- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Boasberg now wants Cabinet Level Privileged Information- 3/20/25
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:48 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:48 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Your ignorance of the law does not mean anything about republicans. It just means you’re ignorant.
This thread is solid eveidence yall don’t know or care about the law.
you'll accept any explanation handed to you by Trump
and his goons.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Not privileged documents you dumb frick. Where did you go to law school?
read the next paragraph in my post. It’s literally about privilege.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:49 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
This thread is solid eveidence yall don’t know or care about the law.
Again. Where did you go to law school?
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:49 pm to SammyTiger
Your panties. You should grab them.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:50 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
read the next paragraph in my post. It’s literally about privilege.
Your inability to understand the privilege doesn’t change it. You dumb frick. Again. Where did you go to law school?
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:51 pm to Houag80
quote:
Your panties. You should grab them
trump has yours stuffed in your
mouth you laptop bitch
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:51 pm to SammyTiger
You’re concentrating on the wrong fricking privilege. Holy shite. You dumb fricking idiot.
For a fourth time. Where did you go to law school?
For a fourth time. Where did you go to law school?
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:52 pm to cajunangelle
What on earth, exactly, is Item 1 ordering?
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:58 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Your inability to understand the privilege doesn’t change it. You dumb frick. Again. Where did you go to law school?
Sammy thinks just because the traffic court judge says give the privileged documents that the President has to give them over.
He was also wrong about the conflict of interest with the daughter.
Just a terrible showing all around.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 8:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Your inability to understand the privilege doesn’t change it. You dumb frick. Again. Where did you go to law school?
LSU
And at LSU I read United State v. Reynolds. Which says states:
quote:
Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked. There must be formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. The court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.
You can’t just say “state secret”
So far the judge has ordered trump procure the information or make a formal declaration of State Secret Priviledge and Trump has done neither.
Suck my dick you mental midget.
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You’re concentrating on the wrong fricking privilege. Holy shite. You dumb fricking idiot.
no I am not.
for the record the DOJ lawyers are bringing up state secret privilege. They just aren’t formally invoking it in a way the judge can actually evaluate.
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:01 pm to tgrgrd00
quote:
Sammy thinks just because the traffic court judge says give the privileged documents that the President has to give them over.
It’s not me it’s the Supreme Court.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:02 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
It’s not me it’s the Supreme Court.
When?
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:04 pm to RohanGonzales
United States v Reynolds is all about this privilege.
so 1953
so 1953
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:04 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
are you drunk or just stupid?
quote:
No mattyer how much you sick his dick, bitch
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:04 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
You can’t just say “state secret” So far the judge has ordered trump procure the information or make a formal declaration of State Secret Priviledge and Trump has done neither.
quote:
Suck my dick you mental midget.
Oh my. Is your LSU JD your final degree? How embarrassing.
This post was edited on 3/20/25 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:05 pm to BBONDS25
Take away his security clearance and invstigate him for the FISA abuse he committed.
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:06 pm to SammyTiger
quote:this dude is going to blow. Crazy melt
trump has yours stuffed in your
mouth you laptop bitch
Posted on 3/20/25 at 9:06 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
the law says you have to produce evidence in court.
No you dont
Many people have been jailed because they refused a judges order. And later the judge was found to be wrong. And yet the jailed never got their lost freedom back
quote:
An editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser was found in civil contempt and jailed for a total of 13 days for refusing to turn over the original letter to the editor that he received from a prisoner. After a week of incarceration, Anderson tried to turn over the letter, but the judge refused to believe it was the original because it was typed and its author did not have access to a typewriter in jail. After another week, the judge finally accepted that the typewritten letter was the original.
Plus, Trump cant be put in jail by a co-equal branch of govt. In fact, the judiciary has no input in the impeachment process
Popular
Back to top


3




