimating this Supreme Court’s consistency. They would have no problem ruling the other way in an identical scenario.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s like watching a burglar, in midday, break into a bunch of houses and set them on fire, while the police and firefighters just stand there and say “that’s illegal”