re: Trump Admin tells Boasberg they are no longer playing his game

quote:

---

Trump is standing firm against this idiot but I wish he would start pulling out the nuclear options on this moron.

---

That they've chosen to humor Judge Boasberg by allowing him space to dictate and control "legalities" frankly tells me none of this supposed brawl is real -- or else Broasberg would have already been nuked.

If you mean “invoked properly” as in invoked in the correct procedural way, you’re wrong.

“ There are differences in phraseology, but, in substance, it is agreed that the court must be satisfied from all the evidence and circumstances, and
from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."

“ In each case, the showing of necessity which is made will determine how far the court should probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate. Where there is a strong showing of necessity, the claim of privilege should not be lightly accepted, but even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that military secrets are at stake.”

Court can decide if the privilege applies to the information that would otherwise be compelled.

quote:

---

Court can decide if the privilege applies to the information that would otherwise be compelled. They just don’t get to see the information when they make that decision.

---

So….precisely what I stated and not determining if something is a state secret as you stated. We know. Glad you’re finally caught up.

quote:

---

Literally the opposite of what you’re said.

---

We can all read what was written. You said the court could determine if something is a state secret. Then you posted citations that state the court cannot even review the information for which the privilege has been invoked. Making it impossible for a court to determine if that information is a state secret. Making you 100 percent wrong.

In light of that the only thing the court can do is determine if the privilege was properly invoked. Which is precisely what I said they could do.

It’s all there in black and white. You’re either ignoring that or you can’t wrap your head around it. Either way…not a good look.

quote:

---

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.

---

They have to make the determination without forcing disclosure. They Still get to make the determination.

The courts acknowledge its hard but necissary.

quote:

---

Too much judicial inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable abuses.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, in the earlier stages of judicial experience with the problem, both extremes were advocated, some saying that the bare assertion by the witness must be taken as conclusive, and others saying that the witness should be required to reveal the matter behind his claim of privilege to the judge for verification. Neither extreme prevailed, and a sound formula of compromise was developed.

---

quote:

---

There are differences in phraseology, but, in substance, it is agreed that the court must be satisfied from all the evidence and circumstances, and "from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."

---

quote:

---

Judicial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers.

---

quote:

---

They have to make the determination without forcing disclosure. They Still get to make the determination.

---

So you’re not being intentionally misleading, you just can’t wrap your mind around it. Glad we cleared that up.

quote:

---

I can grasp it. clearly you cannot.

---

All evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

Does this affect other injunctions going forward?

---

a supreme court ruling on whether district courts can issue nationally binding judgements would.

quote:

---

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century," the former AG said in May 2019. 

---

quote:

---

Democratic-appointed judges ordered 92.2% of the injunctions against the Trump administration, meaning just five of the 64 injunctions were ordered by Republican-appointed judges. 

---

quote:

---

I’ve quoted the controlling decision.

---

You have. You just don’t understand what it is saying. It specifically states it cannot see the info the privilege is being invoked over. Which means it cannot rule whether the info is a state secret. It cannot only rule on whether it feels the privilege was properly invoked. It’s a nuance you can’t seem to understand.

quote:

---

you can’t even intelligently address the quotes I have provided you and it’s clear you haven’t read it.

---

I’ve explained your confusion many times in this thread. I can’t understand it for you.

quote:

---

The court said multiple times the judges cannot just leave it to the “caprice of executive officers”

---

Nobody has argued otherwise.

quote:

---

And that’s essentially your argument that once it’s invoked the court can’t determine it’s not privileged.

---

Wrong. That is not my argument at all. You really are struggling. The court can determine if they think the privilege was properly invoked (hint…nothing to do with procedure). That is the limit of the courts powers. Nobody is saying it is left to the caprice of executive officers.

quote:

---

this is like talking to someone who is googling legal terms but not legal arguments.

---

Typical liberal projection.