- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Trump Admin tells Boasberg they are no longer playing his game
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
What would a pardon do?
I am not aware of any pending or threatened criminal charges against the Cabinet.
Ignoring judicial orders is a crime. The pardon fixes that.
I think that is the theory.
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 2:39 pm
0
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:39 pm to stout
Need to just start ignoring the unreasonable judges.
Bossaberg has proven himself to be a joke. There is really no need to pay any attention to him at all going forward.
Bossaberg has proven himself to be a joke. There is really no need to pay any attention to him at all going forward.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
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 2 different things.
The Government can invoke the privilege in the proper form and the judge can then determine if the information is actually privileged.
What do you think happens if determined it is privileged?
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:53 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
and the judge can then determine if the information is actually privileged.
Without being able to look at the information? Nope. The ruling specifically states they have to weigh all of the information around it, without actually viewing it then the court rules whether it believes the privilege was properly invoked. NOT whether the info is in fact a state secret. I don’t understand the struggle here. The ruling is clear.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:54 pm to SammyTiger
The court makes the ruling, the court must enforce it. The DOJ has said they won't so, the court can deal with it.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 2:55 pm to BBONDS25
explain what you mean by “decide if the privilege is properly invoked”
If the information is a state secret it is privileged.
If the court decides it isn’t privileged that’s the same as deciding it isn’t a state secret.
What do you think the judge is trying to decide?
If the information is a state secret it is privileged.
If the court decides it isn’t privileged that’s the same as deciding it isn’t a state secret.
What do you think the judge is trying to decide?
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 3/25/25 at 3:35 pm to SammyTiger
Put into effect in the correct or appropriate manner
Posted on 3/25/25 at 3:37 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
explain what you mean by “decide if the privilege is properly invoked”
To decide if the privilege is appropriately invoked under Reynolds. That requires the court “must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.” Not whether the information is actually a state secret.
quote:
If the court decides it isn’t privileged that’s the same as deciding it isn’t a state secret.
Absolutely incorrect.
quote:
What do you think the judge is trying to decide?
determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege
Posted on 3/25/25 at 3:52 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
To decide if the privilege is appropriately invoked under Reynolds. That requires the court “must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.” Not whether the information is actually a state secret.
The information being a state secret is what makes the appropriate to claim State Secret Privilege. That’s the whole point of the privilege. The executive branch has a right to preserve genuine state secrets.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 3:55 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
the court “must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.
They are evaluating the circumstances….not the actual information. I cannot make it any more clear.
Those are the exact worlds from Reynolds. Which means if you go back and read my very first post in this thread…I was correct.
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 3/25/25 at 3:58 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
BBONDS25
Question for you - why can't Trump send a response to any fed district judge that went something like this, "Judge, your input is appreciated but this administration chooses to ignore your advice, as we do not believe you have the constitutional authority to run the executive branch of government" and then simply ignore all the noise?
Outside of precedent (I suppose), where do these district courts find the authority to preside over the day-to-day operation of the executive branch?
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:01 pm to David_DJS
Judge could find the parties and attorneys in contempt. Trump could pardon them. Attorneys would likely face disciplinary action.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Judge could find the parties and attorneys in contempt. Trump could pardon them. Attorneys would likely face disciplinary action.
The president's attorneys? If so, so what? In a literal sense, no rational world would give over 600 judges that nobody voted for the power to open borders, determine how many people are employed by the federal government, etc. I wouldn't worry about any repercussions if I was Trump and it's not like he's not experienced at dealing with bullshite legal action.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:11 pm to David_DJS
quote:
The president's attorneys? If so, so what?
I’d imagine the bar and disciplinary committee of whatever jurisdiction they are licensed wouldn’t be too friendly. They are notoriously liberal.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:14 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’d imagine the bar and disciplinary committee of whatever jurisdiction they are licensed wouldn’t be too friendly. They are notoriously liberal
Have Bondi pen the letter. It would be fun to watch the bar/disciplinary committee try to discipline the USAG.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:14 pm to stout
Another Berg in his last name with TDS . Made a comment about these radical TDS fricks and post got hidden . Goldberg , Boasberg is that jewish btw ? 
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Didn't Joe Biden pretty much establish this isn't necessary as he left office?
I am not aware of any pending or threatened criminal charges against the Cabinet.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Please cite one of your posts that admonished the Biden admin when they ignored fed district court rulings.
We will all hang up and wait "Mrs neutral/impartial observer of truth and honesty"
You and SFP and your appeal to authority and other logical fallacies are tiring. Its okay to just admit you have partisan tendencies, we all do to an extent.
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:35 pm to kilo
Posted on 3/25/25 at 4:39 pm to BBONDS25
You’re confusing what they can base their evaluation on with what they are trying to determine.
they can’t view the information.
But if they feel they government if full of shite they can rule against their privilege claim and compel the information be produced.
It’s a privilege designed to protect state secrets. that’s when it’s proper to invoke it so that what the judge has to determine from the spurning circumstances and facts.
they can’t view the information.
But if they feel they government if full of shite they can rule against their privilege claim and compel the information be produced.
It’s a privilege designed to protect state secrets. that’s when it’s proper to invoke it so that what the judge has to determine from the spurning circumstances and facts.
This post was edited on 3/25/25 at 4:41 pm
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News