5/ And @Nonilex too! https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/114179840622384028 #Boasberg gets the #DOJ to confirm the 5 individual named plaintiffs, which were the subject of his first TRO, are still here. Boasberg asks "How many planes departed the US at any point on Saturday carrying any people being […] - ThreadSky

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy • 7 days ago

5/ And @Nonilex too!

https://masto.ai/@Nonilex/114179840622384028

#Boasberg gets the #DOJ to confirm the 5 individual named plaintiffs, which were the subject of his first TRO, are still here.

Boasberg asks "How many planes departed the US at any point on Saturday carrying any people being […]

Comments

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

6/ DOJ says it's all classified.

Boasberg: Let me tell you the questions I wish you to answer:

mattblaze.federate.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

@GottaLaff I don't envy the government lawyers at that hearing. A tightrope between sanctions and being fired, possibly both.

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

@mattblaze Only if they comply. These lawyers seem to be the types who would just ignore the judge. The judge would then, hopefully, send them to jail for contempt... or fine them, or ...

mattblaze.federate.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

@GottaLaff Yes. If they comply with the court, they'll likely be fired. If they don't, they get sanctions.

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

7/ US: I would direct the court to page 42 of the transcript. The big issue is that this is a fast-moving case where there's a lot of operational natsec etc. at stake. "Oral statements are not injunctions." We do believe this is a good-faith interpretation of the court's written order.

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

9/ Boasberg: You knew in the *morning* that there would be a hearing at 5 p.m., so any planes you were putting in the air, you knew you had that hearing coming! So you're saying that because my minute order was *pithier* ... That's a heck of a stretch, I think.

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

10/ Boasberg: So, I hear you make the argument that we were outside US airspace and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to order the planes to turn around. Is that your argument?

US: Your honor, that's what the statute says. Def'n of "removal"

GottaLaff.mstdn.social.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

11/ Via Brad Moss:

And we have arrived at the inevitable argument from DOJ: Trump can ignore court orders if he thinks they conflict with his power.

zakalwe.plasmatrap.com.ap.brid.gy•7 days ago

@[email protected] What's that sound in the distance? Getting closer? Could it be ... **_an epic bitchslap_?**

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply