446992
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: rump has now openly defied a court order...
URL: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/20/trump-defy-courts-judge-interview-00239359
|
If Trump Defies the Courts, Here’s What a Judge Can Do A former federal judge weighs in on the escalating tension between the White House and the judiciary. President Donald Trump delivers remarks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. By Ankush Khardori 03/20/2025 10:00 AM EDT Ankush Khardori is a senior writer for POLITICO Magazine and a former federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, where he specialized in financial fraud and white-collar crime. He has also worked in the private sector on complex commercial litigation and white-collar corporate defense. His column, Rules of Law, offers an unvarnished look at national legal affairs and the political dimensions of the law at a moment when the two are inextricably linked. Amid the growing battle between President Donald Trump and the courts, a once-unthinkable question is harder to shrug off: Will the administration deliberately defy federal judges if it doesn’t get what it wants? The issue has come into sharp relief in the challenge to the administration’s deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the purported authority of the Alien Enemies Act. The presiding judge — James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — directed the government from the bench to turn the planes around carrying the deportees. That did not happen, though the administration claims it did not deliberately defy the judge. Boasberg has since pressed the government for more information, and on Friday, he will hold a hearing to consider the matter further. To consider Boasberg’s options and the implications, I spoke with Shira Scheindlin, a former federal judge in Manhattan who served on the bench for 22 years. She is no stranger to complex, high-profile disputes involving the government, and as I can attest from brief personal experience — I once litigated before Judge Scheindlin while I worked in the private sector — she had a well-earned reputation for exercising firm control over her courtroom and the lawyers who appeared before her. Scheindlin said that in the debate over whether the United States is already in a constitutional crisis, the real red line is if the executive branch defies the judiciary, a move that Trump says he wouldn’t take. But if it were to happen? “That’s when authoritarians become dictators and really tear down the temple by just ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the judiciary,” she said. “That would be the shocking end to our 250-year experiment.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Did you ever confront a situation where there was a credible suggestion that the government had deliberately violated one of your orders? No. I don’t remember any such event happening. In the case over deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, the government has argued that there is a difference between an oral order and a written order from a judge — that oral orders are somehow meaningless if they aren’t immediately embodied in a written order. What do you make of that argument? That it’s creative? That’s all I can make of it, because I’ve never heard it before. When a judge makes an order from the bench, they sometimes say at the end, “that’s my order” or “so ordered.” It’s tough to appeal an oral order unless there’s a certified transcript. Given that this is a high profile case, I bet he had a court reporter in the courtroom. I bet there is a transcript, and I bet they could have appealed it based on the transcript. I have had that happen — where it was so urgent that [a litigant] took the transcript, got up to the Second Circuit and said, “you know, she’s wrong.” Judge Boasberg has scheduled a hearing for Friday to determine next steps. The government has been making submissions in response to his orders, but they’ve been somewhat tentative and somewhat defiant. If you were Judge Boasberg, how would you approach this hearing? I think he’s posed very specific questions to the government as to when certain flights took off. When did certain flights land? Who gave the [order]? Who was in touch with [the administration] after he issued his oral order? MOST READ 20231025-Mike-Johnson-Ogles-POLITICO.jpg Hill Republicans already hated the ‘idiotic’ call to impeach judges. Then Trump jumped in. Trump is seeking to deport another academic who is legally in the country, lawsuit says USDA halts millions of dollars worth of deliveries to food banks Trump is bombarding the Ivy League. This college just hired a staunch ally as its top lawyer. How major law firms are responding to Trump’s attacks I’m sure he has a lot of questions that he thinks the government has to answer, and I think the government so far has been evasive in answering such simple questions. It is not hard to answer the questions I just gave as examples. What was the flight? Name and number. What airport did it leave? What time did it land? Who did you speak to after I gave my oral order? What time? He knows the time of [his order]. That’s probably on the transcript. Those are the kinds of questions I think I would be asking on Friday. Assuming that the judge — Judge Boasberg or any other judge for that matter — eventually concludes that the government deliberately violated a court order, what are the judge’s options? I can tell you that every former judge I know has been asked this question by somebody in the media, including me. I think the only real option is civil contempt. The reason why it cannot be criminal contempt is generally that would be referred to the Justice Department to prosecute. So you might have a lawyer, a witness that you direct to answer [a question], they refuse, and/or they lie. If you want to charge them with criminal contempt, you have to get the U.S. Attorney’s office or Main Justice to prosecute, and clearly the Trump Justice Department, or the Bondi Justice Department, is not going to prosecute. Then you get that question, which was raised in the Eric Adams case, could you appoint a special prosecutor? That’s tricky because of separation of powers, so I think criminal contempt is off the table. I think civil contempt, however, is something that could be done if the facts are fairly straightforward. The remedy in civil contempt, believe it or not, can include incarceration. Usually it’s fines. If it was a lawyer, you might file a grievance against the lawyer. That could be done if these lawyers either lie to the court or personally violate the order — you might want to bring a grievance before the grievance committee of the local bar where they’re admitted, something like that. So it could be fines, could be a grievance, but in theory, it could also be jailing somebody. I did that only once in my time on the bench. In a civil contempt case, I actually put somebody in jail because he was so defiant, and then … he did what he was told to do. You could also sanction the person, and that’s always interesting, because you could have fines that double every day, so it can get serious fast. I don’t know how good at math you are, but a $1,000 fine doubling every day can quickly add up to real money — not for the United States government, but for an individual. If somebody was individually sanctioned, that adds up. How would incarceration work in civil contempt? Wouldn’t you still need the involvement of the executive branch? Well, you need the person taken away by the U.S. Marshal. That’s the problem, right? When I held someone in civil contempt, I had to say, “Marshal, take this person across the street to the jail.” That is part of the executive branch — just the U.S. Marshal escorting the person over to the federal facility. So it still has that problem, but you don’t need a prosecutor. There have been reasons to doubt the veracity of the DOJ’s arguments in court since the start of the Trump administration — to take just a couple examples, the arguments about why the prosecution against Eric Adams is being dismissed, and the arguments about why some civil servants have been fired. How do you approach a situation where you might not fully trust the representations that the government is making in court? That’s a very good question. You have to try to develop evidence extrinsically to prove the falsehood. We talked about being evasive — in other words, just refusing to answer or ducking the question — but actually making a false statement to the court? You would have to have extrinsic evidence that it’s false. If [opposing counsel] was able to find out what flight, what plane, when it left, when it landed, and it turns out that the government lied and said, “Well, the plane took off before your order.” Let’s say it turned out it took off an hour after the order. That’s bad. That’s a grievance to be filed against the individual attorney, who is an officer of the court, but you’d have to develop extrinsic evidence. You can’t just say, “I don’t trust you.” I don’t think that would work. You could say, “I’m very doubtful that you have been candid with the court. I’m concerned about the veracity of what you’ve told me,” but I’m not going to take action without facts to prove that you have been dishonest with the court. Judges do have a sixth sense for that. They’ve been around. [Judge Boasberg] also has been around a long time. He’s very experienced. I think you kind of know it when you see it. The lawyer has an ethical obligation to be candid to the tribunal. Are you worried that we’ll see a situation where the government explicitly and outright defies a court order? I am concerned about that. We’ve been talking — we being civil society, everybody — about whether we’re in a constitutional crisis. Everybody keeps writing an op-ed saying, “Not yet, but almost.” The constitutional crisis will occur when the executive branch says to the judicial branch, “Too bad, I don’t have to listen to you.” That’s a constitutional crisis, and we haven’t quite gotten there. It seems to me that this executive branch is getting as close to that line as they possibly can without crossing it yet. But if they really just say, “We don’t have to listen to you,” that’s very bad. There have to be three co-equal branches of government, and each branch has to respect the other. What do you think happens in a situation like that — particularly if it’s a Supreme Court ruling — in terms of the public’s confidence in the judicial system and the effects on American politics? If we really had the constitutional crisis that I just described — where the executive branch says to the judicial branch, “I don’t have to listen to you” — that’s a very, very, very serious threat to our democracy. We are built on the separation powers. We’re built on three co-equal branches of government. That’s the authoritarian dictator saying, “I’m tearing down the whole wall.” That’s when authoritarians become dictators and really tear down the temple by just ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the judiciary. We won’t have an independent judiciary any longer. That would be the shocking end to our 250-year experiment. It would be bad. And as far as public trust, I think more than 50 percent of the public would be very concerned and outraged. They didn’t vote for this guy to tear down the house. Trump has called for Judge Boasberg to be impeached, but this week, we saw a rare statement from Chief Justice John Roberts pushing back on that idea. What do you make of Trump’s comments — and also Roberts’? Trump knows better. His cronies have been talking impeachment for weeks now. They started with a judge from my court, Judge [Paul] Engelmayer, one of the early rulings they didn’t like. They attacked him and said he had to be impeached, then they wanted to impeach a different judge. Now it’s Boasberg. A lot of us have spoken out against the word “impeachment,” pointing out very simply that a ruling you don’t agree with is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and impeachment is limited to those [circumstances] and has never been used in any other way. So that’s outrageous. It’s a terrible thought. You disagree with the ruling, as Roberts said, you appeal it and you appeal it again, and that’s our system. But you can’t get rid of the judge. The Constitution gives us life tenure. That’s the Constitution, and so impeachment is just not on the table. There’s no basis. It’s not a high crime or misdemeanor. There’s been rising criticism, not just from Trump, but as you mentioned, congressional Republicans and also conservative activists. Are you confident that the judges can tune out all of this criticism? Judges read the news too, and there have been reports of rising threats to judges. I’ve been in that position where I’ve been publicly attacked, publicly criticized. The question is, does that deter you? Does that scare you? Does that intimidate you? That’s the threat. Do you become intimidated? You do have family, you have spouses and children and parents, and there has been violence against judges. You know the history as well as I do. One judge lost her son, and another judge lost a husband and a mother. Terrible things have happened, so you can’t help but worry about your security in an age where we’ve seen on TV, in a loop that never stops, what the January 6 rioters did, how they acted, how they tore through that building. It only takes one nut, and you or your family could be in danger. They’re doing it to cause a chilling effect, but I think most judges are not going to be deterred. They’re going to continue to stand up. They’re going to continue to do what they think is right, but it’s unfortunate that they have to, even in the back of their mind, worry that a judicial ruling could mean that they’re physically in danger — them and their family. That’s sad, but I don’t think they’ll be deterred. They certainly haven’t been. It seems to me [that Trump has] been losing most cases at the trial level, no matter who appointed the judge, whether it’s a so-called Republican appointee or Democratic appointee, either way. He’s been losing in the district courts, and he lost again in the Ninth Circuit. Before we wrap up, is there anything else you’d like to add? Roberts’ decision to speak out was unusual, almost unprecedented. He gives a state of the judiciary speech once a year, but I think only once before, maybe twice in all the years he’s been chief justice, has he just come out and decided to make a statement. I think the last time was when Trump was president at the beginning, and he kept criticizing judges for being an Obama judge or a Clinton judge. And Roberts said there is no Obama judge. There is no Clinton judge. There’s no Reagan judge. They’re all federal judges, and they all do what they think is right. It was very unusual that immediately after Trump himself called for impeaching judges, [Roberts] must have said to himself, “Enough is enough. I’m going to speak out. I’m the chief justice. They can’t touch me. I’m going to say what I think.” |
Responses:
[446993] [446995] [447001] [447002] [446999] [447004] [447009] [447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017] [446996]
446993
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
Boasberg says Trump administration ‘evaded’ deadline for deportation flight info by Zach Schonfeld and Rebecca Beitsch - 03/20/25 4:32 PM ET A federal judge on Thursday said the Trump administration’s response to his request for more information on Venezuelan deportation flights was “woefully insufficient” and “evaded” obligations to show they complied with an earlier court ruling. In a new order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said the Justice Department refused to meet his Thursday deadline to hand over the flight information and instead submitted a declaration from an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official informing that “Cabinet Secretaries are currently actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets privilege.” The order came after Boasberg ordered the government to privately provide more details about the flights in a sealed filing, saying he was once again rebuffed by the government. “The Government again evaded its obligations,” Boasberg wrote, noting that the filing from the ICE official included the same information about the flights. “This is woefully insufficient. To begin, the Government cannot proffer a regional ICE official to attest to Cabinet-level discussions of the state-secrets privilege,” wrote Boasberg, an appointee of former President Obama. He ordered the Trump administration to provide an update from someone directly involved in the discussions by Friday. By Tuesday, officials must explain in writing why they did not violate the court’s orders blocking Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The White House and Boasberg have been on a collision course since a Saturday hearing in which the judge ordered the government to turn around or halt flights carrying Venezuelan migrants removed under the 1798 law. Boasberg gave the order to do so both verbally and in writing after the hearing. Both forms of orders are legally binding. Nonetheless, the Justice Department continues to argue that it complied with Boasberg’s written order, suggesting they did not have to comply with the oral order. They have also argued the matter is irrelevant, as the flights were already out of U.S. territory by the time Boasberg’s order landed on the docket. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued over the matter, has argued the government had the power to return the Venezuelan deportees from abroad up until the moment they were placed in the custody of a foreign government. The judge has demanded more information about the timing of the flights and who was aboard so he can investigate whether the Trump administration defied his rulings, but the Justice Department has resisted. In a remarkable hearing, Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli kept telling Boasberg he was “not authorized” to disclose information about the flights but provided little legal rationale for doing so. Boasberg ordered the government to provide that rationale in a court filing, but the following day the Justice Department again declined to do so. “The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate,” the Justice Department wrote in the filing Tuesday. On Wednesday, the administration first signaled it may invoke the state secrets privilege, which allows the government in limited circumstances to prevent sensitive national security information from being disclosed in civil litigation. Boasberg has signaled the government’s arguments “at first blush are not persuasive” but has not made a final ruling. Boasberg is a former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court judge and has routinely handled cases dealing with highly classified information. Throughout the week, the White House has attacked Boasberg, arguing the judge has no oversight over national security matters despite the judicial branch routinely weighing in on such matters. “The President is well within his Article II two power and his authority under the Alien Enemies Act to make these decisions. And we think it’s egregious that a single district judge is trying to tell the president of the United States who he can and cannot deport from our soil, especially when it comes to designated foreign terrorists,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. |
Responses:
[446995] [447001] [447002] [446999] [447004] [447009] [447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017] [446996]
446995
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
Was the plane already in the air when the judge said to turn the plane around? |
Responses:
[447001] [447002] [446999] [447004] [447009] [447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017] [446996]
447001
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Confirmed: Trump sent INNOCENT people to rot in El Salvador prison
URL: https://x.com/JeffreyStClair3/status/1902780505801765268
|
Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch @JeffreyStClair3 Calling Franz Kafka: The lack of evidence is evidence of guilt. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick: NEW! Sworn declarations filed last night confirm the Trump admin sent INNOCENT people to rot in prison El Salvador, including a professional soccer player tortured by the Maduro regime who entered this country LEGALLY to seek asylum and has NO CRIMINAL RECORD in either country. x.com/ReichlinMelnic… NEW! The Trump administration ADMITTED last night that many of the people sent to do hard labor in a Salvadoran prison are people with NO CRIMINAL RECORD. Stunningly, they argue that because they DON'T know much about these people, that justifies denying them due process! https://tinyurl.com/bdhmx4sm The men sent to do hard labor in a Salvadoran prison with no due process include: - A tattoo artist seeking asylum who entered legally. - A teen who got a tattoo in Dallas because he thought it looked cool. - A 26-year-old whose tattoos his wife says are unrelated to a gang. Another man sent to Bukele’s prison with no due process is a barber whose family insists has no gang ties. Remember; these people were given no warning they were going to be sent to El Salvador and no right to contest the government’s claim they were members of Tren de Aragua. Well we don’t have their own word for it, because, again, they were thrown into a Salvadoran prison with no warning, no process, and no opportunity to argue that the government had gotten it wrong. And believe me; the government gets gang allegations wrong ALL THE TIME. For example, ICE has been known to label some teens as gang member on incredibly flimsy evidence, sometimes so poor that judges reject it entirely. But the Venezuelan men sent to a Salvadoran prison on Saturday never got a chance to argue the government got it wrong! |
Responses:
[447002]
447002
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Confirmed: Trump sent INNOCENT people to rot in El Salvador prison
| we just need to figure out how to get HIM sent to that prison... |
Responses:
None
446999
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| don't be a dumbass grax... |
Responses:
[447004] [447009] [447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017]
447004
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
Likewise Ryan, you do know that the plane used was not a US bird? Meaning the pilots were not US and once they left the pilots would have kept going regardless of orders to turn around. By design? Could not answer that but I figure you can speculate all you want. |
Responses:
[447009] [447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017]
447009
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| how could a plane turn around if it wasn't in the air? don't think he meant on the runway...first i have heard the planes were not US...you might want to substantiate that...if that is the case, it would fit the criminal actions of this corrupt car selling regime... |
Responses:
[447012] [447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017]
447012
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
Substantiate? Look at the plane they came off of and look up the company, not US and none of there birds are registered US. Also if they were already in the air they would not turn around. You can be so dense sometimes Ryan open your eyes! |
Responses:
[447031] [447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061] [447021] [447015] [447038] [447056] [447040] [447014] [447017]
447031
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
URL: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/20/judge-orders-venezuela-deportation-flights-00241968
|
this is the only blip i have read about the planes, all US registered... ... Boasberg issued an order Saturday morning to block the removal of a small group of Venezuelans who filed suit over their imminent removal. The judge ordered the Trump administration to attend a hearing later that day to discuss whether to issue a more sweeping block for others subject to Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. But before Boasberg could issue his broader ruling, two planes departed and were in the air, even as the judge weighed the case. Boasberg ultimately decided to block further deportations until he had more time to consider the complicated issues at the heart of the Alien Enemies Act and Trump’s effort to apply it to this group. He ordered the planes to be turned around, but hours later, a carefully choreographed video of the planes landing in El Salvador and the Venezuelans being shackled, shaved and led away, began circulating from both El Salvador’s government and the White House. In the video, three U.S.-registered planes were visible on the tarmac at the San Salvador airport, but Trump administration officials say one did not carry any deportees subject to Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation. ... |
Responses:
[447036] [447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061]
447036
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| Look at the video yourself, not US registered. |
Responses:
[447039] [447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061]
447039
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| sorry, but i'll take politico's word over yours.... |
Responses:
[447042] [447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061]
447042
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
Look at the pics yourself or do you just believe anything politico or whomever you want to believe says so. Your really a sad believer if you dont vet information yourself. |
Responses:
[447044] [447043] [447045] [447047] [447048] [447061]
447044
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| and you want me to believe you...lol...i trust politico's reporting...don't you think lardass' people would have mentioned it if the planes were not registered in the US? think! you're being led around by your emotions... |
Responses:
None
447043
From: shadow, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
...because, *of course,* the way an airplane appears in photographs is far more concrete evidence of facts then actual records and eyewitness accounts.... (Every day brings deeper understanding into exactly how the GOP is obliviously digging its own grave...posts like this included...) |
447045
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| willful ignorance is the enemy... |
447047
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: willful ignorance is the enemy
|
I would agreed with 100%. Sorry you fit that description to a T. You are afraid to vet things for yourself? Or just wish to keep your posterior in the air and eyes in the sand? |
447048
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: willful ignorance is the enemy
|
since you are too lazy to research this for yourself, here is the info on the 3 planes that took deportees to el salvador...judging by your laziness and ignorance, you must be a rumpian repug...lol... N278GX Airbus A320-200 GlobalX Airlines Dec 2021 leased from (hidden) painted in "Blue" special colours N837VA Airbus A320-200 GlobalX Airlines Apr 2023 leased from (hidden ) painted in "Retro" special colours Ferried LAL-MIA 1 May 2023 on delivery N630VA Airbus A320-200 GlobalX Airlines Nov 2023 leased from (hidden) Ferried GSO-MIA 14 Nov 2023 on delivery Entered into service 30 Nov 2023 ... Global Crossing Airlines, Inc. (operating as GlobalX Airlines) is an American Part 121 domestic, flag, and supplemental charter airline headquartered in Miami, Florida. The airline was founded in 2018 by Ed Wegel, who previously co-founded the reincarnated Eastern Air Lines. In addition to providing ad-hoc and scheduled passenger charter and cargo airlift to destinations throughout the United States, Europe, the Caribbean, and Latin America, GlobalX operates the majority of deportation flights on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[4] |
Responses:
[447061]
447061
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: willful ignorance is the enemy
|
You finally vetted something Ryan, proud of you. Considering your laziness and lack of wanting to vet you must be a demturd, lol! Now, where were the planes when the request to return was given? |
Responses:
None
447021
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: This is why due process is indispensable to justice & the common good
|
New York Times columnist, visiting professor @lipscomb, Chautauqua Perry Fellow in Democracy, Iraq vet, David French: This is why you have due process. This is why due process is indispensable to justice and the common good. The Alex Nowrasteh@AlexNowrasteh ICE deported Jerce Reyes Barrios, a Venezuelan soccer player who was tortured by Maduro’s dictatorship. He applied for asylum in the U.S. No evidence he committed any crime. No gang membership. Then ICE sent him to a prison in El Salvador. May God have mercy on these ICE agents. |
Responses:
None
447015
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
"Also if they were already in the air they would not turn around. " Planes turn around all the time. All the time.. daily.. whenever it suits. And the only question is fuel/time.. whether they turn around of go forward.. I live in Hawaii.. planes have mechanical issues mid flight between here and anywhere, it's a long way, and when they do, and we hear about it regularly, the issue, the only issue, is where's the closest place to go? Nobody ever says.. well because they took off they had to complete the journey to their intended destination. Nope, it's all fuel and time. Are the planes you are talking about unable to do that? |
447038
From: Graxerife , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
No mechanical or gas issues i saw. And you are missing the point, read the response again. |
447056
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: the flight was ILLEGAL before it left the US(NT)
| (NT) |
Responses:
None
447040
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
| the point is, the rump people blatently disobeyed a court order...lock them up! |
Responses:
None
447014
From: shadow, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
See here? The capacity for human beings to see precisely and only what they desperately need to see is nothing that can be argued with utilizing anything rational or logical, or even by presenting hard, cold factual evidence that contradicts whatever *they need so desperately to believe* beyond any reasonable doubt... |
Responses:
[447017]
447017
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
*they need so desperately to believe* It's unfortunate those kind of beliefs don't put food on a table. |
Responses:
None
446996
From: shadow, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: rump has now openly defied a court order...
|
...lol Graxie... ...*as if*... But hey, thanks for the laugh! ;) |
Responses:
None