Overview[1]

James Emanuel “Jeb” Boasberg was born in San Francisco, California, in 1963. The following year, he moved with his parents to Washington, D.C., where his father, attorney Emanuel Boasberg III, took a job with the Office of Economic Opportunity, the agency responsible for administering most of the “War on Poverty” programs that constituted President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives.

After graduating in 1981 from Saint Albans School – an independent college preparatory day and boarding school for boys in the District of Columbia – Boasberg earned a B.A. in History from Yale College in 1985, an M.St. in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990.

After completing his legal studies, Boasberg clerked for Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1990-1991. He then worked as a litigation associate at the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest from 1991-1994, and at the D.C. firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans from 1995-1996.

From 1996-2002, Boasberg spent 5½ years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, where he specialized in homicide prosecutions.

In September 2002, he became an Associate Judge in the District of Columbia Superior Court, where he was assigned to the Domestic Violence Branch and the Civil and Criminal Divisions.

In 2003, Boasberg served as a visiting lecturer at the George Washington University Law School.

When Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton recommended Boasberg to fill a judicial vacancy in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2010, President Barack Obama nominated him for the position. The Senate eventually confirmed Boasberg by a 96-0 vote on March 14, 2011. Boasberg continues to serve in this District Court, where he was elevated to the position of Chief Judge in March 2023.

In addition to his duties as a District Court Judge since 2011, Boasberg also:

• served on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – a post to which he was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – from May 2011 until May 2021, and
• served as a judge with the Alien Terrorist Removal Court from 2020-2025

Boasberg’s Bias Against Donald Trump

In July 2025, it was reported that The Federalist — a conservative online publication dealing with politics, policy, culture, and religion — had obtained a memo stemming from the recent March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States, wherein Judge Boasberg had told Chief Justice John Roberts that he (Boasberg) and his colleagues alike were “concern[ed] that the [Trump] Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts, leading to a constitutional crisis.” As The Federalist observed: “Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges’ ‘concern’ also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties.”

On July 28, 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X: “Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration” in the aforementioned memo.  “These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi continued. The complaint called not only for a public reprimand of Boasberg, but also for a referral to the Judicial Conference of the united States – an action that would enable the Conference to consider recommending Boasberg’s impeachment if deemed appropriate.

Just a few days after the March 11, 2025 memo was written, Boasberg sought to undermine a key component of the Trump administration’s immigration and deportation policy agendas, as detailed in the following section.

Blocking Trump from Deporting Illegal-Alien Terrorists

On March 14, 2025, Donald Trump signed Presidential Proclamation 10903, titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua” (TdA), a violent Venezuelan criminal gang which the U.S. government had recently designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

• The Alien Enemies Act is a 1798 federal law that says, in part: “Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.”
• Trump’s Proclamation 10903 noted that TdA consisted of “thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”

The Trump administration would not formally announce that Proclamation 10903 had been signed until the afternoon of the following day, March 15, but the proclamation’s imminence was an open secret among leftwing open-borders organizations. In anticipation of the announcement, two such entities – the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward — together filed a class action and habeas corpus lawsuit, titled J.G.G. v. Trump, in the District Court for the District of Columbia at 2:16 a.m. on the morning of March 15, 2025. Filed on behalf of five Venezuelan male migrants who at the time were being detained by U.S. immigration authorities, the suit was assigned to Judge Boasberg, who at 9:40 a.m. approved a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) protecting the five plaintiffs from deportation. He also announced that a hearing would be held later that day at 5 p.m. to delve further into the matter.

At the 5 p.m. hearing that afternoon, Boasberg issued an additional TRO that barred the Trump administration from using Proclamation 10903 as a basis for deporting any person at all – and not merely the five original Venezuelan plaintiffs — during the ensuing 14 days. Meanwhile, at 5:26 p.m. and 5:45 p.m., respectively, two planes in Harlingen, Texas took off with dozens of Venezuelan passengers who were being deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center, a large, maximum-security prison in El Salvador with a capacity to hold 40,000 inmates. While the Trump administration claimed that those passengers were members of TdA, the ACLU said that some of them were merely asylum-seekers who had no ties to the terror group.

At about 5:55 pm, Judge Boasberg, upon learning that the aforementioned planes were leaving, said he would issue a new order to prevent any immediate deportations. At approximately 6:45 pm, he said to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign: “Inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.” A subsequent New York Times report stated that at this point, “one of the planes [carrying deportees] was over Mexico; a second was over the Gulf of Mexico … and a third had not yet taken off.” The Trump administration would subsequently argue in court that because the first two flights were over international waters when Boasberg issued his order, the order was not binding. An angry Boasberg, in response, vowed “to determine if the Government [had] deliberately flouted” his order forbidding any deportations until further notice.

At 7:26 p.m. Boasberg posted his written order online, though it made no mention of requiring the planes and their passengers to return to the U.S.  At that point, the first plane was now flying over Honduras, the second was flying over Mexico, and the third was still on the ground in Texas. Ten minutes later, that third deportation flight departed from Harlingen.

All three of the deportation flights first landed in Honduras before continuing on to their final destination of El Salvador. In total, the three planes transported 261 men to El Salvador – including 238 associated with Tren de Aragua and 23 with ties to the notorious MS-13 gang. Once they had de-planed in El Salvador, the deportees were sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center.

On March 15, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to block both of Boasberg’s TROs — one of which pertained to the five Venezuelan plaintiffs who had originally filed suit, and the second of which targeted the larger class of Venezuelans that the Trump administration was planning to deport under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court of Appeals consolidated the two cases and then, on March 26, denied the DOJ’s request.

On March 16, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that there was “no lawful basis” for Boasberg’s order demanding that the planes return with all their passengers to the U.S., particularly in light of the fact that the order was issued after the deportees “had already been removed from U.S. territory.” “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier,” added Leavitt.

On March 17, the Trump administration filed a motion to vacate the Temporary Restraining Orders and remove Boasberg from the case.

On March 18, Trump wrote the following about Judge Boasberg in a post on Truth Social: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

That same day, Republican Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas filed Articles of Impeachment against Boasberg. Gill’s office said in a press release:

“Chief Judge Boasberg usurped the Executive’s constitutional authority, going so far as to order midair flights to turn around and return violent foreign gangsters back to American soil. Judge Boasberg’s politically motivated ruling overstepped his authority, compromised the impartiality of the judiciary, and created a constitutional crisis.”

Rep. Gill himself said in a statement:

“We will not stand by as radical activist Judge James Boasberg tramples on the Constitution out of political spite for the President. The American people gave us a mandate to get criminal illegal aliens out of our country, and that’s exactly what we intend to do. Judge Boasberg has gravely overstepped his authority, usurping the Constitutional power of the Commander in Chief. President Trump is securing America’s neighborhoods, restoring safety for men, women, and children who call this nation home. We will not tolerate radical, politically motivated judges illegally and unconstitutionally stopping the President from carrying out his mandate.”

On March 19, government lawyers condemned Boasberg’s “grave encroachments on core aspects of absolute and unreviewable Executive Branch authority relating to national security, foreign relations and foreign policy.”

That same day, Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Boasberg of “meddling in our government” and asserted that the judge had “no power” to dictate or micromanage how a presidential administration should execute its deportation policies.

On March 21, Boasberg vowed: “I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order and who ordered this.” He also said in a hearing that Trump’s initial decision to base some of his deportation initiatives on the Alien Enemies Act was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.” Indeed, the judge speculated that Proclamation 10903 had been “essentially signed in the dark” of night because the administration knew it was likely to raise red flags from the perspective of legality.

On March 24, Judge Boasberg denied the government’s motion to vacate his March 15 TROs, and ruled that anyone deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be given an opportunity to challenge their removal.

On March 28, Boasberg extended his original TROs until at least April 12.

On March 28 as well, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal asking the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate Boasberg’s TROs and to permit the resumption of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

During an April 3 hearing, Boasberg said he was contemplating the possibility of bringing contempt charges against the Trump administration for having “acted in bad faith” by rushing its deportations.

In a per curiam decision on April 7, the Supreme Court vacated Boasberg’s TROs, ruling that any challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as habeas corpus petitions which, by law, must be filed in the district where the petitioners are being detained. In this case the petitioners were being detained in Texas, thus their petition in D.C. had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction. (The Court’s dissenters in this case were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and, in part, Amy Coney Barrett.)

In an April 16 memorandum, Judge Boasberg accused the Trump administration of having expelled the deportees from the United States “before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires.” “The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order,” Boasberg added, “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.” Thus, the judge ordered the administration to meet an April 23 deadline for identifying the officials responsible for allegedly flouting his order. And if the DOJ was not willing to prosecute guilty officials for contempt, Boasberg added, then he himself would appoint an attorney to do so.

On April 18, the Trump administration turned to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to file an appeal of Boasberg’s April 16 assertion that there was “probable cause” for bringing contempt-of-court charges against the government. A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals placed an administrative stay on Boasberg’s April 16 ruling, pending resolution of the appeal.

On April 19, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused the Trump administration’s planned deportations of suspected Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members from Venezuela under the Alien Enemies Act. “Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” read the order. An NBC News report put it this way: “The court did not grant or deny an application filed by lawyers for the detainees, but effectively hit pause on the case, which affects people currently held within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of Texas.” (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the Court’s order.)

On June 4, Judge Boasberg asserted that President Trump and his administration had “a constitutional duty” to provide an opportunity for the illegal aliens who had been deported to El Salvador to challenge their removal in court. Toward that end, the judge signed a preliminary injunction as part of a memorandum opinion in the J.G.G. v. Trump case. As Reuters.com explained:

“The judge gave the Trump administration one week to detail how it would facilitate the deportees’ filing of legal challenges. In his ruling, Boasberg wrote that the individuals were deported without adequate notice or the right to contest their removals. ‘That process — which was improperly withheld — must now be afforded to them,’ Boasberg wrote. ‘Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.’”

On August 8, 2025, a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated Boasberg’s April 16 memorandum opinion regarding “probable cause” for criminal contempt proceedings.

Boasberg’s Radical Daughter

Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg – a University of Michigan graduate who majored in Social Theory & Practice with a concentration on prison reform — is a leftwing activist who conducts “capacity building work in public defender offices across the nation” for Partners in Justice, a nonprofit group that helps public defenders “fulfill urgent needs like housing, employment, medicine … non-legal social service support and assistance in navigating court requirements.”

• PIJ opposes the Laken Riley Act, which mandates the detention (without bond) of non-U.S. citizens who are arrested for, or charged with, certain crimes such as theft, burglary, larceny, shoplifting, or assault. In a February 2025 online video on X, PIJ founder and executive director Emily Galvin-Almanza characterized the Laken Riley Act as a “terrible,” “cruel,” and “un-American” statute.
• In response to a March 15, 2025 news report on Judge Boasberg’s Temporary Restraining Order blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminal illegal migrants, Galvin-Almanza tweeted that the jurist had decided “rightly.”

After Judge Boasberg began making headlines with his March 15, 2025 TRO barring the Trump administration from continuing to deport Venezuelan gang members, Katharine Boasberg deleted her LinkedIn page and Instagram accounts.

In a March 29, 2025 New York Post report on Katharine Boasberg, author Victor Nava wrote: “It’s unclear whether [Judge] Boasberg’s daughter’s work with the group [PIJ] rises to the level necessary for him to recuse himself from the Trump case” involving the deportation of illegal-alien criminals and gangsters. The disqualification section of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that judges must disqualify themselves “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” – a standard that includes cases where a child of the judge is “known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

Other Cases in Which Boasberg Has Been Involved

The Russiagate Hoax

In June 2017, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith feloniously altered an email from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to an FBI agent. The original email confirmed the fact that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had previously been an “operational contact,” or source, for the CIA. But Clinesmith edited the email to falsely state that Page was “not a source.” That altered email — which, by downplaying Page’s past cooperation with the CIA, made some of his actions seem suspicious — was used to support a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant renewal to surveil Page, thereby extending the FBI’s unlawful and unethical surveillance of the Trump campaign. In January 2021, Judge Boasberg, in his capacity as the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months of probation and 400 hours of community service — but no prison time, despite the prosecution’s request that the sentence include a period of incarceration.[2]

Notably, various texts and other messages that Clinesmith had sent in 2016 demonstrated his deep contempt for Trump. The day after Trump’s election in 2016, for instance, Clinesmith wrote in a text: “Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, [border] walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also [Vice President Mike] Pence is stupid.”  Clinesmith also texted people the message, “Vive la resistance,” French for “Long live the resistance” to President Trump and his agendas.

Opposing the Detention of Asylum Seekers (2018)

On March 15, 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit in a case called Damus v. Nielsen, on behalf of nine detained asylum seekers who accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of rejecting their asylum claims not because of any determination that they personally posed a flight risk or a danger to the community, but rather, as a means of deterring future potential asylum seekers from seeking refuge in the United States. The plaintiffs held that: (a) the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had adopted this policy in its Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia field offices; and (b) the policy violated both a 2015 District Court opinion as well as Supreme Court precedent holding that such general deterrence objectives are not permissible in cases of civil detention. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was assigned to Judge Boasberg.

On July 2, 2018, Boasberg issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the denial of parole to any asylum seekers without first having assessed them personally to determine whether or not they posed a flight risk or a danger to others. He further ordered the government to either release the 1,000+ asylum seekers who had been detained for more than seven days in any of the five ICE locations enumerated above, or immediately grant them hearings where they could plead their respective cases. Boasberg also decreed that while the Damus v. Nielsen lawsuit was ongoing, ICE would be barred from detaining any additional asylum seekers for more than seven days without providing written explanations for such detentions based on a personalized review of each individual claim.

Rescinding Approval of Changes to Medicaid Programs (2018-2019)

On January 29, 2018, the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it would permit states to require that “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients complete between 80-100 hours of paid work, job training, or volunteer community service each month in order to maintain their eligibility for benefits. In accordance with this announcement, HHS approved the implementation of such requirements in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Kentucky.

On June 29, 2018, Judge Boasberg barred the implementation of these new requirements in Kentucky’s Medicaid program, claiming that HHS had failed to consider whether the changes “would in fact help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, the central objective of Medicaid.” He rescinded approval of the program, which HHS had granted five months earlier, and ordered the department to review the matter further.

In the ensuing months, Boasberg also set aside Medicaid work requirements in New Hampshire and Arkansas on the grounds that HHS’ approval of the plans had failed to consider the possibility that the new rules “would cause a substantial number of persons to lose their health-care coverage.”

Closure of the Dakota Access Pipeline (2020)

The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAP) is a 1,172-mile-long underground pipeline that transports crude oil from North Dakota to a terminal in Illinois, where it connects with a separate pipeline which brings the oil down to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Construction of the pipeline began in 2016 but was suspended at one point after months of protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its supporters, who claimed that the project would contaminate drinking water and damage sacred Native American burial sites. In February 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approved the federal permit allowing for the DAP’s completion, which was subsequently achieved in April 2017.

In June 2017, Judge Boasberg ordered USACE to conduct a study of the DAP’s environmental impact. Completed on August 31, 2018, this study concluded that the pipeline posed no significant environmental threats.

But on March 25, 2020, Boasberg – claiming that the previous environmental review of the DAP by the Army Corps of Engineers was inadequate — mandated that USACE conduct yet another, more comprehensive, review. Citing “the fact that Dakota Access did assume much of its economic risk knowingly, and the potential harm each day the pipeline operates,” the judge declared: “[T]he Court is forced to conclude that the flow of oil must cease.” On July 7, 2020, he ordered that the pipeline be emptied of all its oil within 30 days and remain empty pending the review, which was expected to take the better part of a year to complete.

Light Sentence for Hamas Supporter (2025)

The Richmond, Virginia chapter of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) – a major supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions (BDS) movement and other Hamas agendas — was granted a permit to hold a July 24, 2024 demonstration at Columbus Circle in Washington, D.C. to protest the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was addressing the U.S. Congress at the nearby Capitol building that same day. The demonstration, which drew thousands of attendees, turned violent when, between about 3 and 5 p.m., a number of the participants pulled down American flags and burned them; set fire to various other objects including an effigy of Netanyahu; sprayed graffiti on multiple statues and other structures; and interfered with police as they tried to arrest lawbreakers.

Twenty-six-year-old Zaid Mohammed Mahdawi, president of Richmond’s AMP chapter, climbed a monument containing a large statue of Christopher Columbus and used red spray paint to write “HAMAS IS COMIN” on the statue. He then spray-painted an inverted red triangle above the slogan. When his case came before Judge Boasberg in April 2025, the jurist sentenced him to a mere 10 days in prison, a $1,500 fine, and 80 hours of community service.

Releasing a Woman Who Threatened to Kill President Trump

On August 16, 2025, fifty-year-old Nathalie Rose Jones of Lafayette, Indiana, was arrested in the District of Columbia and charged with having recently posted a series of messages on social media wherein she threatened to kill President Trump. For example:

• Between August 2-9, she used her “nath.jones” Instagram account to characterize Trump as a terrorist and a dictator who had caused extreme and unnecessary loss of life during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• On August 6, she used her “Nath.Jones” Facebook account to write: “I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present.”
• In an August 14 Facebook post directed to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, she wrote: “please arrange the arrest and removal ceremony of POTUS Trump as a terrorist on the American People from 10-2 pm at the White House on Saturday, August 16^th, 2025.”

On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Secret Service conducted a voluntary interview with Ms. Jones, during which she stated that President Trump was a “terrorist” and a “nazi.” She added that if she had the opportunity, she would use a “bladed object” to “carry out her mission of killing” the president and thereby “avenge all the lives lost during the Covid-19 pandemic.”

When Jones’ case came before Judge Boasberg on August 27, 2025, the judge released her under electric monitoring and ordered that she should “drive directly to New York City, taking only reasonable rests along the way and arriving in New York City to meet with her psychiatrist prior to 5 p.m. on August 27, 2025, and then shall follow the remainder of the conditions of release as set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release.

“Arctic Frost”: Boasberg’s Support for Subpoenas to Spy on Republicans 

On October 29, 2025, Republican U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa released a trove of FBI files revealing that the office of Democrat attorney Jack Smith — who served as a Special Counsel for the Biden administration’s DOJ from November 18, 2022 until January 10, 2025 — had signed at least 197 subpoenas authorizing widespread government spying on hundreds of Republican organizations and individuals. Grassley said that the subpoenas — which included nonpublic, confidential grand jury material “obtained through legally protected whistleblower disclosures” — were part of a “fishing expedition” dubbed “Arctic Frost” — “the vehicle by which FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus.” Of the 197 known subpoenas, 34 were issued to individuals and 163 were issued to businesses, including media companies and financial institutions. These subpoenas, said Grassley, “requested records and communications” — including the metadata phone records of at least nine Republican senators — “related to over 430 individuals and organizations,” and “all of them appear to be aimed at Republicans.” Some of the subpoenas targeted White House insiders such as Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, Jared Kushner and Lara Trump — as well as Republican donors.

One particularly noteworthy subpoena ordered the communications company AT&T to give the cell-phone records of Republican Senator Ted Cruz to the Biden DOJ, though AT&T refused to comply with the subpoena because it violated the speech-or-debate clause of the U.S. Constitution. That subpoena was accompanied by an order, signed by Judge Boasberg, which prohibited AT&T from informing Cruz about the requested surveillance against him for at least a full year — on the premise that, as Boasberg put it, there were “reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of, or tampering with, evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.”

At an October 29 press conference, an angry Senator Cruz described Boasberg as a “radical leftist judge who is out of control, who has been issuing nationwide injunctions — one after the other — trying to stop President Trump from carrying out his mandate for the voters.” “There is precisely zero evidence to conclude that I am likely to destroy or tamper with evidence or to intimidate potential witnesses,” Cruz added. “Zero evidentiary basis for that. This order is an abuse of power, this order is a weaponized legal system. My assumption is … Judge Boasberg printed these things out like the placemats at Denny’s. One after the other.” “If a judge signs an order reaching a factual conclusion for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, that judge is abusing his power,” Cruz continued. “There will be accountability for these zealots who wanted to corrupt the Department of Justice and corrupt the judiciary in order to try to attack their enemies list.” Added Cruz: “I am right now calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Boasberg. Judge Boasberg put his robe down, stood up, and said, ‘Sign me up to be part of the partisan vendetta against 20% of the Republicans in the Senate.’ That is a dereliction of duty and a violation of the judicial oath.”

Footnotes:

[1] – https://professionals.justia.com/profile/james-e-boasberg-1506054
– https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/boasberg-james-emanuel https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/144357/james-boasberg
– https://ballotpedia.org/James_E._Boasberg

[2] – https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-given-probation-for-russia-probe-actions
– https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-prison-sentence-ex-fbi-lawyer-who-pleaded-guilty-russia-probe-fallout-2021-01-29/
– https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/29/fbi-lawyer-trump-russia-probe-email-463750