It'd be better if the courts could actually deal with the case now instead of in 1-5 years, but alas.
Not for government agencies. Data retention generally goes much longer than that, usually measured in years or decades, not days or weeks.
Documents are kept longer. But a court needs to think about the shortest possible retention time that any agency might have for any kind of evidence.
> This chart includes categories for how long video is kept if it does not contain evidence of a crime [emphasis added]
So yes, some things are short (I did write "usually" for a reason), but even your link doesn't claim that video of a killing would be deleted in 90 days. It's evidence, 90 days would be ridiculously short for retaining evidence.
Even for people who don't think the ICE agents committed a crime, the ICE agents and DHS have claimed that this was the outcome from actions by a "domestic terrorist" which certainly makes it evidence of a crime from their own perspective.
However, these guys aren’t Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, etc. on their rise to power. The guy at the top is starting as a struggling octogenarian who even in his prime had an entire professional career based not on hard work but tax evasion and barratry. Most of his top delegates were selected for their social media profiles, not competency, and even within the right a lot of people disliked them personally even if they’re willing to overlook that for power. His supporters are quite loyal but are also being hit by a lot of his policies in ways which are hard to ignore.
That makes me think there are a range of scenarios where this does matter, as we can see right now. Cops tend to support Republicans but a number of them are stepping up to say this is outside of their professional standards. A lot of “law and order” suburban voters are seeing these videos not just as something they don’t approve of–especially the “he had a legal gun so we had to execute him” defense–but also recognizing that the administration completely lied about that and we know only because of the kind of evidence at risk here.
The Roberts court has taken significant moves to empower Trump, but it seems like they’re hedging their bets in key areas: note how the shield against prosecution was conditional leaving them an easy way to find the opposite in any future case, and how much of their support has been shadow docket moves designed to delay without setting a permanent precedent. I think they’re recognizing the fragility of the current administration and leaving a backup plan for the autogolpe failing.
Things like this force the administration’s supporters to be more open about what they’re doing, in ways which risk losing their less die-hard supporters. Blowing off a court order forces SCOTUS to either rule against the administration or go on the record inventing a new way the executive branch is above the law. I think they know that’s risky at a time when a majority of the country is starting to realize exactly what’s at stake.
this should just be a formality. However if someone is trying to cover sonething up they can't say it wasn't because they throw everything away.
There are borderline zero viable platforms for political discourse. Do not try to censor discourse here.
Topics != community. But that's obvious - there's no reason to ignore that fact unless you're trying to insult somebody for petty reasons.
This is a civil discussion, no flamewar, and yet it still gets flagged.
hn_acker•1h ago
> Judge grants order barring feds from altering or destroying evidence in Pretti shooting