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

176,309 Views | 2129 Replies | Last: 21 hrs ago by nortex97
nortex97
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 • 4:32a, 5/3/25
Worthy of all the derision she receives:

Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
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 • 9:44a, 5/3/25
Those guys in those tweets must not have read the opinion either. This judge lays out the merits supporting her legal opinion in great detail, gets into the weeds even.

The only drivel less sound in legal theory of the opinion of this judge is the asinine lawsuit by Perkins Cole. Literally put every single thing that could potentially tickle a lib judges legal bone for them to respond to trying to create a picture of Trump's tyranny.

All coordinated, all an act. They are making an utter mockery of the judicial system thinking the majority of Americans are simply stupid. And certainly there is strong evidence of that based on White Dudes for Kamala hat sales and counted votes for her in 2024.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:16p, 5/3/25
Appeals court laying it down this time. Thread.



"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
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 5/3/25
Dersh has some thoughts on deporting illegals and due process. Go to 9 minute 50 second mark.



He thinks that holding hearings via zoom at American embassies, after deportation would satisfy their due process given the intermediate standard of probable cause to believe a person is here illegally.
Reply Quote
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 7:29p, 5/3/25
Talk about taking a corn-laced dump on D.D.C.
Reply Quote
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:22p, 5/3/25
aggiehawg said:
Dersh has some thoughts on deporting illegals and due process. Go to 9 minute 50 second mark.



He thinks that holding hearings via zoom at American embassies, after deportation would satisfy their due process given the intermediate standard of probable cause to believe a person is here illegally.
Wait...who is the fat **** laying in bed at the beginning??
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:19a, 5/4/25
Very nice, finally. Redstate has a piece on it this am.

Of course Obama judge Pillard dissents, and Politico yearns for an en banc consideration, LOL. Heaven forbid this insanity have standards and be put to rest.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:57a, 5/4/25
Happy Star Wars Day! For all of you fans of the separation of the powers of the universe (er, I mean Constitution), May the Forth Be With You!

The DC Court of Appeals has it's war face on this weekend!

Some of the hits:

Quote:
The Tucker Act vests the Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction over claims against the United States "founded … upon any express or implied contract with the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1). We have long held that this jurisdictional grant, where it applies, is exclusive and thus bars application of the sovereign-immunity waiver set forth in the APA.
Hey, dummies, quit trying to use the APA to get around very clear congressional limitations on the courts established by statute.
Quote:
To distinguish California, the plaintiffs stress that Congress appropriated specific sums for RFA and MBN. Accordingly, plaintiffs contend, they may file an APA claim independent of and antecedent to their grant agreementsto force USAGM to disburse the appropriated amounts. But plaintiffs overread the governing statutes, which do not give the networks an unqualified right to the appropriated funds. Rather, they allocate funds for the networks, which may be disbursed only as grants. See 2024 Appropriations Act, 138 Stat. at 735. If these statutes created any entitlement for the networks at all, they at most would require USAGM to enter grants obligating the appropriated amounts to the networks.
This is HUGE if it stands. Here the Court seems to say that an appropriation, in and of itself, is not a requirement to distribute funds to the best available alternative. It is, at most, only a requirement to put out a request for proposals for grants. If all the grant proposals are sh*t, the Executive Branch doesn't have to distribute the money. If Congress wants the USAGM to issue grants to specific entities, it needs to put the fact that the Executive Branch needs to distribute that money to those specific entities in the actual statute. Congress can't give the Executive the power to decide WHO to distribute grant money to, and then have potential grantees complain when the executive decides no one is good enough to deserve the money.Here, the court seems to be saying that if Congress wants to own the power of the purse, then it needs to do its damn job! !!!!!!!!!***************HUGE******************!!!!!


Quote:
By the same token, however, the public has an interest in the Judicial Branch's respect for the jurisdictional boundaries laid down by Congress.

This is so condescending to these cry-baby judges that its just funny. Hey, idiots, one of the Public Interest factors that you have to take into consideration for an injunction is whether or not an injunction will break the law in such a way that YOU are acting in detriment to the public interest. On this case, the answer is yes!

-------

My take is, that if the reasoning that the DC court puts out there about the lack of requirement of the executive branch to spend money allocated by congress stands, this will be one of the most important decisions related to the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branch for quite some time.

PS, Aggiehawg, did you write this opinion? It feels to me like you are the Per Curium behind this opinion. Are you moonlighting for the DC court?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Troy91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:24a, 5/4/25
There is a distinction between grants and directed allocations to an agency.

I love this court's analysis as to grant funds being available does not require disbursing all of the funds.

My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 9:42a, 5/4/25
Quote:
PS, Aggiehawg, did you write this opinion? It feels to me like you are the Per Curium behind this opinion. Are you moonlighting for the DC court?
LOL. Just guess I'm not the only lawyer who hasn't forgotten how to read federal statutes. I was getting lonely howling in what felt like the wilderness.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Troy91 • 9:48a, 5/4/25
Troy91 said:
There is a distinction between grants and directed allocations to an agency.

I love this court's analysis as to grant funds being available does not require disbursing all of the funds.

My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.


If congress allocates funds to am agency, and there is no efficient way to spend those funds to further the goals of the agency, should the executive waste it?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Troy91 • 9:53a, 5/4/25
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
Reply Quote
Troy91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:58a, 5/4/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
Agreed. The grant funding process is something that we deal with at work. It is a permissive process and courts should not be directing who should receive grants.

General agency funding has been treated differently by the courts.

The grants are where most of the shenanigans have occurred and where the executive branch has discretion. I am happy that a court finally wrote an opinion about the clear exercise of executive power in an area where the executive gets to make decisions.
Reply Quote
Deerdude
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 5/4/25
Congress holding the purse strings is a huge concern. Congress approved and funded the border wall under Bush. Where's the wall and where's the money?
Biden signed off and Congress funded internet for us poor rural folk. Where's that internet or where's the money?
These are just two, but does nobody care about accountability? No need to answer that, I know.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 5/4/25
Not to put too fine a point on this but when the legal tide turns with appellate decisions, just under five months since Trump's inauguration, is lightning fast for our usual system. What would normally take years and years to wind through the system, has been expedited. And a large part of that was the procedural strategy being employed by opponents of the administration. Procedural fig leaves such as using normally non-appealable TROs and using the APA could only last for so long before they fell away.

Short term win in battle but losing the bigger war. That is not dismiss the tremendous work done by S.G. Sauer and his crew because they anticipated those moves and positioned themselves well.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:10p, 5/4/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
What if Congress says: hey, we need to spend $200M on building a bridge in this city using this contractor based on this request for proposal, that's a different story, no?

I would say allocating money is Congress is not requiring money to be spent. I would say targeted spending is Congress doing their job.

Your opinion?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 3:28p, 5/4/25
aggiehawg said:
Not to put too fine a point on this but when the legal tide turns with appellate decisions, just under five months since Trump's inauguration, is lightning fast for our usual system. What would normally take years and years to wind through the system, has been expedited. And a large part of that was the procedural strategy being employed by opponents of the administration. Procedural fig leaves such as using normally non-appealable TROs and using the APA could only last for so long before they fell away.

Short term win in battle but losing the bigger war. That is not dismiss the tremendous work done by S.G. Sauer and his crew because they anticipated those moves and positioned themselves well.
I feel like the DOJ did a great job of goading the judges into doing really, really stupid things. The team was just daring the judges to get out further and further over their skis.

I can't see this SCOTUS touching this decision. I don't have a good feeling of how likely the DC circuit would be to revisit this en banc.

There are 11 Judges in the DC appeals court, you would need 6 to hear en banc. 3 were appointed by Trump, 1 by GW Bush, 4 by Obama, 3 by Biden.

The optimist in me wants to say that hopefully there are 2 responsible judges out of the 7 appointed by Obama and Biden, or at least 2 that don't want to get smacked down by SCOTUS. The realist in me says that isn't bloody likely.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 3:34p, 5/4/25
The issue with taking it en banc is that the current opinion is so well written, if they toss it with some mumbo jumbo drivel/BS, it's pretty possible SCOTUS just (strongly) reverses the en banc opinion, which would be a real embarrassment to team Obama-Biden in DC-robed idiot world.

Nice to see (not directly 47 related but fun swamp court stuff anyway):
Reply Quote
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 • 3:40p, 5/4/25
These very same embezzlers and the judges and politicians who give them cover believe DOGE should have no access to the records or accounts and that the American taxpayer has no right to know how the money is spent.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:43p, 5/4/25
Lib judges will rule that the Trump DOJ has no standing to prosecute these thieves for stealing taxpayer dollars. Or that we are violating their civil rights as systemic racism and oppression led them have no choice but to take these funds as "reparations".
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 4:14p, 5/4/25
BusterAg said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
What if Congress says: hey, we need to spend $200M on building a bridge in this city using this contractor based on this request for proposal, that's a different story, no?

I would say allocating money is Congress is not requiring money to be spent. I would say targeted spending is Congress doing their job.

Your opinion?
As always it comes back to separation of powers issues. Congress appropriates. Executive Branch through the departments affected then spend it according to their directives, from the Executive.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
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 • 4:17p, 5/4/25
Quote:
The issue with taking it en banc is that the current opinion is so well written, if they toss it with some mumbo jumbo drivel/BS, it's pretty possible SCOTUS just (strongly) reverses the en banc opinion, which would be a real embarrassment to team Obama-Biden in DC-robed idiot world.
Agree. DC Circuit's opinion is very precise and did not allow for much wiggle room, if any.

Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. Either have it or you don't. The End.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 4:33p, 5/4/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
The issue with taking it en banc is that the current opinion is so well written, if they toss it with some mumbo jumbo drivel/BS, it's pretty possible SCOTUS just (strongly) reverses the en banc opinion, which would be a real embarrassment to team Obama-Biden in DC-robed idiot world.
Agree. DC Circuit's opinion is very precise and did not allow for much wiggle room, if any.

Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. Either have it or you don't. The End.
This post makes me happy.

Happy star wars day TexAgs! I'm going to go find some bantha milk.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:23p, 5/4/25
Looks to me that Harmeet is about to open up a can of whupazz on Katie Hobbs.

Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:31p, 5/4/25
I like the "my focus will always be on delivering results for Arizona".

But libs also like to cheer about Lincoln's claims we are but one union, not these United States but THE United States or whatever the bit is.

But what recourse do the other 49 states have by this one not following federal law? It's NOT something that is limited to only AZ citizens. Her antics affect directly all the other states.

Would be like Houston saying we will no longer enforce any measures at our ports (and ports of entry). Sorry if your bananas contain cancerous chemicals, we ordered the USDA inspectors to not report any contaminated crates prior to entry.

Dumb dumb and dumb. Bunch such are the libs.
Reply Quote
txags92
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 8:36p, 5/4/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
Not spending the previous year's budget is one way to cut the budget when congress keeps passing continuing resolutions that just incrementally increase what was spent during the previous year.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 8:41p, 5/4/25
txags92 said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
Not spending the previous year's budget is one way to cut the budget when congress keeps passing continuing resolutions that just incrementally increase what was spent during the previous year.


In the land of governments and PTAs, not expending the allocated budget for the year is seen as complete and utter failure. A sign of… wait for it… inefficiency.

Those who choose to go into non-profit, government and similar financial roles are ingrained with this concept that a budget is set and should be fully expended. An overage can be explained and a shortfall of expenditures will NEVER be rewarded.

When you fully grasp that concept, you understand why congress critters and bureaucrats act they way they do and why they are so against what businessmen like Trump & Co are trying to do.
Reply Quote
txags92
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 • 8:52p, 5/4/25
flown-the-coop said:
txags92 said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
My guess is that reasoning is limited to grants and does not affect impoundment which is a different beast.
Not a fan of impoundment, at all. Yes Congress supposedly holds the purse, with appropriations having to start in the House but just because they budget for something doesn't automatically transform into a papal edict that every dime budgeted must be spent.
Not spending the previous year's budget is one way to cut the budget when congress keeps passing continuing resolutions that just incrementally increase what was spent during the previous year.


In the land of governments and PTAs, not expending the allocated budget for the year is seen as complete and utter failure. A sign of… wait for it… inefficiency.

Those who choose to go into non-profit, government and similar financial roles are ingrained with this concept that a budget is set and should be fully expended. An overage can be explained and a shortfall of expenditures will NEVER be rewarded.

When you fully grasp that concept, you understand why congress critters and bureaucrats act they way they do and why they are so against what businessmen like Trump & Co are trying to do.
I do work as a contractor to DoD, I fully understand the concept. But I also understand the concept of reaching the end of the fiscal year and if you didn't spend it, it is gone and you can't soend it next year. So if you take control of agencies, and congress continues to appropriate more money, but the agency doesn't spend it all, that is one way to stealth cut the budget without having to pass anything through congress.
Reply Quote
flown-the-coop
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 8:58p, 5/4/25
Roger. I see what you are saying. My point was you simply do not have the motivational factors in the gov / non-profit arena to be efficient. Caveat on non-profit >> when you have people believing and living for the cause, they will be sufficiently motivated. No such motivation exists in government. In fact, the opposite. The more you exceed the budget the better you must be at using taxpayer funds.
Reply Quote
SgtStiglitz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:16p, 5/4/25
A week ago today, FBI agents arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on courthouse grounds on outrageous charges. Immediately, Trump officials like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi began to celebrate. But this is not going well for them, and it's going to age like milk on a Miami sidewalk.
The arrest of Judge Dugan stemmed from a Keystone Kops type episode that took place a week earlier, when immigration enforcement attempted to arrest an individual in Dugan's courtroom.
Judge Dugan sent the enforcers out, telling them to talk to the chief judge. Then she sent the individual out via the "jury door." The FBI now wants to prosecute her for supposedly obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. But there's a problem.
The government's case hinges (among other problems) on the idea that the choice of the jury door showed an attempt to evade authorities. But as the FBI complaint details (as @AnnJacobsMKE points out), the door led to *where the agents were waiting.*

No obstruction of justice here by an "activist judge". Just more TRUMPed charges trying to undermine the judicial branch of government.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SgtStiglitz • 11:37p, 5/4/25
SgtStiglitz said:
A week ago today, FBI agents arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on courthouse grounds on outrageous charges. Immediately, Trump officials like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi began to celebrate. But this is not going well for them, and it's going to age like milk on a Miami sidewalk.
The arrest of Judge Dugan stemmed from a Keystone Kops type episode that took place a week earlier, when immigration enforcement attempted to arrest an individual in Dugan's courtroom.
Judge Dugan sent the enforcers out, telling them to talk to the chief judge. Then she sent the individual out via the "jury door." The FBI now wants to prosecute her for supposedly obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. But there's a problem.
The government's case hinges (among other problems) on the idea that the choice of the jury door showed an attempt to evade authorities. But as the FBI complaint details (as @AnnJacobsMKE points out), the door led to *where the agents were waiting.*

No obstruction of justice here by an "activist judge". Just more TRUMPed charges trying to undermine the judicial branch of government.
AI prompt set to snarky. Want an AI response, or are you human enough to think for yourself?

Do you even have any idea on what the charges against Dugan are? Who brought the charges? What her primary defense is?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
1 edit
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 SgtStiglitz • 2:06a, 5/5/25
Dugan should never see the inside of a courtroom again, except as the defendant. She should spend significant time in prison, and her legal career should be over.

Anyone who attempts what she did should receive the same treatment. Judges are not above the law, and the games should be over. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
Reply Quote
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:52a, 5/5/25
Is everyone ready for Boasberg to pick the DC USA? Maybe Norm Eisen?

Thx a lot Cornyn. You're doing a great job for us.

More on the DC circuit opinion:
Quote:
The battle over Executive Branch powers will continue, but these limitations on hastily-granted restraining orders issued by Democratic Party judges will strengthen the administration's hand. Many of DOGE's savings relate to grants that were improvidently made by the Biden administration. The mere fact that those grantees will have to pursue claims for breach of contract under the Tucker Act, which will take years, as opposed to relying on ex parte orders by Democratic Party judges, is huge.

These cases were heard by D.C. Circuit Court Judges Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee, and Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee. Pillard wrote a long dissent from the majority opinion, setting forth the Democratic Party's position.

All three of these judges are pretty distinguished. When Neomi Rao was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2019, she was controversial in some quarters of the conservative movement. We defended her nomination here and elsewhere.

The D.C. Circuit has never been considered a bastion of conservatism, but in the current battles over the Democrats' effort to use partisan judicial tyranny to slow down the Trump administration, it has done well.

As I noted here, the D.C. Circuit held in March that the President's Article II powers entitle him to fire members of the Executive Branch, and any statute to the contrary is unconstitutional. This means, I think, that the Civil Service Act is unconstitutional. But that is a topic for another day.

Meanwhile, given this second solid ruling from the D.C. Circuit, the Democrats may have to start bringing their lawsuits somewhere else.
Reply Quote
rausr
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:58a, 5/5/25
And for those of us in Louisiana, freaking Bill Cassidy, that RINO traitor, strikes again.

Reply Quote
jwhaby
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to SgtStiglitz • 7:00a, 5/5/25
SgtStiglitz said:
A week ago today, FBI agents arrested Judge Hannah Dugan on courthouse grounds on outrageous charges. Immediately, Trump officials like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi began to celebrate. But this is not going well for them, and it's going to age like milk on a Miami sidewalk.
The arrest of Judge Dugan stemmed from a Keystone Kops type episode that took place a week earlier, when immigration enforcement attempted to arrest an individual in Dugan's courtroom.
Judge Dugan sent the enforcers out, telling them to talk to the chief judge. Then she sent the individual out via the "jury door." The FBI now wants to prosecute her for supposedly obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. But there's a problem.
The government's case hinges (among other problems) on the idea that the choice of the jury door showed an attempt to evade authorities. But as the FBI complaint details (as @AnnJacobsMKE points out), the door led to *where the agents were waiting.*

No obstruction of justice here by an "activist judge". Just more TRUMPed charges trying to undermine the judicial branch of government.


If the jury door lead to the agents and the judge was aware of this, why not have the defendant released through the door that is normally used. If they both lead to agents, why the jury door? Me thinks she was trying to help evade arrest.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.