re: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security

quote:

---

Nobody. I get the SFP argument even though he is given a lot of grief for it. We shouldn't bend our values for anything.

I used to be in that camp. I just don't think it works anymore when one side of the aisle has proven they will stomp all over the constitution. We can't fight with a hand tied behind our back.

Does it make us hypocrites? Sure. But the side screaming hypocrites are just pissed we are playing by their rules now.

---

Nah, it doesn't make us hypocrites. Not at all.

quote:

---

Hypocrisy is the practice of believing to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.

---

American First folks haven't changed what we believe and standing up for what we believe isnt hypocritical. Where was all this Dem concern when millions of illegals were being allowed, against federal immigration laws, to enter our nation and suck up OUR tax dollars for their care at the expense of American tax payers???

THAT'S hypocrisy.

No, it’s 1 system.

the same judge you all think is a liberal leftist rules that Trump didn’t have to turn over his Tax Return and that hilary had to disclose 15k emails.

Trump wants to try and use a 200 year old statute for a situation without haveing to prove it applies and now doesn’t want to even try and prove he didn’t violate the judges TRO.

a TRO he can appeal, anTRO that last 2 weeks during which a hearing on the facts must be done.

quote:

---

Imagine if the Taliban, after the Afghan withdrawal, had sent those al-qaeda fighters they released from prison to our southern border, to sneak in and run roughshod over the American public. Would anyone have tried to stop Biden from kicking them tf out? literally anyone?

---

would we have just scooped them up and sent them to El Salvador?

Would trump do that to an actual invasion force?

quote:

---

Trump isn't obligated to share national security information with a district judge simply because the judge says he'd like to see it.

---

No but he is obligated to explain why it’s a state secret. he can’t just say “sorry state secret” otherwise the Government would never disclose anything.

He can’t just say that.

Especially when they are talking about the information in public.they just don’t want to give the judge the exact times.

quote:

---

This isn't anything that the federal judge has jurisdiction over. Everything Trump is doing is based on the Constitution. You may not like it, but that's life ole boy.

---

If you want to challenge an action of the president as being unconstitutional or unlawful, the judicial branch is where you do it.

And that’s what’s happening here. The plaintiff in this case are saying this law is being misapplied and the president is not empowered to do this.

the defense to that isn’t: It is constitutional and i don’t even have to explain myself to the judiciary.

The SCOTUS has ruled on what aspect of this statue are up for judicial review. Whether the act itself is constitutional or whether it’s being interpreted correctly.

quote:

---

he can’t just say “sorry state secret”

---

you just described every Chris Wray sworn congressional testimony ever.

quote:

---

Would trump do that to an actual invasion force?

---

Almost a good question. The actual question of consequence is if he exercised his discretion one way or the other on an invasion force as he's done in this case, wouldn't it also be free from review by the judiciary. The answer to that question is also, of course it would not be subject to judicial review.

quote:

---

That's supposed to be Congress or the judiciary

But the admin is arguing to neuter both*

---

In this particular case, what precisely has the government argued is not reviewable by a federal court? Not necessarily directed at you, just anyone.

I dont mean what stephen miller and others have said, but rather the DOJ.

quote:

---

Well now you're arguing normal criminal activity is part of "national security".

---

If that criminal activity is happening due to a coordinated effort to infiltrate the United States through illegal border crossings does it constitute national security risk?

Or sorta close?

quote:

---

Don’t take my word for it or Trumps’ word for it. Take the Miami Herald’s or New York Times. Oh, and the government of Chile’s.

---

Additionally Maduro’s opposition—-you know those people that won the election in VZ in 2024 that Maduro stole?—-yeah, they agree that Maduro is running TdA.

Interestingly, the Miami Herald’s is the only mainstream US paper reporting this.

LINK

quote:

---

The Trump proclamation argued that the powers he invoked are necessary because Maduro had launched an invasion of the United States using the prison-born gang. In their statement, Machado and González emphasized that Maduro and his top lieutenants are the true bosses of Tren de Aragua and said the leadership of the regime and the gang members must be captured and prosecuted.

---

quote:

---

They aren't terrorists and the facts don't support invocation of the AEA.

---

they are terrorists and yes it does. tren de aragua is a designated terrorist group, and the stuff they do to people is certainly terror. seriously go frick yourself