WorldNetDaily’s war on federal judge James Boasberg continued in an Aug. 20 article by Bob Unruh:
A legal analysis of the political agenda adopted by James Boasberg, the anti-Trump judge working in the courts system in Washington, D.C., reveals how he abandoned his role as a “judge” and made himself “like a foreign diplomat” by “attempting to influence how the Trump administration conducted foreign affairs.”
That’s according to an appeals court judge whose comments were cited by Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, and John Osorio, a research associate, online.
The fight is over President Donald Trump’s agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal alien criminals invited in by the open borders policies of Joe Biden during his years in the White House.
[…]He was the judge who even tried to order Trump to tell airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals, that already had left American airspace, to return to the U.S. with the criminals.
The analysis notes Trump is backed by the Constitution, which gives him authority over matters involving international relations, the Alien Enemies Act that allows the president to apprehend and remove the natives, citizens, or subjects of a hostile foreign government if that government attempts or threatens an ‘invasion or predatory incursion’ against the U.S. and the Immigration and Nationality Act that lets the secretary of state designate as Foreign Terrorist Organizations groups that engage in terrorist activity and threaten the safety of Americans or the United States.
[…]Trump also reposted a message by Mike Davis, the former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and founder and president of the Article III Project, which defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law.
Davis urged Trump: “Please revoke Judge Boasberg’s security clearance. He has demonstrated he cannot be trusted with keeping secrets.”
[…]Attorney General Pam Bondi explained the complaint over “misconduct” by Boasberg involved his “making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.”
These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, she confirmed.
[…]He disparaged the president, even though he’s required to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche later described Boasberg as a “threat to the rule of law” for using his own agendas in his court rulings to try to control the decisions of the Executive Branch.
Boasberg also was part and parcel of the Russiagate conspiracy theory, advancing permissions for the Barack Obama regime to spy on political opponents.
As usual, Unruh refused to give Boasberg an opportunity to respond to his attacks.
Unruh huffed further in a Sept. 1 article:
Federal judges are getting better at stopping jet flights returning foreigners to their home.
This time, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ordered jets not to take off that were part of a program by the administration of President Donald Trump to repatriate children from Guatemala to their home country, and families.
Earlier, Judge James Boasberg infamously ordered several jets carrying illegal alien criminals being deported to turn around mid-flight, without acknowledging the fact they might not have enough fuel for a return flight.
The Trump administration did not comply, as the flights already were in international airspace and Boasberg, about whom ethics complaints already have been filed, had no jurisdiction there.
This time, the judge ordered the flights not to take off, leaving some children sitting in the aircraft on the runway.
[…]It is Boasberg whose antics have prompted accusations that he is a threat to the rule of law.
The DOJ has filed a complaint warning that he is undermining the nation’s judiciary.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has explained the complaint over “misconduct” by Boasberg, a federal judge who once wildly ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to turn around airplanes that already were in international airspace to return the illegal alien criminals they were deporting to America, involved his “making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.”
Again, Unruh refused to let Boasberg respond to these attacks.
Unrui raged again in a Sept. 2 article:
A virulently anti-Trump federal judge has ordered a woman who was jailed for her deranged social media posts about her desire to kill President Donald Trump released from jail.
Instead of being behind bars, Nathalie Rose Jones has been told to be on electronic monitoring and to see a psychiatrist.
Those instructions come of James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington who has held an agenda against President Trump dating to the Russiagate conspiracy theory that was launched by Democrats against Trump in the 2016 election.
Unruh censored the fact tht Jones was released because a grand jury refused to indict her, meaning that it is likely the grand jury believed the evidence federal prosecutors presented against her is weak. Indeed, Jones Jones reportedly told Secret Service agents that she had no intent to harm anyone and didn’t own any weapons.
Unruh didn’t explain why he deliberately omitted this crucial information from his story; instead, he went on another anti-Boasberg tirade while refusing to give the judge an opportunity to respond.
Unruhcimplained further in a Sept. 4 article:
Members of the federal judiciary, in a number of instances since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, have adopted political positions in their rulings.
Judges at the federal court system’s entry level, district courts, have claimed the authority to order the nation’s international affairs, financial affairs, DEI ideologies, expenditures, and more, many of which fall directly inside the president’s responsibilities under the Constitution.
And now they are complaining the Supreme Court “doesn’t have our backs.”
Anonymously, of course, as one judge, James Boasberg, in Washington, who publicly complained about Trump at a judicial conference now is the subject of an ethics complaint.
It seems judges are supposed to be neutral about issues and individuals in cases before their court, and Boasberg tried to “undermine” the president, who is involved in several cases Boasberg is hearing.
Perhaps the reason those judges chose to be anonymous is because WND has targeted Boasberg so viciously. Unruh seems not to have considered that.