***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

321,038 Views | 3069 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by will25u
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LtAldoRaine • 5:36a, 4/24/25
AG
SgtStiglitz said:
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a court filing last week basically says that only the Trump administration can hold the Trump administration accountable for criminal actions.

In other words, "Authoritarian Rule"
She cites basic law. As has been stated, the solution the constitution offers if the executive branch is committing contempt is impeachment. Boasberg already lost/managed to get swatted down by SCOTUS about contempt this case, so now the Executive is just mocking them, essentially.

Criminal contempt would be an asinine thing to even attempt, as POTUS can just pardon anyone involved/named. But we are talking about Boasberg and his hurt little feelings here, I guess. Sorry your girl lost, judge.
Reply Quote
11
1 edit
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:53a, 4/24/25
AG
I think these cases ultimately work out like the POTUS immunity ruling.

In their desire to reign in an Executive the don't like, the libs, squishy Rs and primadonna judges will backfire into showing that the Executive is much, much stronger than they had considered and the increasingly limited to stop a determined Executive is actual impeachment / conviction and not showmanship trials.

If they could cope with their TDS, the more intelligent and pragmatic approach would be to compromise with Trump but they will not allow him even the smallest wins. Undoubtedly, the Trump flagpoles will be challenged, AF1 livery will be challenged, on and on.

The AP threw the mother of all WH press pool hissy fits over refusing to adopt a duly authorized name change to a body of water. TDS is real.
Reply Quote
13
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LtAldoRaine • 6:57a, 4/24/25
They have yet to even violate a court order.
Reply Quote
13
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 7:00a, 4/24/25
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
They have yet to even violate a court order.


In current lib world, thinking about violating an order is enough to jail Trump officials for criminal intent.
Reply Quote
4
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 7:02a, 4/24/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
They have yet to even violate a court order.


At least not willfully or knowingly. They've acknowledged they mistakenly violated the withholding order on Garcia
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 7:05a, 4/24/25
Not according to the information Gouveia tweeted yesterday. The only country he could not be deported to was Guatemala. And the attorney who claimed the government had made an error got removed from the case for being a doofus.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 7:08a, 4/24/25
AG
BMX Bandit said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
They have yet to even violate a court order.


At least not willfully or knowingly. They've acknowledged they mistakenly violated the withholding order on Garcia


Who is "they"? Because my understanding is that it was one lawyer who mistakenly said there was a mistake and it now appears there was indeed no mistake.
Reply Quote
6
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 8:21a, 4/24/25
has there been any filing correcting that? I have not seen anything where DoJ has corrected that. It may be out there, but I don't recall seeing it.

"they" is the DoJ in court filings.
Reply Quote
1
MagnumLoad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33a, 4/24/25
Boasberg is worthy of contempt.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
Reply Quote
5
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 8:33a, 4/24/25
Ellis Wyatt said:
Not according to the information Gouveia tweeted yesterday. The only country he could not be deported to was Guatemala. And the attorney who claimed the government had made an error got removed from the case for being a doofus.
Very interesting! Do you have a link to this?

(The Guatemala part, not the firing.)

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:34a, 4/24/25
AG
WTAF judge is this? Worried about Apple plans in India being unfair to the Chinese?
Reply Quote
2
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:36a, 4/24/25
Quote:
WTAF judge is this? Worried about Apple plans in India being unfair to the Chinese?
Need help getting that hook out of your lip?

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 8:41a, 4/24/25
AG
I mean, it's believable, isn't it?
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 8:42a, 4/24/25
BMX Bandit said:
has there been any filing correcting that? I have not seen anything where DoJ has corrected that. It may be out there, but I don't recall seeing it.

"they" is the DoJ in court filings.
Maybe the actual filing is what was sealed yesterday. I don't know, but here is the information:


Quote:
Uh oh....



Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 8:49a, 4/24/25
AG
The issue I have is that if the form actually said Guatemala on it, the DoJ should have been parading it around publicly for weeks.

I'm just not sure why he could have even had his attorney claim he feared Guatemala as a removal site. It's all pretty confusing, especially since the plane apparently landed there first before going to (tiny) El Salvador.
Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:51a, 4/24/25
nortex97 said:
The issue I have is that if the form actually said Guatemala on it, the DoJ should have been parading it around publicly for weeks.


I'm just not sure why he could have even had his attorney claim he feared Guatemala as a removal site. It's all pretty confusing, especially since the plane apparently landed there first before going to (tiny) El Salvador.
Who knows? But the attorney claiming it was a mistake was removed from the case.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 8:54a, 4/24/25
Quote:
Maybe the actual filing is what was sealed yesterday
Could be, but why would they file something thats public record under seal?



This is looking like one of those situations of "internet lawyers" making claims the Administration isn't even making.

Thanks for the link!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:58a, 4/24/25
AG
Have been reading and listening to pundits talk about these cases with growing disgust.

The only ones showing any respect for the Constitution, and for that matter, the Federal Judiciary, is the Administration. These activists in robes have shown nothing but contempt for the constitutional order and the reputation of the Federal Judiciary. What they are doing is creating a crisis of legitimacy in the federal courts. Roberts is helping them completely destroy the Courts' credibility/legitimacy by continuing to do nothing.

Boasberg is playing a game - he cares not about the reputation of the federal courts - he cares only about political power.
Reply Quote
13
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 9:18a, 4/24/25
Im Gipper said:
Quote:
Maybe the actual filing is what was sealed yesterday
Could be, but why would they file something thats public record under seal?
No clue. I am just passing along the info that came out yesterday. Since there have been holdover attorneys from the Biden regime and obstructing judges involved, nothing is very straightforward.
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 9:21a, 4/24/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Have been reading and listening to pundits talk about these cases with growing disgust.

The only ones showing any respect for the Constitution, and for that matter, the Federal Judiciary, is the Administration. These activists in robes have shown nothing but contempt for the constitutional order and the reputation of the Federal Judiciary. What they are doing is creating a crisis of legitimacy in the federal courts. Roberts is helping them completely destroy the Courts' credibility/legitimacy by continuing to do nothing.
Mark Levin talks a lot about this aspect. I don't get to listen every day, but I try to, at least driving home from work. He has contempt for many of these pontificating attorneys, even guys like Andrew McCarthy, and certainly dislikes Roberts' spinelessness. The TV/newspaper attorneys are mostly full of **** and rooting for Trump to fail. They do not want millions of illegal aliens removed from America.
Reply Quote
2
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 10:15a, 4/24/25
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
Im Gipper said:
Quote:
Maybe the actual filing is what was sealed yesterday
Could be, but why would they file something thats public record under seal?
No clue. I am just passing along the info that came out yesterday. Since there have been holdover attorneys from the Biden regime and obstructing judges involved, nothing is very straightforward.
As an avid internet lawyer, assuming the reason for keeping it under seal is that it contains information on ongoing operations or ongoing investigations, then what is in their likely solidifies even further that Garcia is in the right place.

DOJ not only has the RICO cases happening but is now looking at or is filing terrorism charges against these gang members.

Garcia may be playing some ultimate FAFO (or others are playing it for him). Keep begging he will be sent back to US custody. He can go hand at GITMO whilst he awaits trial on RICO & terrorism charges on his way to Florence or the needle.

To add, in my experience, internet attorneys are more knowledgeable on the fundamentals of the law and the US Constitution whilst actual attorneys care most about due process, procedure, and judge worship.
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23a, 4/24/25
AG
Not directly Trump Admin related, but SCOTUS anyway: Is KBJ just stupid, or evil?
Quote:
To offer further context, this case surrounds a specific LGBTQ curriculum that was mandated some years prior. The books are not just "sitting on the shelves," and even if they were, I would argue that parents have a right to object to their children being exposed to them. This is basic stuff. Schools should not be teaching things like sexuality to kids. There is no reason to do it, and it can clearly violate the religious rights of parents in the process.

But while Jackson often comes across as vapid and ill-equipped, as I mentioned, the other option is that she's just evil, and the rest is an act.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought some sanity to the discussion by pointing out how absurd Jackson's arguments were.

All parents want is the ability to pull their children out of classroom sessions that expose their kids to LGBTQ discussions. As I said before, I'd argue this stuff shouldn't be in schools in the first place, but that's not even the issue here. Yet, Jackson still wants to trample on the rights of parents and spit on religious liberty. So is her motivation stupidity or worse? I'll let you be the judge of that.
To answer the Redstate title question: 'Why not both?' At least she is no where near as intelligent enough to befriend a conservative justice a la RBG-Scalia.
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:27a, 4/24/25
Quote:
To answer the Redstate title question: 'Why not both?' At least she is no where near as intelligent enough to befriend a conservative justice a la RBG-Scalia.
And recall that some of this involves kids as young as 3 being forced to listen to books about homosexuality and transgenderism. The attorney for Montgomery schools said some of the material was English curriculum, so totally OK for the schools to force on kids. Jackson thinks that is fine and the parents should have no say in it.

This is willful destruction of our moral fabric and the family. Jackson is evil.
Reply Quote
6
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 10:28a, 4/24/25
Quote:
As an avid internet lawyer, assuming the reason for keeping it under seal is that it contains information on ongoing operations or ongoing investigations, then what is in their likely solidifies even further that Garcia is in the right place.
The withholding order is a public record. It does not contain information on ongoing investigation or operations.

The question was why would the public record be filed under seal. I can't think of a reason, but its possible!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 10:36a, 4/24/25
AG
Was the sealed filing referring to the 2019(?) withholding order? My understanding is it was just filed.

Sealed means we do not know what it contains, correct?
Reply Quote
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 10:47a, 4/24/25
AG
Aggie Jurist said:
Have been reading and listening to pundits talk about these cases with growing disgust.

The only ones showing any respect for the Constitution, and for that matter, the Federal Judiciary, is the Administration. These activists in robes have shown nothing but contempt for the constitutional order and the reputation of the Federal Judiciary. What they are doing is creating a crisis of legitimacy in the federal courts. Roberts is helping them completely destroy the Courts' credibility/legitimacy by continuing to do nothing.

Boasberg is playing a game - he cares not about the reputation of the federal courts - he cares only about political power.
Boasberg is trying out to be the next dem appt to the DC Court of Appeals. He knows they are looking for loyal foot soldiers to put in that role, not judicial purists.
Reply Quote
2
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 10:54a, 4/24/25
flown-the-coop said:
Was the sealed filing referring to the 2019(?) withholding order? My understanding is it was just filed.

Sealed means we do not know what it contains, correct?
No one knows what was filed under seal. Ellis Wyatt posited it might be possibly the withholding order. I pointed out that while that possible, its highly unlikely as there is no reason to file an already public record under seal!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
5
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 10:57a, 4/24/25
AG
Roger, I thought that is what you were getting at. Just wanted to be clear my "whats behind the curtain' supposition is just a guess based on the other moving parts / activities happening around this case (RICO, terrorism, etc cases).
Reply Quote
1
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:23p, 4/24/25
AG
Gonna be some melts over this ***** LOL.
Reply Quote
5
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:00p, 4/24/25
AG
nortex97 said:
Gonna be some melts over this. LOL.

Workarounds. That's some creative thinking right there.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
9
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06p, 4/24/25

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
3
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:09p, 4/24/25
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:12p, 4/24/25


"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Reply Quote
6
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14p, 4/24/25
Liberal judges believe they're the Executive Branch. Today was a full-on assault on the rule of law.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 11:45p, 4/24/25
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
Liberal judges believe they're the Executive Branch. Today was a full-on assault on the rule of law.
They are being emboldened by the lack of action by SCOTUS and Roberts to put an end to their nonsense.
Reply Quote
8
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.