Judge Finds ‘Probable Cause’ to Hold Trump Admin in Contempt Over Deportation Orders
SCOTUS vacated Judge James Boasberg’s TRO. The judge said SCOTUS’s decision “does not excuse the Government’s violation.”
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the DC District Court claimed he found probable cause to hold President Donald Trump’s administration in contempt for deporting illegal aliens to El Salvador.
The Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) banning the government from flying the illegal aliens to El Salvador, citing the Alien Enemies Act.
The TRO came as the planes had already departed from the airport.
“As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” wrote Boasberg. “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.”
Weird. The Supreme Court vacated Boasberg’s TRO, finding the venue improper for the case since it was one for Habeas Corpus.
The case should be handled in a Texas court.
Boasberg said SCOTUS’s decision “does not excuse the Government’s violation.”
Boasberg wrote:
Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21.
The administration has until April 23 to answer Boasberg’s questions.
If the administration does not take that action, he “will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and refer the matter for prosecution.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is where Trump pardons come in handy.
James “I Am The Law” Boasberg will not be denied.
That PRESIDENT Boasberg to you!
Self appointed doncha know!
This guy is asking for a Smith/James/Willis-class beatdown.
This man is spectacularly stupid.
Not a lawyer, so asking…..
I’ve been told here by posters that Presidential pardons are not all inclusive, for example it offers no protection against state level prosecutions. So…
1) Seems to me many “crimes” are prosecutable under both state and federal courts. What’s to prevent a zealous state prosecutor from ignoring a federal pardon and prosecuting for the exact same crime that was pardoned?
2) Dito for civil penalties, could you punish & bankrupt a pardoned person for civil damages?
3) Directly pertaining to this case, a quick google shows this @hole judge is defending his contempt proceedings by arguing precedent that you can be held IC for not obeying even an incorrect and reversed ruling (like his own). So even an illegal judicial order MUST be obeyed immediately?
1. Absolutely nothing. Different sovereigns. Both get a shot at you.
2. Yes. Though it depends on what you mean for civil penalties. Pardons generally don’t apply to civil cases, only criminal ones. The president can’t exempt you from civil liability. However, some criminal charges have civil penalties that occur upon conviction. For instance, losing your license upon a DUI conviction. A pardon may or may not get rid of those penalties.
3. In the general course of things, yes because we’re assuming the judge isn’t issuing an illegal order. He may be wrong and overturned on appeal, but that may happen when it’s a new issue or some legal principle is wrongly applied. The judge may also be correct on the current state of the law and then a higher court changes it. For example, prior to Miranda vs. AZ, police didn’t have to read you your Miranda rights. Afterwards they did. Officers who didn’t read the rights before the case was decided were correct given the state of the law at the time, and judges who ruled in their favor were correct. Afterwards they weren’t. The problem with this all is that it presupposes a good faith mistake or attempt to follow the law on the part of the judge. It doesn’t look to me like that occured here, but YMMV. But the basic principle is that we assume the order is legitimate and valid, and if not a higher court will fix it. I’m not sure what the limit to that would be. Most orders have at least a fig leaf of legal justification to them which would probably keep them in the “to be obeyed” category. I don’t know how blatantly illegal and bad they would have to be to be just ignored.
I think we can rule out the idea that he ever acted in good faith
G. Improper Assertion of Jurisdiction, Contempt, and Procedural Overreach
In the Tren de Aragua deportation case, Judge Boasberg’s actions constituted a textbook case of judicial overreach. First, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on a class-action filing in D.C., though the detainees in question were being held in Texas and the correct legal remedy was an individualized habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated his order, ruling the D.C. court lacked jurisdiction.
More troubling was Boasberg’s conduct regarding enforcement of the TRO. Boasberg attempted to initiate contempt proceedings against the administration for failing to comply with a verbal order he issued before entering his order in writing. The administration contended it adhered to the written TRO and could not legally be held in contempt for disobeying an unwritten directive. This view is not merely procedural nitpicking—it aligns with the well-established principle that a party cannot be held in contempt unless the order allegedly violated was clear, specific, and properly entered into the record.
In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), the Court held that contempt sanctions are only appropriate when there is “no fair ground of doubt” as to the applicability of a court order. In United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994), the Court further underscored the necessity for judicial orders to be definite and enforceable before contempt may be imposed. The administration, acting in reliance on these precedents, complied with the written order, which they received after deportation flights had departed. Judge Boasberg, however, insisted on pursuing contempt on the basis of his verbal command.
Compounding the situation, Boasberg did not recuse himself from this case despite having assumed it under unusual circumstances. Though the case was reportedly assigned to him randomly, Boasberg himself admitted that he “happened to be in the office” when it arrived, and simply took it upon himself to preside. The resulting perception that he may have sidestepped the random assignment system only amplifies concerns about partiality. When added to the fact that he later pressed a contempt finding based on an oral order—knowing that the Supreme Court had ruled he never had jurisdiction in the first place—the appearance of bias transforms into evidence of actual bias.
Judge Boasberg’s conduct in this case fits a disturbing pattern documented throughout this brief. He has ruled against the Trump administration at every turn, regularly expanded statutory interpretations beyond precedent (e.g., obstruction of an official proceeding), sentenced nonviolent political protestors more harshly than institutional actors who committed serious legal violations (like Kevin Clinesmith), and maintained ideological and familial conflicts of interest. Now, by asserting contempt based on an unenforceable verbal order and acting after being stripped of jurisdiction, he has placed the credibility of the entire judiciary at risk.
IV. The Institutional Cost of Inaction
Institutions must not simply demand deference; they must earn it by behaving in a way that is demonstrably above bias. Recusal is not merely about avoiding unfair outcomes; it is about protecting the credibility of the judiciary itself.
If Judge Boasberg continues to preside over cases involving Trump or his allies, large portions of the public will—justifiably—question whether they can receive a fair trial. That perception, grounded in a pattern of conduct, undermines not just the legitimacy of one judge, but of the entire institution.
V. Conclusion
Given the outlined pattern of conduct—disparate sentencing, misapplication of law, familial entanglements, public demonstrations of partiality, procedural overreach, and the assertion of contempt powers without jurisdiction—Judge James Boasberg must recuse himself from all proceedings related to former President Trump or his associates. This is not merely a question of appearance. It is a question of constitutional legitimacy and institutional survival.
Respectfully submitted,
“the Court further underscored the necessity for judicial orders to be…enforceable before contempt may be imposed…the Supreme Court had ruled he never had jurisdiction in the first place.”
If Boasberg never had jurisdiction nothing he did or said is of any legal standing. Even presuming that an ignored order, if subsequently overturned, can still form the basis of a contempt charge, Boasberg’s order still wouldn’t qualify, as he never had the authority to issue the order in the first place. The rule (if it exists) almost certainly presumes the judge making the order, whether his ruling was correct or in error, had authority to impose the order upon the respondents.
Dave, I think you are correct here, but he may have had jurisdiction at the time he made his order. If the prisoners were in his district at the time they filed for habeas, he would have jurisdiction to make an order keeping them in the USA. Now that they’re in Texas he doesn’t.
Okay every single solitary bit of this of the judge is preposterous. A blanket statement that every order must be obeyed until overturn is preposterous that would give judges rights to order any manner of preposterous nonsense which is what the judge is doing in this case anyway. It would make more sense for the Department of Justice to bring up the judge on charges of interfering with law enforcement and the lawful performance of their Duty than it would be for the judge to suggest that the executive branch must obey his every order regardless of how illegal wrong ignorant it is.
Furthermore the concept of obeying judicial orders may make pretty good sense when it comes to individuals but it does not make sense when it applies to a more than co-equal branch of government. And I say more than Co equal because the lower courts are not equal to the executive branch and the chief executive inn. The Supreme Court is co equal to the chief executive of the lower courts are not coequal to the chief executive and these are orders given by the chief executive so for bozeberg to suggest he can assume Supremacy over a branch of government which he is not even co-equal to himself is a preposterous suggestion it just shows you how little he knows.
Lastly he is clearly a power drunk maniacal tyrannical abuser of power that should be taken out of his role immediately. I hate the Nazi references, but there were good Nazis very good Nazis and the best nazis. Bozeberg would have made one of the best nazis. Those are the people who love their power and will do anything and stop at nothing once they have it and will exercise it above their actual Authority and the whole point is their power. He is an atrocious gross deformed neurotic illegally acting crap head.
I think that it would be perfectly appropriate for the justice department to charge him with obstructing a law enforcement body from performing their lawful duties. And put them in jail with no bail. That would be certainly no worse than what he’s trying to do. I just cannot understand how it all that nobody is stopping this.
I mean the fact is that even the Supreme Court is only a co-equal branch. Just because the Supreme Court claims Supremacy a long long time ago doesn’t even establish that as a fact there can be a standoff between the branches.
I mean Robert’s tried to send him the message and he didn’t get it. The message is going to have to be much more fierce.
Everybody says that impeachment of the judge is worthless cuz you can’t get the supermajority. Who cares. The process will be the punishment and the dragging the whole thing through the system will be the point it will be salutary to the behavior of other judges if one of them gets hauled up there and is in the docket themselves even if they end up getting off in the end. It will not make them more powerful cuz they can always be impeached again. Or Congress can remove or Congress can remove their sinecure.
Enough with this BS already. Take some damn action Congress get rid of this guy. Impeach him and if that fails remove his position. In the story. By the way they can try to impeach trump again. It won’t matter in the least I doubt the Senate will even take it up, and that’s assuming they get the house in this next one.
Nevertheless the law is very clear about this. He is right on this point. And yes, that does mean judges can make preposterous orders, and sometimes do. If you read Volokh you will come across such cases with some regularity, mostly when a court issues an overbroad gag order.
Millhouse, you can’t just say the law is very clear on this when it isn’t. It is such a dumb and unsupported statement. It’s a strawman and a canard.
Why can’t you ever manage to say something accurate, insightful, well-grounded, in context, or anything else than “SQUIRREL!”
I would tell you why you’re wrong, but that would be a waste of my time. Can’t reason folks out of things they didn’t reason themselves into. With all the time you have to comment, I would advise you to comment less and learn more, but you won’t.
As Gary Larson’s cartoon said, “Blah, blah, blah,Millhouse, blah blah blah blah Millhouse, blah blah.”
I obnoxiously post this here again in whole. It is a travesty. In additi0n, they didn’t disregard his written ruling, and had no obligation to alter their actions without a written ruling. Furthermore, this is a question where the court is intruding wrongly on core constitutional powers of president, not some Joe Schmo. Boasberg is completely out of control, emotionally and legally. He needs the coming Letitia James treatment. Also interfering with executive’s legal duties under color of Law.
Absolutely. Below is the **full legal brief** presented in a single, continuous piece. At the end, I’ve included all relevant **legal and news citations**, numerically referenced.
—
**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT**
**AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MANDATORY RECUSAL OF JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG**
**RE: Request for Recusal in All Matters Involving Donald J. Trump or Trump-Associated Defendants**
—
### I. Introduction
This brief is submitted to advocate for the recusal of the Honorable Judge James Boasberg from any proceedings involving former President Donald J. Trump or his associates, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, which mandates recusal when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Public trust in the judiciary is foundational to its legitimacy. That trust is not self-sustaining—it is earned and reaffirmed through consistent, principled conduct by judges who uphold not only the law, but the public appearance of fairness and neutrality. Institutions cannot demand respect by fiat; they must continuously behave in a manner that merits it. The judiciary, in particular, must be vigilant against the appearance of impropriety, which poses as much a threat to the rule of law as actual misconduct.
As physicist Richard Feynman once remarked, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” The danger in self-adjudicated standards is precisely this tendency toward self-deception. Judges, like all humans, are susceptible to unconscious bias and self-justification. Therefore, a system that relies solely on a judge’s own discretion to determine recusal—particularly in high-profile, politically charged cases—is structurally flawed. Judge Boasberg’s conduct, affiliations, and rulings give rise not only to the perception of partiality, but to actual patterns that raise serious and legitimate questions about his impartiality and suitability to preside over any matters involving Donald Trump.
—
### II. Legal Standard for Recusal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Section 455(b)(4) further mandates disqualification where a judge or a family member has a financial or other interest in a party to the proceeding or in the matter at issue.
This standard is objective: it asks whether a reasonable person, fully informed of the relevant facts, would question the judge’s impartiality. It does not require proof of actual bias. In *Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.*, 486 U.S. 847 (1988), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of avoiding even an “appearance of partiality” because “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”[1]
—
### III. Basis for Recusal
#### A. Leniency Toward Institutional Insider Kevin Clinesmith
In 2020, FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to deliberately altering an email from the CIA in order to suggest falsely that Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, was “not a source” for the agency, when in fact he had been. This falsified email was used in support of a FISA warrant renewal application.[2]
Judge Boasberg, who at the time was the Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months of probation and 400 hours of community service. He imposed no incarceration, despite the severity of Clinesmith’s conduct and the judge’s own institutional role as the guardian of the court Clinesmith had misled. No formal censure or reform followed from the court.
This stands in stark contrast to Boasberg’s sentencing of political protestors (as described below), and raises a serious question as to whether his judicial leniency was selectively applied in favor of government insiders whose misconduct aligned with efforts to investigate or undermine the Trump campaign.
—
#### B. Disparate Sentencing of Nonviolent January 6 Defendants
Judge Boasberg sentenced several nonviolent January 6 defendants to substantial prison terms. Derek Jancart and Erik Rau, both with no prior criminal records and convicted of misdemeanor trespassing, were sentenced to 45 days in jail—among the first nonviolent protesters to receive jail time.[3] In another case, Boasberg sentenced Marc Bru to six years in prison for nonviolent conduct during the Capitol breach.
These sentences were far harsher than those imposed by other federal judges in similar cases. For example, Judge Trevor McFadden sentenced Jenny Cudd, also a nonviolent January 6 defendant, to two months of probation and a $5,000 fine despite a prosecution request for jail time. McFadden explicitly questioned the consistency of DOJ’s charging policies and warned against inflating penalties based on political context.[4]
Moreover, when compared to the non-custodial sentence Judge Boasberg gave to Kevin Clinesmith—whose falsified email triggered unconstitutional surveillance—the disparity reflects more than mere inconsistency. It reflects a differential standard applied based on political affiliation and institutional status.
—
#### C. Misapplication of the Obstruction Statute
Judge Boasberg allowed the use of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)—a law designed to criminalize obstruction of evidence in official proceedings—to be applied expansively to January 6 defendants who were not accused of tampering with evidence. The Supreme Court later ruled in *Fischer v. United States* (2024) that the statute’s application in these cases was improper.[5]
This misapplication led to defective felony convictions, including those over which Judge Boasberg presided. It also gave the DOJ expanded leverage to secure plea deals and escalate sentences under a flawed legal premise. That the Supreme Court had to step in and reject this expansion underscores how far Boasberg and others deviated from the statute’s original intent.
—
#### D. Attendance at Trump’s Arraignment: Evidence of Actual Bias
On August 3, 2023, former President Trump appeared in court in Washington, D.C., for arraignment on charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Though he was not assigned to the case, Judge Boasberg attended the proceeding in person.[6]
There is no record of Judge Boasberg—or any other sitting Chief Judge—ever attending a politically charged arraignment of a defendant not before his court. His presence, in uniform and public view, gave the appearance of institutional endorsement of the prosecution, and arguably applied pressure both symbolically and procedurally. This behavior crosses the line from perceived bias to actual bias.
—
#### E. Familial and Ideological Affiliations
Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners for Justice, a nonprofit group engaged in advocacy against criminal enforcement and immigration-related detentions. The organization’s executive director praised Judge Boasberg’s 2025 ruling that blocked the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.[7]
Partners for Justice received $3.3 million in government grants in 2023. While Katharine Boasberg’s exact compensation is not publicly available, she is a salaried employee of an organization whose ideological and legal positions overlap with her father’s judicial rulings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), such overlap creates an appearance of conflict of interest and compels recusal.
—
#### F. Failure to Address FISA Court Abuses
As a long-serving member—and eventually Presiding Judge—of the FISA Court, Judge Boasberg had an obligation to address systemic abuses related to surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. These abuses included reliance on the Steele Dossier, which was funded by the Clinton campaign, and repeated renewal of surveillance warrants that omitted critical exculpatory information.[8]
Boasberg took no public action to hold officials accountable, reform procedures, or restore credibility to the court. His institutional silence compounded public skepticism that the judiciary was functioning as a neutral arbiter.
—
### IV. The Institutional Cost of Inaction
Institutions must not simply demand deference; they must earn it by behaving in a way that is demonstrably above bias. Recusal is not merely about avoiding unfair outcomes; it is about protecting the credibility of the judiciary itself.
If Judge Boasberg continues to preside over cases involving Trump or his allies, large portions of the public will—justifiably—question whether they can receive a fair trial. That perception, grounded in a pattern of conduct, undermines not just the legitimacy of one judge, but of the entire institution.
—
### V. Conclusion
Given the outlined pattern of conduct—disparate sentencing, misapplication of law, familial entanglements, public demonstrations of partiality, and a failure to hold government actors accountable—Judge James Boasberg must recuse himself from all proceedings related to former President Trump or his associates. This is not merely a question of appearance. It is a question of constitutional legitimacy and institutional survival.
**Respectfully submitted,**
[Name / Title or Organization, if desired]
—
### CITATIONS
1. *Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.*, 486 U.S. 847 (1988).
2. DOJ Press Release, “FBI Attorney Admits Altering Email Used in FISA Application,” August 2020.
3. Axios, “First nonviolent Capitol riot defendants sentenced to prison,” September 2021.
4. ABA Journal, “Federal judge complains prosecutors want more jail time for Jan. 6 breach than for Kavanaugh protests,” February 2022.
5. *Fischer v. United States*, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
6. Washington Post & court observers, “Boasberg attends Trump arraignment in person,” August 2023.
7. New York Post, “Judge’s daughter works for immigration nonprofit tied to ruling he made,” March 2025.
8. DOJ Inspector General Report on Crossfire Hurricane (Dec. 2019); FISC Opinions 2020.
—
Let me know if you’d like to export this version to a Word or PDF format, or have it prepped for filing.
#### E. Familial and Ideological Affiliations
A description of a circle jerk.
Trump made the mistake of not pardoning himself.
Blanket pardons are good now. For all potential past, present, and future lawfare by your kind.
This man is spectacularly stupid.
Look at the little District Judge having a mental breakdown.
Why (when I look at his picture) does he make me think he should have been a character on Night Court?
The lawyers on Night Court (at least the original) were competent.
One even went on to become Sir Galahad.
Shorter Boasberg: respect mah authoritah!
You got there before me.
Trump should come out and confess to “contumacious conduct” and then ask what is the judge’s excuse?
He certainly seems to deserve this contumely.
Oh no! This time they have him for certain! The progressive left will finally get their wish!
“Of course we have contempt for this court. The actions and reasoning of this court are contemptible. For the court to place us ‘in contempt,’ however, is to hold this entire court up to ridicule in the eyes of the liberty- and justice-loving parts of the world.”
Once again, Congress should defund the circuit court he is attached to. Or drag his fanny up to Congress to explain to the American people how he grabbed this case when he wasn’t the emergency judge. How he approved a FISA wire tap without a Woods file attached to the application. The only way to make these judicial overreaches stop is by making it so painful for the Chief Justice Roberts that HE reigns in the judges he supervises.
To paraphrase Pogo, “If I could write, I’d write my congressman, if he could read.”
At the moment, I’m in contempt of Congress.
Who, exactly, will be prosecuting the contempt charges?
The Bondi DOJ. Nice try, Boasberg
Good point. He’s threatening to appoint his own prosecutor if the DOJ declines. But what if DOJ appoints a prosecutor and then that prosecutor, after an investigation, declines to prosecute?
His threat sounds very “Third Reichy” to me.
WHATTTTT!!!! What is this judge thinking???
Orange Harvey should be able do whatever he wants whenever he wants because he’s a selfless patriot who only cares about America.
Defraud people, sexually assault women, pay illegal hush money to pornstars, steal classified documents, Lie about election fraud, ask a State official to ‘ find’ votes???? PFFFFFt , a small price to pay if the great man is willing to rid our country of these people who are poisoning our blood.
The cultist takes out his record player so he can play “One Horse Pony.”
You are sounding as competent as Mr. Biden.
Don’t you have a Tesla dealership to burn down….
November, 1956. Act your age already, you’ve been around for sixty eight and a half years. You’re leaving quite a legacy here, not one most sane people would look back upon with pride.
Wow, the Nazi collaborator isn’t getting his money’s worth with you. He needs to find better uncles.
Incels.
He wasn’t a collaborator. And he’s probably not paying this moron. He didn’t get so rich by wasting money like that.
Milhouse, Milhouse, Milhouse….
He was the junior partner in a 2-man team that helped the Nazis turn possessions of (fellow) Jews sent to the Death Camps into money.
How is that NOT collaboration?
He took his earnings from that and post-war turned it into a fortune – not by doing productive things – but by speculation in hedge funds and currency markets. He famously once made one billion dollars in 24 hours by betting the British pound was about to be devalued. Some argue his bet was either the trigger for that to happen or the most lucrative insider trading in history. He’s also made much money speculating in commodities and precious metals.
He’s obviously got a good track record for consistently spotting opportunities to profit off other folk’s loses. Not quite as good as (say) Hillary’s incredible one-year run of “luck” in commodity trading, but enuf to always raise suspicions he’s engineering his own luck one way or the other.
He’s one white Persian cat away from becoming a classic Bond Villain.
Bob, Bob, Bob, you’re completely wrong. The things you claim never happened.
That is bullshit. It never happened. Not even slightly.
The Hungarian government clerk who was sheltering him (at great risk to his own life, by the way) had the job of taking care of confiscated property. That’s not collaboration, or else you’d have to say that all Hungarian government employees were collaborators the moment the occupation began. On one occasion when he was managing a farm he took the boy with him to spend the day at the farm while he was doing his work, rather than leaving him at home in the city. The boy did literally nothing but spend a day in the country. Even the guardian was not a collaborator, let alone the boy. Neither of them did anything wrong.
What earnings? He did no work and was not paid. He had a day on a farm, to enjoy as best he could while simultaneously being in fear that someone would realize he wasn’t really the guy’s nephew and report them.
That’s a profoundly anti-capitalist view, and at root an antisemitic one. Speculation in markets is productive, exactly like farming or mining or any other kind of economic activity. It creates wealth, and it pays exactly the value that it creates. The idea that “middlemen” who “only move things around” don’t create wealth is central to Marxism, and is the same as the idea that shopkeepers and moneylenders, who tend to be Jews, are parasites. This is exactly the view that created the Holocaust that he was sheltering from.
And? No capitalist could possibly object to that. No one who’s read The Wealth of Nations could object.
Yes. That is valuable economic activity.
More bullshit. Hillary has no such “run of luck”. The whole point of the scandal is that she had one day on which she supposedly traded commodities, which she’d never done before, made a $50,000 profit on the same day that her broker made a loss, walked away with that profit and never traded again, while the broker went back to making profits. In other words, she didn’t get lucky, the broker paid her $50,000, presumably for services rendered by her husband, and the broker laundered it by waiting till the end of the day and then assigning enough profitable trades to her account, and enough unprofitable ones to his own, to yield her a balance of $50,000. If she had truly just got lucky, no one in that situation could have resisted trying again the next day. Even the most prudent person would have taken, say, $40,000 as a profit, and reinvested $10,000 to see how well she could do. Clinton didn’t, because she knew her “luck” would not repeat itself the next day, since the amount promised had been paid in full.
None of that has any similarity at all to someone who actually invests in the market, has good transactions and bad ones, up days and down days, but since he knows what he’s doing has many more ups than downs.
Milhouse….
Soros himself said otherwise….
From the 60 minutes interview….
“Kroft: “My understanding is that you went . . . went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.”
Soros: “Yes, that’s right. Yes.”
Kroft: “I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?”
Soros: “Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t . . . you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.”
Kroft: “No feeling of guilt?”
Soros: “No.”’
As for Hillary’s trading career being a one-day wonder you’re misremembering I think…..
“In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham Clinton engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 (equivalent to $433,241.63 in 2024), when she stopped trading after ten months.”
Idiot
Go F yourself since its hump day and no one else will you ugly twisted virgin.
x1000
you know, you might be amusing if any of your diatribe was fact based, he didn’t defraud anyone, paying hush money is not illegal, if you believe E Jean Carrol’s fanciful story, plagiarized from an episode of the TV series, ” law and order”, I have a bridge in Brooklyn at a reasonable price, tell us what lie he told about election fraud, and if you took the time to actually read the transcript of Trump’s phone call to Raffensberger, you will find that he never asked anyone to find him votes
Didn’t he? I haven’t gone back to look, but as I recall it he did ask him to find, not all of the fraudulent and invalid votes, which would have been a huge task, but at least enough of them to put the result in question.
I think he greatly underestimated the difficulty of finding even that few of them in time; still, Raffensperger should have agreed to look for them. It’s not as if they weren’t there to be found.
Didn’t Al Gore ask a court to order others to “find more votes” for him? There was nothing wrong with that. A candidate has a right to find all the legitimate votes for him as were cast and to assure they’re counted. Some may find Gore’s action different, “He went to a court. That’s legal.” What? Petitioning an elected official isn’t legal? Because that’s what Trump did when he asked Raffensperger to “find more votes.”
Exactly. Raffensperger was responsible for making sure the result was as accurate as it could be, and that included finding as many invalid votes as could be found within the time available. Had he taken this responsibility seriously I doubt he could have found enough to have made the difference; I think Trump greatly underestimated the difficulty. But he didn’t seem to take it seriously at all, and didn’t even make the effort.
tjv1156 you are just a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
He didn’t do any of those things.
1. Whom did he defraud? Not Deutchebank, which said it had no problem with his conduct and was eager to lend to him again.
2. He didn’t assault anyone.
3. No one has even alleged that there is anything illegal about paying hush money to porn stars.
4. He didn’t steal anything.
5. He didn’t lie about it.
6. The scare quotes around “find” make this a lie too. He didn’t ask Raffensperger to “find” the fraudulent votes, he asked him to find them, which was completely within his rights and the right thing to do. Raffensperger may have been sure they couldn’t be found, and he may have been right, but he should at least have promised to look for them.
“3. No one has even alleged that there is anything illegal about paying hush money to porn stars.”
I found this particularly troublesome. It’s not as if everyone enters hush money payments into their ledgers as “hush money.” Making such a record could potentially defeat the purpose of paying the hush money. Why would anyone make such an entry?
1. The records were private; in the normal course of events no one outside his accounting team would ever see them. Indeed I’m not sure how Bragg found out about them; I understand he subpoenaed them, but how did he know there was anything to subpoena? Even Cohen would presumably not have known how the payments were accounted for.
2. For the same reason drug dealers, if they’re careful, report their income. They don’t want to be caught like Al Capone.
I never believed there were severely retarded people in the world. Stupid, but not RETARDED – RETARDED.
But here you are.
He is so cute. If he finds the administration in contempt is he going to order the entire administration arrested? Good luck with that.
He just wants President Trump. No one else will satisfy him.
No, read the post again.
So he will name one or more individuals, not the whole administration.
Damn, I wish knew the law. I sure am getting an education though.
This is a huge power struggle between the branches being fought by pushing angels around on the head of a pin.
I understand why the Supremes are trying to stay out of the fight though.
If they are FORCED to start taking positions on these various matters my uneducated guess is that following the constitution would make their rulings come down on the side of Trump. This would, obviously make the Executive stronger and weaken the Court ( in comparison to the authority it asserts now). If they don’t follow (what I presume to be the letter of) the constitution they will win some battles, but may well draw the Legislative Branch into action to rein them in.
Man, I wish I knew enough to forecast what’s going to happen.
As I noted when the SCOTUS order vacated Boasberg you cannot be in contempt of orders made in a venue that is found not to have jurisdiction. This is no simple error of law but voids all proceedings ab initio, you cannot have a nunc pro tunc order in a venue determined to lack jurisdiction. A venue’s orders lacking jurisdiction are VOID not voidable. Before I was uneasy on impeachment calls because of Boasberg’s prior rulings (though I disagreed they were legal and appropriate) but this seems to be necessary now.
The refusal to abide by an order he never had authority to issue is not contempt — it’s obedience to the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT: Stop this. You don’t have any jurisdiction over this case.
BOASBERG: And now I’m going to lay out my criminal contempt case that will be used by the Dems as the predicate crime for Impeachment should they take back the house, as choreographed by Chuck Schumer.
The House should Impeach this idiot this week.
Judges hold their tenure under condition of ‘good behavior’. Impeachment requires ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. Seems pretty clearly indicate, notwithstanding other self serving interpretations, that a Judge can be removed for ‘bad behavior’ without an impeachment. Some random District Judge attempting to singlehandedly determine immigration policy by:
1. Seizing the case out of order of assignment
2. Asserting Judicial Authority without Jurisdiction
3. Ignoring SCOTUS admonitions, as weak tea as it was it clearly indicated Jurisdictional error
He got outplayed by the Trump Admin using similar procedural games he himself initiated. He needs to to take.the L. If not then Congress should vote by simple majority remove him from the bench for violating the ‘good behavior’ clause. He seems to want a Constitutional confrontation,.give him one. When the Judiciary balks at removing him then Congress should dissolve the inferior Courts. Later they can reconstitute them but SCOTUS about to be busy riding the geographic areas for Circuits they are responsible for.
He ought to pray that the House DOES impeach him.
Because I predict there are more than four people in his vicinity testing the strength of their rear bumpers as we speak.
No judge can judge his own actions either. We need another judge to put this one in his place.
That’s why, when a judge finds criminal contempt, he can’t just judge the charge himself; he has to refer it for prosecution before another judge. Which is exactly what this judge is threatening to do.
And exactly what DOJ has prosecutorial discretion to decline.
How long, President Trump, do you mean to continue to abuse our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?
better in the original Latin
It’s the quam diu etiam rule.
That’s pretty rich considering you never had jurisdiction in the first place. Think you can take his contempt and shove it up his ass
So the judge will declare the DOJ in criminal contempt and send it to the DOJ to enforce? Where no action needs to occur…that’s how the Democrats handled it, right?
Boasberg states ‘it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it.’
A textbook definition of judicial tyranny, espoused by a genuine psychopath. This is a hill I am very willing to die on.
Orange Harvey should be able to decide which judicial orders must be followed,right?
At root everyone chooses whether to accede to or decline every Judicial order. The Judiciary has no independent mechanism to enforce their orders. The Judiciary relies upon the Executive Branch to provide personnel to ultimately use armed force to compel compliance as.well.as.the Legislative Branch to provide funding to keep the lights on at the Courthouse.
Furthermore each Branch and even individual officers and officials have a duty to reject illegal and/or unconstitutional orders whether they originate in the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch. It someone hands out an ‘order’ to the Army to go bayonet babies it doesn’t matter what the origin of the order is; whether it is ordered by some jackleg Judge or a crazed Colonel is immaterial to the duty to reject it.
Correct, that’s a separate entity, the police power. The police power is not a given. In the Old Testament one reads about courts. One doesn’t read about police.
💩
“Orange Harvey?”
Don’t you actually mean “Your Daddy?”
Ask America’s first Democrat president, Andrew Jackson… and a Cherokee.
Um, he’s right about that. That is the law, whether you like it or not. It’s very well established, and no one disputes it.
And there it is Milhouse arguing for the psychotic left per usual…. the opposite is also established …. Google better… lol
A law for slaves. But you be you.
But in this situation there was never an order because the court never had jurisdiction. The matter of jurisdiction must be considered first. Without it, there is nothing more to consider.
Please show where that’s established with the breadth and strictness that Boasberg stated it.
See the cases he cited. They’re listed in this post.
This is a hill I am very willing to die on.
George S Patton, General
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that stated so plainly before, and it’s surely not something the legal system wants to try to defend openly. The legal system stole its whole power of “judicial review” in Marbury v. Madison, arrogated it to itself. There’s no legislation or constitutional statement supporting it.
Is this the wind that blows that whole house of cards over?
That is not true. The constitution explicitly says that the judicial power rests with the courts. What did you thing that means? As the founders knew very well, and mentioned in their debates, the judicial power is the power to say what the law is. Of necessity that means that if a statute violates the constitution, and is thus invalid, it is the courts (and only the courts) who have the power to say so.
And the Executive Branch has the sole power to decide to enforce the judicial diktats.
The Executive Branch has the sole ability to ignore anything that comes from the court, even the Supreme Court
The judiciary’s only recourse after that is for Congress to impeach the president.
Game
Set
Match.
You have the situation backwards. We are discussing the courts’ power to find that a federal or state statute is invalid and thus unenforceable. The executive branch has no recourse against that. If the courts say the statute cannot be enforced then it cannot be enforced, end of story.
As for the president’s ability to be a criminal and get away with it, any honest Congress would indeed impeach and remove him for it, and a Congress that refused would itself be criminal.
The very first element of a contempt is a valid court order. The SCOTUS said there wasn’t one. Game, set, match.
No, it didn’t. It said there isn’t a valid order now. But if the order was valid at the time, then disobeying it would still be contempt.
(And even an invalid order from a court with jurisdiction over the case must be obeyed until a higher court has an opportunity to stay it.)
Wrong. Go read it again. Boasberg’s juridiction does not reach Texas which was the place of confinement.
It wasn’t when the habeas petition was filed with Boasberg in the first place.
So the judge is claiming there is a bedrock legal principle that allows him to override the Constitution.
That doesn’t sound reasonable. To put it mildly.
Homeboy is showing signs he needs an intervention with a nice relaxing stay in a psychiatric hospital kept nice calm with thorazine for the duration of his involuntary commitment.
preceded by a quick impeachment
You misspelled lobotomy.
He’s Roberts BFF however
give him a lobotomy too then.
I want him to keep talking. Our overbearing judicial system needs to be embarrassed and somewhat disempowered. He’s laying the groundwork here.
He’s right that there is such a principle. It doesn’t allow him to override the constitution, but it does make it temporarily possible. If you read Volokh you will know that judges quite often do issue unconstitutional orders, such as overbroad gag orders, and the accepted legal principle is that they must nonetheless be obeyed until a higher court receives an emergency appeal and stays them.
But I don’t think that applies if the judge didn’t even have jurisdiction over the case in the first place, or to orders made orally and thus subject to misunderstanding.
I read Boasberg’s ruling. Here are some thoughts
1. This was a contracted flight meaning that it was conducted under part 125 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
2. Once the airplane begins the takeoff roll (i.e. the point of dispatch) all decisions regarding the safe operation of that flight are in the hands of the Pilot in Command. Judge Boasberg had no idea if that plane had enough fuel to even make a return possible. Nor does he mention any of the security precautions necessary to control a plane load of (allegedly) violent criminals.
3. Once that plane lands in El Salvador, it is subject to the laws and regulations of that country, judge Boasberg’s desires not withstanding.
And if the government had replied that “We tried to recall the plane but the pilot said it wasn’t safe” then that would be a sufficient answer. But it didn’t say that. It says “We didn’t even try recalling the plane, because your order wasn’t in writing”. Which may well be correct; but it’s not what you’re suggesting.
BedRock
Like in the Flintstones?
Is his name Fred?
Badluck Shleprock
Trump administration has no leg to stand on arguing against the courts on this. Even MS 13 has right to due process, the man was under a non-deportation order, the evidence for MS 13 is one that a judge did not find even slightly compelling and they have failed to produce any evidence for such a connection.
Take the L. Nobody wants the right to due process cancelled. If he is MS 13 show the evidence to a judge and remand him while he awaits trial to be deported the right way.
There are enough prison rooms for this man to have his due process.
What process is due does not depend on the amount of resources available.
Laughable nonsense. I would suggest that you re-read the SCOTUS decision. Boasberg doesn;t even have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Yah except 2 other judges DID find evidence was compelling for his being a MS-13 member. Not that facts and reality ever matter to you leftists
Danny, you’re talking about a different case.
Danny
He and every other person deported got due process via the Congressionally authorized Immigration Court or via the Congressionally authorized power of the AG or Sec State to suspend the grant of permission for an Alien to remain in the USA or by POTUS use of.AEA.
What are you arguing for exactly? If it is an impossibility then it isn’t rational enough to get further discussion. Giving each of the 25 million+ illegal Aliens plus the several million Aliens on various temporary permissions a hearing by an ART III Court is obviously not possible.
Tell you what though I’m Quito meet you halfway. They can get in lime for.their hearing but gotta be deported in the interim OR they can find a.Sponsor to feed,.cloth and house them (in the Sponsor’s own primary residence she I they and their family sleep) and pay 100% of their costs in the USA to include tuition to local public schools reflecting the ave cost per.student and of course any healthcare costs as well as assuming liability for any civil or criminal penalties. Set a 100K bond. Weekly telephone check ins, quarterly surprise visits and annual in person review with immigration. Miss any of that and the bail bondsman gets turned loose to bring them in. No work permit.
Wrong on a couple of counts.
First, there was no “non-deportation” order. (Do such things exist? If there’s no deportation order, wouldn’t that serve the same purpose? What would be the point of a “non-deportation” order?) In fact, there was a deportation order, and it said Garcia couldn’t be deported to El Salvador. That is, he could be deported to any other country.
What court issued this order? An immigration court. Which branch of the government runs the immigration courts? The Executive. Granting that such an order existed and that members of the executive branch violated it, this seems to be a matter for the POTUS to decide – must the “error” be corrected or should it be allowed to stand? Other branches of government shouldn’t have a role in this matter. If the POTUS agrees with ICE’s violation of the immigration court’s order, that would effectively nullify the order, an authority the POTUS almost certainly has, as he is in a position with respect to immigration courts that’s analagous to that of SCOTUS with respect to lesser courts. Effectively, Garcia’s argument is that ICE violated an order made by an official of the executive branch. The idea is being falsely conveyed that the Trump administration violated an order from an actual court of law, when, in fact, no such violation occurred.
Second, a person illegally in the country has no liberty interest in remaining in the county. That is to say, he has no right to remain here and no right to even argue that he has a right. He is no different than someone who might break into your home. Certainly, if you want him out, you can invoke the police power of the state and the police will remove him. No argument he might make will prevent his arrest and removal from your home. The illegal alien has no “due process rights” (that is, a right to contest his removal in a court of law) because due process is only required prior to the imposition of punishment, and deportation is not legally considered a punishment. An immigration court (the only “due process” to which an illegal alien has a right) had already ruled he could be deported, and Garcia was picked up by ICE with a valid warrant for his removal. The only point of contention is whether or not ICE violated an order from an immigration court when it shipped him to El Salvador, which is almost certainly not binding on anyone in any justiciable manner by Garcia (see my first argument, above).
He is in El Salvador, which as you acknowledge is against a court order.
There is a process of appeals that was just not followed and that process is required by American law.
To throw the question back at you could you name one way anything is harmed by Garcia sitting in an American jail while awaiting an American court to rule on if he could be sent back to El Salvador?
If he is associated with MS 13, or even if he just has no right to be in the United States the Trump administration will win.
What can’t be won is ignoring the courts.
Do you think the Democrats are not watching for precedents they could use when Republican judges rule in ways they don’t like?
I read the JD Vance and Pam Bondi reactions and those are not responses made by someone who wants to show they are following the supreme court order to facilitate (a 9-0 decision).
This man is not worth due process or setting a bad precedent, this is especially true if he is part of MS 13 which is something that could easily be proven if true.
Whoosh!
Did it go right over your head that the “court” that issued the order is part of the executive branch? Whether or not Garcia was properly returned to El Salvador isn’t a legal question, it’s an administrative question. As such, the controversy is an internal matter of the executive branch. Even if the administration admits the error, Garcia has no justiciable claim because the administration didn’t violate an order from a “real” court. If someone in a position of authority above the immigration court ordered Garcia’s return to El Salvador, that’s effectively an overruling of the court’s decision, in a manner similar to how SCOTUS can overrule the decisions of lower courts.
To your suggestion that he should have been held – why? He was processed and removed in the manner required by law – with a valid warrant for his deportation. The deportation order was issued by the same court that issued the “no deportation to El Salvador” order. You’re arguing that the order to deport him was invalid, but that the same “court’s” order that he not be deported to El Salvador was valid! I’m arguing that both were valid, and that someone in authority either overruled that court in that respect, or a mistake was made. If a mistake was made, this admits the court’s authority to make the restriction. But ignoring an order of an executive branch administrative court is an internal matter for the executive branch to settle, not a matter for involvement by any other branch of government.
I was wondering about this bit – since the restriction on deportation was made by an Executive Branch “judge” and not an actual Article III Judge, can’t this restriction simply be lifted by someone in the Executive Branch further up the food chain from that immigration judge?
Bonus: They’d actually have a valid excuse to do this, because the limitation was placed because the Terrorist convinced the “judge” that he was afraid of a rival street gang in El Salvador. The “18th Street gang”. Which no longer exists, because Bukele got elected and obliterated the street gangs in El Salvador.
So, the conditions for that restriction no longer exist.
Its not like he was claiming political persecution from the regime or anything.
That wouldn’t change his right to habeas corpus. He claims not to be MS-13, the evidence that he is seems to be rather flimsy, and no real judge has ever even looked at it.
There has been zero argument that he is here legally. Gang affiliation is neither necessary to order his deportation nor is it the sole reason for his deportation.
By insisting that the immigration court’s order was ignored, Garcia is admitting the immigration court had jurisdiction to order his deportation. He is not challenging his deportation per se. What he is doing is asking for judicial enforcement of an executive branch administrative court’s order. I find this problematic, as he’s asking one branch of government to interfere with the internal administration of another branch. Whether or not an executive branch administrative court’s order is upheld and obeyed, ignored and violated, or overruled by a higher authority (within the same branch) is an executive matter.
An equitable solution to the problem doesn’t necessarily involve bringing him back to the US. He could be sent by El Salvador directly to another country. But that’s not going to happen. Even if he were to be brought back to the US, the US could refuel the plane and send him somewhere else, satisfying the order of the immigration court. Garcia’s legal team seems to be operating under the mistaken impression that returning him to the US would somehow secure his presence within the country, even though nobody is challenging the validity of the deportation order itself.
I should add the US’s opinion he’s a gang member had nothing to do with his incarceration in El Salvador. He was not sent there to be jailed. He was jailed because the government of El Salvador believes he’s a gangster. He was deported because he was here illegally. Any person here illegally is subject to being deported.
We don’t even reach those questions. He had no right to hail the administration into court.
A judge makes those types of decisions. Do you remember the mass of cases we won against Biden? They happened on every day ending in Y.
Everyone has the right to hale the government into court when it has him in custody.
This applies to aliens who enter the country illegally and are being held in custody for the purpose of deportation?
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Cheif Commissar Boasberg should be his new title
I’d like to suggest inmate Boasberg
And, like the Soviet commissars of old, his primary loyalty is to the Party — the Dhimmi-crat Party, in this case.
I prefer that “unemployed” be his next title.
He can be promoted to Chief Judge of the Federal Scooter Parking Ticket Division with jurisdiction over all federal parking tickets given to scooters. He might be able to handle that responsibly.
Hey Judge Boasberg, tell me something: how big is YOUR ARMY?
Who coined the phrase, “He has issued his ruling, now let him enforce it”?
President Andrew Jackson.
No, not Jackson, but some opponent of his, many years after he’d supposedly said it.
In other words, the same kind of person who claimed that Trump had said US war dead were “suckers”. Except that he didn’t claim it at the time, since Jackson would probably have shot him for it.
I feel partly to blame. When I saw Boasberg’s name on the presidential ballot I thought for sure it was a hoax. I felt so confident in Trump winning I honestly so no harm in playing along. Well that certainly got us into a fine mess. Lesson learned and all that.
the picture is a stark reminder. It’s a national embarassment that people idolize this felon’s mug shot.
Leave a Comment