This week, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, formally introduced impeachment articles against U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg. It was a popular move with many after a series of controversial orders by Judge Boasberg. I have been highly critical of those orders, particularly the prior orders granting Special Counsel Jack Smith’s demand for the telephone records of Republican members of Congress in the “Arctic Frost” probe. However, I disagree that his order meets the standard for impeachment under the Constitution.
In an earlier resolution in March, Rep. Gill sought to impeach Boasberg over immigration rulings against the Trump Administration. I also opposed that resolution.
I have previously written that it would be a grave mistake to misuse impeachment powers to target judges or justices.
One of the greatest abuses of members of the Democratic Party in the past eight years has been their use of impeachment investigations and charges against their political opponents. From President Donald Trump to conservative justices, liberal members have demanded impeachments over everything from opposing the NFL kneelers to hanging revolutionary-era flags.
I testified in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden on the use and the abuse of this power. I was also lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment trial in the Senate. In my view, this is not an appropriate use of impeachment and could seriously undermine our constitutional system.
I share Rep. Gill’s objections to the Arctic Frost orders. It was a signature move by Smith, who has previously abused his authority by refusing to heed long-standing limits on the use of prosecutorial powers. While some Democratic members have supported the orders, it is a dangerous precedent that can expose communications with members with journalists, whistleblowers, and others.
Rep. Gill is also correct in stating in the resolution that these members were “acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.” Having previously represented the House of Representatives in court as well as individual members of Congress, I also view this as an intrusive and unjustified search.
However, this is not what impeachment was designed to address. Indeed, the Framers created a difficult process for impeachment precisely to discourage impulsive or ill-considered measures.
Boasberg allowed Smith to subpoena phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker. Smith also sent gag orders to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. Verizon complied with the order, but AT&T refused to do so.
In signing the orders, Boasberg acted in accordance with the Stored Communications Act. He clearly agreed with Smith that evidence of collusion or conspiracy would fall outside of the protected functions of members of Congress.
The new resolution is notably vague and speculative in critical respects. It suggests that the judge might have been actively involved with Smith in targeting Republicans: “It is unclear if Judge Boasberg facilitated the frivolous 23 subpoenas issued by Special Counsel John L. Smith.” There is no evidence to suggest that Boasberg engaged in such unethical conduct.
It then charges: “Chief Judge Boasberg does not appreciate basic statute [sic] and contributed to the legal inquiries that violate the law indicating he is unfit to 21 serve as Chief Judge.”
Members can certainly view Chief Judge Boasberg as wrong on the law. I have criticized him in past orders precisely over such disagreements. However, legal disputes are addressed in the court system, including those prior orders. Indeed, Chief Judge Boasberg was both affirmed and blocked on previous issues.
None of that rises to “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The removal of a judge from the federal bench is a rare and weighty decision. It should not be based on differences over statutory interpretations, even when a judge is later reversed. Conservatives would be equally aggrieved if a Democratically controlled House impeached a judge for ruling against a Democratic president or for adopting a controversial interpretation on issues related to gun or abortion rights.
These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas. Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system. One can disagree — and even denounce — Chief Judge Boasberg for prior orders without resorting to this constitutional nuclear option.
JT sez: “Rep. Gill sought to impeach Boasberg over immigration rulings against the Trump Administration. I also opposed that resolution.”
JT then goes on to explain why he is against Boasberg’s impeachment. The reasons JT give are not very pertinent or convincing — shouldn’t do it cause it might make “tit for tat responses”, “not what impeachment was designed to address”, “not an appropriate use of impeachment”, “could seriously undermine our constitutional system”, “misuse impeachment powers to target judges or justices”, “does not meet the standard for impeachment under the Constitution”
These are not reasons, but counseling for ancillary causes, a bunch of supposostional assertions, and just “don’t do it cause it will stir up the soup”.
The simple fact is that Boasberg, on at least several occasions, knowingly broke the law in issuance of his orders. Any one of his malfeasant actions may not make for impeachment, but given the suspicious history of his presiding over the same related cases, against all court rules and odds of random assignment, and the repeated pattern of bias against Trump and his associates, and bias in favor of those who have opposed Trump, all add up to more than enough cause to move to impeach him. Convicting him shouldn’t be too difficult either.
“In signing the orders, Boasberg acted in accordance with the Stored Communications Act. He clearly agreed with Smith that evidence of collusion or conspiracy would fall outside of the protected functions of members of Congress.”
And what reasonable evidence did Smith provide of collusion or conspiracy outside of the protected functions of members of Congress? None, in my view, a view you attest both you and Rep. Gill share. To wit: “Rep. Gill is also correct in stating in the resolution that these members were “acting in accord with their legislative duties and privileges guaranteed by Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.” Having previously represented the House of Representatives in court as well as individual members of Congress, I also view this as an intrusive and unjustified search.”
““It is unclear if Judge Boasberg facilitated the frivolous 23 subpoenas issued by Special Counsel John L. Smith. There is no evidence to suggest that Boasberg engaged in such unethical conduct.”
I’d think an unbiased constitutional scholar would not so blithely dismiss impeachment, an act intended to produce, present, and vote on just such evidence, and if found sufficient by the House, passed on to the Senate for a trial on the facts presented.
While I may quibble about some of your past opinions, Jonathan, I have usually accepted your arguments as both authoritatively informed and correct on balance. When you so reflexively defend judges who have very clearly been not just off the reservation but instead inhabiting a world which should not exist, a juristocracy, I have to say I disagree with you and am very disappointed at your unbalanced perspective.
However, I can agree with you on this statement in your last paragraph. “These measures can trigger tit-for-tat politics as each party harasses judges considered obstacles to their agendas. Such a pattern would undermine the independence and integrity of our court system.”
I remain disappointed at your ignoring the obvious truth. The Democrats have been practicing just such politics for quite a few years, and the Republicans are just now beginning to understand that he who refuses to play a game, one dictated by the other side, will inevitably lose.
Boasberg is unfit to continue as a judge, and he is by no means alone. The question in many minds is not whether he should be impeached, but whether he should be imprisoned.
You mentioned conspiracy allegations/suspicions re the Members. One might reasonably infer those very suspicions in the cases of those judges involved in the criminal conspiracy against President Trump.
Not your best effort, Jonathan, not by a mile. This is not a constitutional nuclear option, an almost laughable assertion in light of the 11 year war on Donald Trump. This is instead the only reasonable constitutional option at the moment.
Professor Turley, please explain how the specific statement on impeachment for the president and vice-prsident applies to judges, who are to serve during “good behavior” according to Article III.
He is not serving during “Good Behavior” and it only takes a majority vote in House and Senate to remove him.
You got this one wrong Turley.
@Turley,
When the judicial and legal system overall refuses to discipline judges who routine cross the line… well over the line..
Impeachment becomes necessary.
He broke the law in the surveillance of Congress without notifying them.
His gag order was over the top too.
Add to this his partisan actions… which are violations of his judicial canons… what do you propose?
Impeachment is the only answer because all of the prior potential options were never imposed.
And he isn’t the only judge that should be removed either.
-Gumby
Can’t agree with you here, Professor. There are a lot of judges who should be impeached, and it’s going to take a number of impeachments to reign in the imperial judiciary.
Some of Boasberg’s order left me woozy and dazed. But the reckless speed at which people played the impeachment card was a major assault on Checks and Balances and the Separation of Powers.
You can’t fire a legislator, a president, or a judge just because you disagree. There has to be more to it, as doing so is to completely throw in the towel on Democracy and the Constitution.
With 20 judges, odds of Boasberg getting 4 unrelated Trump cases? ~0.000006% (1 in 160,000).
A conspiracy to defraud the defendant.
@David… yes and no.
He was the chief justice so the spying on congress had to hit his desk.
That said… they only spied on GOP congress critters.
The gag order was his addition.
When the judge puts a fist on the scale… what options are left?
-G
@GStreet.
The reason you see the ‘rash’ call to impeach is that any alternative to correct his actions… prior to the call to impeach… were never implemented.
You can’t slap the back of his hand and say ‘bad judge, bad judge… no!’ and expect it to have any meaning or induce a change in behavior.
He’s long past that line… so impeachment becomes the only option and it has been long overdue.
Remember… draw a timeline. What you’re now seeing is something that happened almost a decade ago. (The start of his bad behavior…)
Engoron is another example of judicial misconduct that occurred and the judge knew that there would be no reprisal for his actions.
Boasberg too.
Its not a question of just disagreement but a historical pattern of intentional bad behavior and the lack of prior correction which has led to this.
-Gumby
But the reckless speed at which people played the impeachment card was a major assault on Checks and Balances and the Separation of Powers.
Boasburg was allowing Obama’s Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to repeatedly perjure themselves before him in his FISA courts almost ten years ago. He did that again, four years later – which was four years ago.
What’s your definition of “reckless speed”? Four years later? Eight years later?
I agree
‘No, The House Should Not Impeach Judge Boasberg”
correct sir jonathan.
indeed, he does not deserve impeachment.
what he deserves my good fellow is criminal indictment and a very long prison sentence.
are you seriously bat shit crazy turley?
please tell me they have not gotten to you. (rhetorical).
you speak of freedoms of expression ad naseum. you teach and write books explaining why the counter argumentment is worth protecting even if it is offensive and especially when it IS.
but what you have failed to truly recognize is that people like boasberg are not judges..he does not “do” justice and law. he is a weapon in a black robe. assigned to use the powers (as it were ) of that court assignment ( not random..please explain to your audience in detail WHAT EFFORT you have afforded to objectively investigate and evaluate the scientific improbability OF A SINGLE JUDGE BEING ASSIGNED “randomly by the draw of the hat” to direct court attention and claim to SO MANY CASES very clearly associated with FISA abuse, fraudulent surveillance orders, deliberate and focused judicial “handling” of cases involving President Trump and Immigration law and enforcement.
you sir are on notice.
you are either drunk and stupid because he did the drinking or you are playing to protect CERTAIN judges who are obviously criminal in nature.
you should be ashamed of writing this article.
is the shame more or less than the money you receive to write such nonsense.
boasberg is a scofflaw.
you really need to use the words that fit.
otherwise, just represent the fraud and own it.
because we NOW KNOW.
shame on you Jonathan.
I would like to end with something like: “do better”
but it is my duty and mission to write your last chapter and end you very stupid and wrong headed influence.
that is how you will be known: a man who could have honored his blood mother by speaking truth.
A man who dishonors his OWN mother by advocating that PEOPLE LIKE BOASBERG are somehow special even when they lie, cheat and steal.
you will not sleep well tonight. you are very very very wrong about this scofflaw.
pay attention to details. You are I are about the same age. Age cannot be used as your excuse for making this kind of mistake.
find a much more honest and invested ghost writer.
Regardless, you made the list and your days of being relevant to the matters of truth in America ARE OVER.
you did this jonathan…there is not one else to blame.
do not measure a man by his words ..but his actions, rely on those.
your actions are proof that you are a dip shite
God Bless America
The day MAGA died.
For once I disagree with Professor Turley. This was knowing illegal conduct.
100 percent agree.
turley is wrong for all the KNOWN reasons..and facts.
sometimes, academics are lured into believing in a principle that doesn’t actually exist…they make room for criminal behavior by invoking philosophical treastie.
this is indeed a fascinating and also a insufferable depressive recognition that Johnathan Turley is NOT a investigative journalist, who trials facts and truths…but would prefer to be a lazy minded empty bodied keeper of some wrong headed idea that boasberg and very real and measurable injury to the public trust by his actions to subvert truth is to be ignored because….free speech.
jonathan, you must burn your own books..you yourself should light you ideas in print ON FIRE and be witness to the heat and explain WHY you no longer are capable of searching for truth.
you got lazy Jonathan. you didn’t think others would notice you wrong ideas…your intentions?
question: on what days of 2015 to present HAS TURLEY AND BOASBERG been in direct contact with each other…coordinating and planning and alleging false claims against THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED? I would say that questions is more correctly, squared when asking why turley never did believe in making America great. Why is that>?
when does turley no love America, THE PEOPLE? when does he sow doubt and discord about fraudulent elections…remain silent about the sars-cov-19 pandemic..? is it because he has no investigative credentials..no desire to actually SHOW A TRUTH AND PROOF IT?
shame on you Jonathan…we know you are no investigator. you are an academic hack that will tell you what pair of socks to wear based on a ai google search, but has never worn a pair.
shame
shame
shame
do better and get into the fight..otherwise, confess, be a man and bow out and tell your “audience” you have never actually done even hard lighting to find a truth.
because that is what matters.
you are NOT excused because you are old and play academic scholar. get to work turley.
then get back to US THE PEOPLE when you decide you have something important to report and discuss.
shame
shame
shame
DO BETTER
God Bless Americam
You wanna know how stupid MAGA voters are? Look no further than Kentucky. They were mad at their Republican secretary of state because the polls were closed. They wanted to vote against the Mamdani. LOL!!!!
https://www.newsweek.com/kentucky-official-reminds-residents-they-cant-vote-new-york-city-mayor-10991423
Given the fact that Kentucky have a Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, it would seem to me that it was the demwits there who wanted to vote for Mamdani, not Trump supporters. 😊 The Republican SoS of Kentucky had to remind the state’s demwits how idiotic they’re truly are. 🤣
No, they wanted to vote against Mamdani. Many were upset and demanding to know why there there were no polls open.
There’s no indication that they wanted to vote in NYC at all. They heard that it was an election day, so they expected there would be some race local to them, or some proposition, something that they could vote on. They were informed that there was not.
I have come across similar reactions when working as a poll worker in NYC, in a Dem primary. My polling place covers parts of several congressional districts. In this primary one of the local congressmen was facing a hard-fought primary challenge, while the neighboring member was facing no challenge at all, and thus no primary was held in that district. I had people living in that district come to vote, and I tried to explain that they couldn’t because there was no contest in their district; only one person (the incumbent) had put their name in, so she won automatically. They didn’t understand and were very upset. I also had to explain to Republicans and independents why they couldn’t vote in a Dem primary.
No, they wanted to vote against Mamdani. Not just local elections Many were upset that they could not vote against the NY mayor in their local polling places. Yeah, that happened and it was indicative of how MAGA is being manipulated into believing a lot of things.
No, that did not happen. There’s nothing in the story you linked that even hints at that happening, you just made it up because you’re a lying liar who lies.
In the American Juristocracy, there is no need for the legislative and executive branches.
The Juristocracy “interprets,” modifies, enforces, and implements the law as if it were an omnipotent dictatorship, ignoring the exclusive legislative and executive powers granted by the Constitution.
^^^ Hope this really was sarcasm, but it may be the truth. According to George Mason and John Jay’s analysis and contribution to the US Constitution, there are three branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. ONLY the Legislative creates Law – Executive and Judicial only execute (Executive) or mediate (Judicial) its resolution.
Prof. Turley’s assessment that Judicial Officers are above the law, and can violate it in any way they feel fit “for a good cause” is horrifying, but possibly true. If I understand this article, Boasberg was above the law, and there is no appropriate mechanism for remediation of that behavior.
If this logic is persistent, it is equally apparent The Judicial Officials who created and enforced the seizure, arrest, murder, and genocide under the appointment of the National Socialist German Workers Party were unfairly prosecuted?
This article is very disheartening – even if true, because no mechanism seems to be possible. Perhaps we should just be in the Biblical Judges phase where the judges are the authority, power – and executive and legislative are just propagandist deceit aggrandizement to satisfy the enslaved mobs.
Judges’ Trial – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges'_Trial
Stating, “I can see where this is going,” on Wednesday Donald J. Trump fled to Argentina, vowing never to return.
Speaking bitterly to reporters as he departed the White House, Trump said, “You take away people’s food, throw yourself a Great Gatsby party, and tear down the White House, and this is the thanks you get.”
Trump had hoped to leave the US on the luxury 747 given him by the Emir of Qatar, but once Tuesday’s election results became clear the Arab ruler swiftly withdrew the gift.
In a tersely worded statement, the Emir declared, “Fly coach, loser.”
In Buenos Aires, Trump was greeted by an angry anti-immigrant mob.
Makes sense—a lot of his people emigrated there at the end of WW2.
How disgusting. You do not belong in polite society. Nor do you belong on a message board of this caliber. You are what makes the world a tough place for children to grow and thrive.
Not an intelligent post.
Waking from a cuddle with his Furry Tranny lover, A Democrat queer birthing boy told him/her/it “I had a dream I was a stewardess on President Trump’s jet, and then the ‘ludes kicked in and I dreamed I wrote a play where I had him saying some weird shit”.