re: Judge Boasberg to the rescue again.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

The Ilhan Omar "married her brother" investigation didn't start with Trump — it started under OBAMA, per NYT ??

But they decided NOT to investigate it further.

FBI and HSI agents in Minnesota opened the case in summer 2016 and reportedly found "some evidence" that her 2009 marriage was a sham meant to get green cards for a man suspected of being her brother

So why did it stall? Reportedly because prosecutors decided the five-year statute of limitations had run out. It wasn't because the claims were debunked...

Democrats are screaming "political persecution," but Obama's own agents were the ones digging into this first. That narrative just collapsed!

But the Trump DOJ is HELLBENT on making sure nobody is above the law, not even Omar.

She can and must be denaturalized and deported!

quote:

---

15 on the bench in the Federal District Court of D.C.

---

The only federal court in Washington DC should be the Supreme Court. No court of appeals. And especially no Federal District Court.

This would solve so much federal corruption and put the FBI / DOJ swamp creatures out of business.

quote:

---

This case doesn't involve Trump

---

Jesus man, you are an insufferable idiot.

Buckle up, America. Here we go...again!

quote:

---

I believe the judges are randomly allotted via computer in the DC circuit

---

It’s rigged, just like everything else in DC. It’s by design…


Notice anything about the judge in charge of the Ilhan Omar warrant? It's Boasberg. Again.

Look at the list of Trump administration cases he's had since 2025:

Blocked the Venezuelan deportation flights

Went after Trump officials with a criminal contempt probe

Ordered the Signal chat messages preserved

Quashed DOJ subpoenas to the Fed and Powell

Froze the State Department's visa ban on disinformation researchers

Now has the Democrats' midterm voter-roll lawsuit

I thought SCOTUS did something about this already.

Hes in San Fran. How can he hold up anything in Minnesota?

quote:

---

The odds of this judge getting all of these cases (1 out of 15) is proportional to me winning the lottery. Before you say well someone has to win eventually will not fly. You can spin this however you want and create as many “strawmen” as you want. This is “lawfare” regardless of how you want/need it defined.

---

You could have saved a lot of typing and said "No"

quote:

---

The only federal court in Washington DC should be the Supreme Court. No court of appeals. And especially no Federal District Court.

This would solve so much federal corruption and put the FBI / DOJ swamp creatures out of business.

---

That's dumb.

Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over D.C. Because it is a federal district and not a state, it lacks a state court framework to process federal-level lawsuits. The D.D.C. provides the necessary trial-level infrastructure to adjudicate federal civil disputes, federal crimes, and constitutional questions that arise within D.C.

Under federal venue laws, parties can sue federal agencies or secretaries in the district where the defendant "resides." Because the vast majority of federal departments, commissions, and agencies are headquartered in D.C., the D.D.C. acts as a venue for the country. Without the D.D.C, the legal system would lack a centralized, default trial court capable of handling thousands of nationwide challenges to federal administrative rules, executive orders, and FOIA requests.

The federal government generates more litigation than any single state government. While the D.D.C.'s raw filing rank is in the middle of pack for federal district courts because of D.C.'s size, its substantive judicial burden per active judge is considered one of the most intense and complex in the entire federal system.

Similarly, the D.C. Circuit while having a comparatively smaller caseload than other Circuits, handles far more complex cases than other Circuits. Congress explicitly funnels major regulatory battles directly to the D.C. Circuit through statutes requiring that rules written by powerful federal agencies, like the EPA, FCC, SEC, etc., must be challenged in D.C.

While the caseload in other Circuits includes a high percentage of non-precedential cases. The D.C. Circuit has one of the highest published (precedential) opinion rates in the country.

quote:

---

The odds and statistics councilor. Winning the lottery would be easier. WTF else answer do you want? I can use AI like you do to figure the odds. Give it a try.

---

Your problem is that you're starting with a faulty premise.

You do not like Judge Boasberg's judicial decisions. You then create a list of the decisions he made, which you do not like. You then assume that the list contains all of the possible cases in which Judge Boasberg could have made a decision you do not like.

Your premise is that the list of Boasberg cases with decisions you don't like represents cases that were directed to him so that he could make "bad" decisions.

For example, Boasberg made six decisions you do not like ("Six Decisions"); thus, you assume the Six Decisions cases were funneled to Boasberg to make the Six Decisions.

You fail to consider that there were many cases randomly distributed to other D.D.C. judges with decisions you know nothing about because the decisions in those cases did not cause problems for your political sources. Those cases could have been randomly assigned to Boasberg and resulted in a decision you do not like.

In other words, the Six Decisions cases could have been randomly assigned to other D.D.C. judges and resulted in a decision you would have liked (if you knew about them), and Boasberg could have decided six other cases in a way that caused problems for your political sources and raised your ire.

Your premise is faulty. The cases were never funneled to him to make decisions you don't like. Rather, it was random allotment.

If it wasn't cases with these decisions you don't like, it would have been other cases with decisions you don't like.