Please warn if paywalls so you don’t waste people’s time.

A judge telling a prosecutor that they are in “uncharted legal territory,” is definitely not a good sign.

We can hope!

Having appeared before the grand jury literally hundreds of times, number 3 is a head scratcher that would require a hearing. A second indictment would have to be represented and explained, all on the record.

Criminal prosecution is not for amateurs.

In a normal environment, there would be consequences for this entire sorry episode, either from the leadership itself, from an independent Inspector General, or one of the Congressional oversight committees.

I am not holding my breath.

You don't need to be an organizational ethics expert to understand why having a leader being called out by a federal judge for lying under oath spells trouble for the whole organization.

Leaders are responsible for creating an ethical environment. This includes, among other things, modelling ethical behavior and establishing mechanisms for establishing accountability.

This echoes a prior federal court ruling by a different federal judge in Chicago earlier in the month, in blocking the Administration's attempt to use the National Guard, that the government's case was not credible and added to "a growing body of evidence that DHS' version of events are unreliable."

Moreover, in extending her prior ruling into a indefinite injunction, she found that the government's arguments were "simply not credible."

Rookie lawyer in front of a grand jury, not knowing that her remarks would be disclosed? Yeah, get the popcorn.

Frame it!

Given the leadership of the Department, this is no surprise.

The 60 Minutes piece then cites a study conducted by New York University Law School professor Ryan Goodman, which found that since the beginning of the Administration, courts have found government representations not credible 36 separate times.

The attorney who is alleged to have misinformed the court, Drew Ensign, is a Deputy Assistant Attorney General supervising matters. Reuveni, on the other hand, was fired for refusing to sign a factually incorrect legal brief that stated that Abrego Garcia was an M-13 gang member.

All those who understand institutional ethics understand that “tone at the top” is essential for an ethical organization. Here, the official that is said to advise his staff to defy court orders, Emil Bove, was then the Associate Attorney General and is now a federal appeals judge.

Much of legal procedure involving the government is self-executing, and depends on the candor of government counsel. For example, the government’s duty to turn over exculpatory evidence relies exclusively on the good faith of government counsel to search for and disclose such evidence. T

Those who worked at the Department know what a big deal this is. Candor to the court is the bedrock of all lawyers’ ethical duties, enshrined in Rule 3.3, but there is an especially high duty on government lawyers, given their unique position and responsibility to ensure due process of law.

and that during a preliminary hearing on the matter, one Department lawyer untruthfully advised the court as to the current status of the removal efforts.

Erez Reuveni, the former acting deputy chief of the Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, told 60 Minutes that during the litigation contesting the removal of Abrego Garcia, he was advised by a Department official that he and the lawyers under his supervision should defy court orders