Below is my column in The Hill on two controversies involving Chief Judge James Boasberg this week in Washington, D.C. Both involve claims that branches undermined or intruded on the authority of another branch. However, these separation-of-powers conflicts produced strikingly different responses from Judge Boasberg. It seemed that the court’s concerns depended greatly on whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest.
Here is the column:
For months, District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has been very much in the news. This spring, he issued a 46-page decision finding that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for violating his order to return flights of deportees being sent to El Salvador.
In that ruling, Boasberg insisted that it was essential for him to know the facts on whether “officials of a coordinate branch” had undermined judicial integrity. After all, nothing short of the separation of powers was at stake. This week, Boasberg announced that he was moving forward without further delay to ferret out who was responsible for the alleged violation.
That message, however, has now been undermined by another Judge James Boasberg, who is in the news this week as part of the controversy over the Justice Department’s acquisition of telephone records of leading Republican members of Congress. Boasberg had imposed a gag order on telephone companies to prevent them from informing Congress that the executive branch was snooping on who had been in contact with them.
These two James Boasbergs seem as different as the two Jeffrey Epsteins referenced this week by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) — one a presumably respectable medical doctor, the other a deceased sex offender. However, to use Crockett’s formulation, it was indeed “that James Boasberg” in both cases.
The growing scandal over the seizure of telephone records of Republican members of Congress by former Special Counsel Jack Smith has continued to grow with new disclosures. This includes revelations that Smith obtained of records for former Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Judiciary Chair James Jordan (R-Ohio).
It is difficult to overstate the gravity of this intrusion into the legislative branch. These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers.
The gathering of such information without an obvious good cause can potentially deter members in confronting the Justice Department, which is notorious for leaking information against critics and targets.
Ironically, such leaks are at the heart of investigations led by the very targets of these orders, including Jordan and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). It also included McCarthy, the person second in line for the presidency, who could ultimately assume authority over the Justice Department under the Constitution.
The demand under Operation Arctic Frost was unprecedented in scope, with dozens of subpoenas going to such carriers as Verizon and AT&T. Nineteen such orders for these telephone records were accompanied by judicial nondisclosure orders for subpoenas signed by Boasberg. While commonly issued, these nondisclosures have long been controversial. It did not seem to matter that the Justice Department was targeting the very members exercising oversight over investigations into its own previous abusive use of investigatory powers.
It is still not clear for what crimes these members were being investigated. The order on Jordan in 2022 covered two prior years.
Not surprisingly, some Democratic apologists such as Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) immediately dismissed the gravity of such demands by the Justice Department. However, other Democrats have expressed alarm over the intrusion into such communications.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stated, “On the surface of it, it would strike me as a significant invasion of the right of Senators to conduct their jobs, so this is something that needs urgent follow-up.”
Indeed, the move by Judge Boasberg shattered the very rules of engagement between the coequal and “coordinate branches” that the same Boasberg has repeatedly raised in his investigation of the Trump administration.
Boasberg signed these orders despite a federal law designed to prevent precisely this type of secret investigation of Congress. Federal law requires that “no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.”
Just in case there was any doubt, the law further states that “any provider for a Senate office … shall not be barred, through operation of any court order or any statutory provision, from notifying the Senate office of any legal process seeking disclosure.”
However, Boasberg signed orders that prevented the phone providers from informing members of Congress — members who were actively investigating abuses by the Justice Department — that they were now being subjected to precisely such investigations.
There is little question how Congress would have responded. You are seeing it unfold this week. However, they were never told even as they objected to open-ended and abusive investigations of thousands of citizens after the January 6 Capitol riot.
Boasberg was fully aware of those abuses, stretching back to the debunked Russiagate investigation, in which false information had been given to courts to carry out surveillance of Trump associates.
Indeed, it was Boasberg again who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as “highly controversial” given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department.
The wrongdoing was very real. An attorney at the FBI ultimately pleaded guilty to lying to the court in an effort to justify surveillance. Others were fired after Inspector General investigations exposed their abuse of investigatory powers.
Despite that history, Boasberg gagged phone carriers from informing Congress of the seizure of the telephone records of key Republican members overseeing investigations of the Justice Department.
I do not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached, but his role in this scandal cannot be ignored. He not only enabled this abusive effort but also expressly told these companies not to reveal the demands to anyone.
None of this means that there are no legitimate questions raised about the failure to comply with his orders on the El Salvador flight. But Boasberg’s separation-of-powers concerns seem strangely selective, depending on whose powers are being usurped.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He has also represented the House of Representatives in court.
Professor Turley, I share your concern about treating impeachment as a political weapon. We agree that it must remain rare and grounded in constitutional principle. Where we differ is on the nature of the threat posed by Judge Boasberg’s conduct.
The issue here is not ordinary judicial error. If Boasberg were merely wrong in his interpretation of the law, the remedy would be appellate review. But what we are seeing is not incompetence — it is selective application of lawful power that predictably benefits one political side, particularly against a co-equal branch. When the same judge shows fierce separation-of-powers vigilance against one administration, and then quietly authorizes unprecedented secret intrusion into the communications of lawmakers who oppose another administration, the failure isn’t intellectual. It is ethical.
At that point, the problem is not a bad ruling. The problem is the corruption of impartiality, which the Framers understood as the very condition that voids judicial tenure. That is why lifetime appointment is conditioned on “good behavior.” A judge who uses lawful tools to serve partisan ends has already breached the foundation on which his independence rests. Impeachment then becomes not a political counterstrike, but a constitutional safeguard — protecting the judiciary from becoming an instrument of faction.
In short, impeachment should remain rare. But it should not become impossible when the misconduct is subtle, selective, and cloaked in legal process. Judicial power is unique: even lawful tools, when used in bad faith, can undermine the Constitution more effectively than open lawlessness.
Respecting the Constitution sometimes requires the courage to act, not merely the caution to abstain.
Olly,
“But what we are seeing is not incompetence — it is selective application of lawful power that predictably benefits one political side, particularly against a co-equal branch.”
Lawful power. You said it yourself. It’s the fact that Judge Boasberg’s actions were lawful. The only gripe the right has against Boasberg is that others tell them what they want to believe. This is especially true when those on the right have no idea how the judicial system works and the power judges have. There seems to be a belief on the right that judges should rule according to what people feel should be the law rather than what the law actually prescribes and how the judicial system works.
Believing a judge’s conduct is wrong based on feeling rather than evidence is a big problem for those on the right.
Everyone keeps saying Judge Boasberg acted in “bad faith” but how do you prove that? Because the only evidence for the accusation is a “feeling” not concrete evidence.
Judge Boasberg signed the warrant for the phone records based on the law which requires a very narrow scope and that is exactly what Jack Smith requested. Turley won’t discuss the specifics of the narrowness of the subpoenas because he KNOWS it will undermine the misleading narrative he’s pushing. to his MAGA audience. Because he knows they will rage at the judge. It also shows the Professor’s contradiction or more accurately his conflicting allegiances between the Fox News narrative and his principles. It exposes the disingenuousness of the professor’s position and the ridiculous attempt to have it both ways. That is why he cannot in good conscious endorse calls for impeachment. Because if he does he will expose himself as a hypocrite and lose what little credibility he has left.
You’re right that the issue can’t be decided by “feelings” — that would be improper. That’s exactly why the standard isn’t whether Boasberg’s orders were lawful, but whether the use of lawful power was consistent with the judge’s constitutional duty of impartiality. The Constitution does not give judges lifetime tenure because they interpret statutes correctly; it gives them tenure on the condition of good behavior, which historically includes neutrality and fidelity to separation of powers, especially when the court’s tools can invade another branch.
A judge can follow statutory procedure perfectly and still violate the Constitution if he applies those lawful tools selectively in a way that targets one faction or one branch while shielding another. That is why the test isn’t, “Was he legally authorized?” The test is, “Was that authority exercised impartially?” Equal protection and neutrality are not “feelings,” they are legal standards.
Courts review intent and pattern all the time — we don’t demand a confession to prove bias. We infer intent from consistent outcomes that benefit one side, just as we infer discrimination from a pattern of selective enforcement. The judicial branch is not exempt from that principle.
So, yes, the subpoenas were issued through a lawful mechanism. That’s precisely what makes the issue serious. Lawful tools can be abused when applied selectively, and the danger is greater, not smaller, when the law provides secrecy and when the target is a co-equal branch. The Framers feared factions using lawful instruments against each other. That is why they conditioned judicial tenure on good behavior, not on statutory compliance alone.
Impeachment is not automatic. But the question should not be dismissed simply because the subpoenas were “lawful.” The Constitution requires us to ask whether they were impartial — and that question is neither emotional nor partisan. It is foundational.
Olly, so what is the abuse in your opinion? You mention abuse of power, but offer no evidence of what it is in your view or in a legal sense. That leaves a “feeling” of what you consider abuse instead of evidence. That is why it would be extremely difficult to prove the allegations of misconduct or bad faith in any court of law.
You concede that the subpoenas were issued lawfully which means they MET legal requirements. That does not prove misconduct or an abuse of power.
I have yet to see from Turley or even our resident lawyer, Lin a breakdown of how the subpoenaed records are not narrow in scope or limited to the investigation. Because that is what Turley is inferring. That the scope of the records are a breach of separation of powers or privacy. Asking for numbers from who to who and from a limited time-frame is perfectly legal and within the narrowness requirement of the law. No converstations or communications were part of the request, just the originating cell numbers and receiving numbers and time and date. That’s it and Turley is being disingenious by not mentioning that. Do you disagree that the scope was narrow or not?
The question isn’t whether the subpoenas were narrow. Narrowness is a statutory requirement under the Stored Communications Act. Meeting that threshold does not answer the constitutional question.
The abuse is this: A secret judicial order enabled the Executive Branch to target members of the Legislative Branch without any adversarial check, notice, or opportunity for Congress to protect its own institutional privileges. That is a separation-of-powers problem, not a scope-of-data problem. Whether the records requested were two pages or two terabytes doesn’t change the structural issue.
You keep asking for evidence of “misconduct” as if impeachment requires proving a crime or proving that the subpoena violated statutory rules. It doesn’t. The Constitution’s safeguard is much broader: Judges hold their office only during “good behavior,” which historically includes impartiality toward the branches of government and fidelity to their institutional independence.
Boasberg’s actions were lawful in form but constitutionally suspect in effect, because they enabled one branch (Executive) to secretly intrude into another (Legislative) without:
– notice to the injured branch,
– opportunity to invoke legislative privilege,
– or adversarial challenge.
In other words, he applied lawful power in a way that eliminated every other constitutional check. That is the abuse. Not the request for metadata. Not the scope of the warrant. But the removal of any mechanism by which the Legislative Branch could defend itself before the intrusion occurred.
Olly,
“A secret judicial order enabled the Executive Branch to target members of the Legislative Branch without any adversarial check, notice, or opportunity for Congress to protect its own institutional privileges. ”
The only “secret” was the legal requirement that phone companies not disclose they got a subpoena for the congressmen’s phone records which were just numbers and time and duration. They were under investigation for possible criminal collusion and that falls within the law, even for Congress. We don’t give notice to criminals that their phone records are being sought in the middle of an investigation do we?
“Boasberg’s actions were lawful in form but constitutionally suspect in effect, because they enabled one branch (Executive) to secretly intrude into another (Legislative) without:
– notice to the injured branch,
– opportunity to invoke legislative privilege,
– or adversarial challenge.”
The executive, specifically the DOJ CAN secretly seek records of congressmen suspected of committing a crime. It happens all the time. For example, based on your view of the law the congressmen who were accused of mortgage fraud had their private data searched without evidence of a crime by Bill Pulte the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has been investigating Trump’s political enemies’ mortgage applications for fraud. According to your view of how the law is supposed to work, Bill Pulte is supposed to notify the congressmen of the investigation and the information they are looking at. Obviously, they didn’t know that because it was done in secret AND without court court-ordered subpoena or warrant. Boasberg, as you admit, did everything within the law. Your concern is the conduct which is still based on feelings of an appearance of misconduct and the appearance of a lack of checks. It’s the appearance and the assumption that are the basis for the impeachment claim.
“ In other words, he applied lawful power in a way that eliminated every other constitutional check. That is the abuse. Not the request for metadata. Not the scope of the warrant. But the removal of any mechanism by which the Legislative Branch could defend itself before the intrusion occurred.“
I disagree. That is not abuse. The legislative branch still has other means of recourse to defend itself, the can go to court. Because there is where the scope and narrowness which you agree is perfectly within legal requirements will have to show how the individual congressmen were harmed by the information sought.
There is no intrusion on the separaton of powers if the congressmen cannot show they were harmed by the information Jack Smith sought.
You’re still framing this as if the only question is whether individual members of Congress were “harmed” or whether they were “suspected of a crime.” But the Speech or Debate Clause is not about protecting individual lawmakers from investigations. It protects the institutional independence of the Legislative Branch from Executive intrusion into its legislative communications. That privilege belongs to Congress as a branch, not to individual defendants.
That means:
– The DOJ can investigate lawmakers for crimes.
– But if the evidence sought may reveal legislative strategy, legislative communications, whistleblower contacts, or oversight targets, then Congress as an institution must have the opportunity to assert privilege before the breach occurs.
That obligation does not disappear simply because DOJ suspects a crime. Suspecting a crime does not abolish separation of powers.
Where Your Argument Fails
You keep insisting “Congress can go to court afterward.” But Speech or Debate privilege is pre-breach, not post-breach. Once legislative relationships and communications are exposed—even through metadata—the privilege has already been lost. No appeal can “undo” what the Executive has learned about:
– oversight targets,
– investigative funnels,
– whistleblowers,
– attorney-client legislative strategy,
– committee coordination.
A privilege that can only be defended after it is breached is no privilege at all.
Why Your Mortgage Example Doesn’t Apply
Your example about mortgage fraud does not involve:
– legislative oversight,
– relationships between lawmakers and whistleblowers,
– protected legislative work product,
– or institutional communications.
It involves personal financial activity. That’s why it doesn’t implicate the Speech or Debate Clause. Congressional privilege does not protect mortgages—it protects legislative function.
The Abuse Is Structural, Not Criminal
You’re trying to define “abuse” as “breaking the law.” But in constitutional terms, abuse includes using lawful tools to circumvent constitutional safeguards. That’s why judges are removed for:
– biased conduct,
– manipulation of procedure,
– misuse of discretion,
– selective application of lawful mechanisms.
None of these require a crime.
Your Claim: “There is no intrusion if they can’t show harm”
The Constitution does not require damage claims to preserve separation of powers. It requires procedural protections so the intrusion does not happen before the privilege can be asserted. The harm is not what is found in the data. The harm is forcing one branch to uncover what was taken only after the Executive already has it.
That flips the separation of powers upside down.
That comment was from me.
Again, my apologies. That was from me.
Thank you, Olly.
X, “No converstations or communications were part of the request, just the originating cell numbers and receiving numbers and time and date.”
Turley has mentioned that several times when he refers to these records and his criticism is also clearly stated in the article:
“These records can reveal whom members spoke with and when such calls took place. It can reveal communications with journalists, whistleblowers, and others speaking confidentially with representatives. It can also reveal embarrassing information about members from their personal numbers.”
As for myself it is not a question of the subpoenas being lawful but of the abuse of the legal process by prosecutors and compliant judges that automatically approve them as we see in the FISA cases where more than 99% of them are approved.
Vincrod,
There are a lot of “can’s” in Turley’s assertion. Meaning he’s making assumptions and leaving his audience with the impression that there could be more information. exposed by savvy journalists. So what? Legally just phone numbers, dates and times, are being provided. Nothing else. Turley jumpst into conclusory statements without evidence which, again, gives his audience the impression that more than just numbers, time and dates are being revealed.
Olly, X must be hungry because you just ate his lunch. Great comment and even greater reply to one of our contrarian oddballs that just want to be different…and they are.
Thanks, Hullbobby. I’m just laying out the constitutional architecture as plainly as I can. The rest is just noise.
Olly, the constitutional structure you are claiming is being violated is dependent on the scope of the request. You want to ignore it because it decompiles your argument when it’s applied.
Once the narrowness of the request and your admission that Judge Boasberg did everything legally undermines your argument about constitutional structure.
Congressmen are not immune from investigation or from the law-making gag orders like those Judge Boasberg an intrusion on constitutional separation of powers. I understand that you are trying to justify some sort of immunity from investigation of congressmembers, but their immunity is not absolute and this is where Judge Boasberg’s conduct regarding the subpoenas and gag orders is well within legal and constitutional allowances.
What many want to believe is what they FEEL is wrong based on a poor understanding of how the law works.
The scope of the metadata is irrelevant to whether the Executive must give the Legislative Branch an opportunity to assert institutional privilege. The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect how much information is taken, but what kind of information it is: information connected to legislative function.
A small breach of privilege is not less a breach than a large one. The constitutional structure is branch-based, not volume-based. Even a single protected communication is protected precisely because it concerns the legislative function of a co-equal branch.
You keep arguing as if the privilege exists to protect individuals from criminal investigation. It doesn’t. It exists to protect the Legislature as an institution from the Executive’s ability to secretly examine its internal communications and relationships before Congress can assert its privilege. So the question is not:
– How narrow was the request?
The real constitutional question is:
– Did the judge eliminate Congress’s ability to assert institutional privilege before the Executive gained access?
If the answer is yes — even for a narrow request — then it is a structural violation regardless of whether the judge followed statutory procedure. Lawfulness of process does not answer the separation-of-powers question, because statutory compliance and constitutional neutrality are not the same thing. And that’s why:
Congress’s privilege cannot depend on the scope of the subpoena, only on the nature of the branch being targeted.
The privilege is institutional, not quantitative. Constitutional privilege isn’t measured in megabytes.
George X says Believing a judge’s conduct is wrong based on feeling rather than evidence is a big problem for those on the right.
Nothing To See Here, Please Believe George X, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
The big problem here is not for Republicans (other than the criminality of Boasberg working with Smith, Comey, etc to deprive Americans of their rights through color of law). The actual real problem is that George X’s years of pathological lying have left him without even the slightest shred of credibility.
George X claims that Judge Boasberg repeatedly allowing Obama to send his Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to his FISA courts to perjure themselves and utter false documents to his courts to obtain unlawful spy warrants to deprive THOUSANDS of Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights never happened, and thus there is no evidence.
George X continues that by claiming there is no similar evidence here with Arctic Frost and co-conspirators Boasberg and Jack Smith once again depriving Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights by color of law – the same Jack Smith who SCOTUS declared to be a threat to our democracy.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX. The Democrats who blame the chaos they’ve created on the Supreme Court, not themselves: while their members like George X celebrate putting Boasberg on the judiciary to function as a police state fascist with Jack Smith.
OLLY,
Great comment!
Great analysis. By placing a gag order on the service providers in contravention to established Federal law, Judge Boasberg played a cute trick and shielded his overreach from any judicial review, much less congressional oversight. He almost got away with this.
Thank you, Arnold. The real issue is exactly what you pointed to — the gag order isn’t a side note, it’s the mechanism that prevents any meaningful challenge before the Executive gains access to the Legislature’s records. Once notice is removed, there’s no opportunity to invoke legislative privilege or judicial review until after the intrusion has already occurred. That’s how lawful tools can become structurally unconstitutional. The problem isn’t the subpoena itself — it’s the combination of secrecy plus the target being a co-equal branch. That’s what turns a legal process into a constitutional breach.
To this very day the leftist still brings up how bad it was to spy on the Democrats with the WaterGate break in. At the time I agreed that the WaterGate break in was a dirty political deed done by dirty political deed doers. The country asked what did Nixon know and when did he know it? Justifiably an investigation was called for. But now comes the turn of the worm. Now those same worms try to tell us that spying on Republicans in Congress is the best thing that could happen for the nation. They say don’t look over there when the Epstein files are really the big deal. One would think that in their zeal they would be calling for a beginning of a release the Burn Bags movement. Has anyone noticed how silently the worm does his job lately? It’s in his make up.
Really – the modern left is a regime, and with the actions of these activist judges acting so blatantly unethically, Carville openly saying maybe it’s time we start overturning elections, and congresspeople implying our military should disobey orders – sure seems like the recipe for an ACTUAL coup, not the imaginary variety Marty et. al. believe occurred.
2020-2024 were just a warmup for them, and they’ve shown with the shut down as well they will do their level best to lock us down even when they are out of power. There is no word remaining for dem leadership and their globalist allies, if not their constituency, other than ‘evil’. There is nothing to redeem there.
A few years ago, Judge Boasberg almost started an Indian war over a ruling concerning the oil DAPL pipeline running through Standing Rock Sioux Indian territory.
The Senators were active participants in an attempted coup. Limited access to their phone records is legitimate.
ROFLOL
As typical, it’s ok to break the law as long as I think it’s OK due to my TDS, i.e., Marty says – nothing of importance to tethered to reality.
What law was broken? Turley doesn’t dive into specifics because he knows it will undermine the narrative he’s trying to push.
So go after Jim Jordan’s phone records for TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION? What a moronic take.
Marty says: The Senators were active participants in an attempted coup. Limited access to their phone records is legitimate.
Marty, Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden stopped working in November of 2024. And a year later you haven’t noticed that.
Professor Turley ignores the fact that the subpoena for congressional phone records was very narrow in scope. That is what the law requires. It’s interesting how Turley did not dive into the specifics of the law’s requirements to make his point. Instead, he chose to push allegations and broad claims that avoid specifics because the narrative that would follow would make Judge Boasberg’s actions more reasonable than he would like for the sake of his MAGA readers who seem to be frothing at the mouth with demands to impeach him. Turley is feeding that incentive while at the same time insisting impeachment should not be a remedy. He’s being a bit of a contrarian as poster Hullbobby pointed out.
Gee, I wonder how many of the posters on this site that deny facts are foreign…
https://san.com/cc/xs-new-location-feature-fuels-debate-after-maga-accounts-turn-up-abroad/`
*. VPN
The good cause that led to the records being pulled was an attempt to overthrow the governmant. And to find out who was cooperating with the effort.
I laugh at those of you who have bought your own lies on the subject and are getting high on your own supply, Turls.
I’ll write a real reply after I stop laughing at your post – overthrow, hahahahahaha.
ROFLOL
The good cause that led to the records being pulled was an attempt to overthrow the governmant.
You Democrat police state fascists who come here after being clustered so tightly together in the Democrat Borg should probably start recognizing the dangers of getting high by snorting your own farts.
“Federal law requires that ‘no law, rule, or regulation may be used to prevent a service provider from notifying a Senate office that data or records have been sought through legal process.’”
How in the hell did he get around that law? (a serious question)
Did Boasberg give any reasons, arguments? Or was his approach, in effect: I don’t see you.
With respect to Representatives Jordan and McCarthy, they don’t have Senate offices.
“. . . they don’t have Senate offices.”
The Secretary of that office is responsible for communicating official messages to the *House*.
Know first. Comment second.
He “got around that law” by complying with the current law which requires a very narrow and limited scope of the records requested. In Jack Smith’s case, he requested only a very narrow time frame and only phone numbers from who to who. The narrow nature of the request comports with the law. Turley does not want to engage in the details of how that is reasonable because it will undermine his own narrative that feeds the MAGA outrage factory he’s a part of.
Jim Jordan’s phone records for two years prior to the election…sure, limited in scope. Lying fool.
Nice deflection.
The issue is *notification*.
Boasberg is not wrong about the Trump administration’s defiance of his orders and the need to hold them accountable.
There is ample evidence, even admissions, by Trump officials that they ignored court orders. For example, Trump’s DHS has been caught lying to the courts multiple times and has botched not only grand jury processes, but also deliberately manufactured indictments without GJ review.
Former Judge Pirro, has been nullyfied by multiple grand juries AND juries because of her heavy-handed handling of prosecutions from the sandwich guy to FBI officers feigning injury trying to assist in an arrest.
Then we have the dismissal of charges against a woman accused of ramming an ICE vehicle and ICE shooting her five times, because ICE did the ramming and. they were upset about the hounding they were getting. The charges were dismissed outright because ICE was found to be lying. Professor Turley has been really quiet about those cases despite being pretty loud about them when they were conveniently used to portray anti-Trump protesters as criminals. Turns out that it is the Trump administration that is abusing its powers and DHS overreaching with its mandate because they have been directed to ignore courts and accusations.
A judge dismissing charges for the “heavy handed” actions by prosecutors is exactly why our country is knee deep in anarchy. It all sounds partisan as hell
Not just about heavy-handed actions, but lack of evidence on the government’s part. Trump’s DOJ and DHS have been quite incompetent in presenting their cases. That is why Grand Juries, Juries, and judges have been nullifying charges left and right in a majority of cases. Dan Bovino has already been deemed not credible in court i.e. being proven to be a liar.
… speaking of cow farts.
@JoCatz Sometimes humor is appropriate. For example: Schiff was censured for his dissemination of manufactured gossip through leakage, obstruction, and stalling to use the Statute of Limitations as an insurmountable offense – yet he was elevated from his House of Representatives seat to the US Senate – by democratic vote. So the actual assessment of Professor Turley’s discourse issue “Dead Cows Don’t Fart?” is proven as false. The real question here is who farts – Schiff or his supporting voters?
Trump was impeached twice without a legitimate predicate. Each time the Lefties went hog wild on their PR mission. Let’s subject some Lefty political operative judges to the same treatment. What fun is it to live in a failing mega-empire without some premium circus acts to entertain us? Democrat politicians like Biden, AOC, Raskin, Warren, Pelosi, Swallwell, and so on are a decent clown show but it’s time to feed some raw meat to the lions. We want blood.
Under what Constitutional principle does the President have to order the killing of people on boats on the open seas?
The same Constitutional principle Obama used to kill a US citizen via drone? And then his son, two weeks later?
Then charge and impeach Obama. But don’t let the murdering Trump off the hook.
The hypocrisy is strong in this one.
Then charge and impeach Obama. But don’t let the murdering Trump off the hook.
And you didn’t call for Obama to be charged while he was doing that – while you voted for his reelection after his many drone murders – because????
And you didn’t call for Biden to be charged while you watched him do further drone murders after you voted for him to be president after he did it with Obama – and then did it himself – because????
Let’s guess: going to claim this is the first time you’ve been made aware of it?
You’re going to run away and hide now, while thinking of what other bullSchiff you can post here, rather than defend your blatant projection and hypocrisy, aren’t you!
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Its not a constitutional prinicple, but it is a basic right of humanity….The principle of “Kill’em All, Let God Sort’em Out.”
Under what Constitutional principle does the President have to order the killing of people on boats on the open seas?
Same one as Obama/Biden used to kill American citizens and foreign nationals on other nations soil with drone attacks long before Trump ran for office.
You’d be more entertaining if you showed us yourself balancing a beach ball on your nose, sealion.
Defense of the nation and its citizens.
An attempted coup is quite legitimate.
“Selective outrage” regarding Imperial Jurist Boasberg is simply a euphemism for his TDS-fueled hypocrisy.
Bad rulings are not impeachable. Bad faith is.
A judge may be wrong about the law, but if his wrongness always favors one side, and especially if he uses lawful tools to target political opponents and suppress oversight, then the problem isn’t judgment — it’s character.
Impeachment is not a remedy for incompetence. It is a remedy for corrupted impartiality that threatens the separation of powers itself.
O: Excellent point — which qualifies Boasberg for impeachment under the “good behavior” clause.
Thanks Sam. Lifetime tenure is for impartial judges; once the bench becomes a weapon, “good behavior” has ended and impeachment is the only remedy.
No, it doesn’t. What constitutes bad behavior here? That he made rulings you didn’t agree with? Nothing he did is illegal, unethical, or constitutes bad behavior.
Perhaps it’s time for Boasberg to force enforcement of his own unlawful orders and rulings – but who will do his bidding at DOJ now? (Unethical judges should indeed be impeached, Professor Turley.)
(Unethical judges should indeed be impeached, Professor Turley.)
Absolutely! A judge who depends on partisan allies to make his rulings stick has already forfeited the right to lifetime tenure.
Olly,
“A judge who depends on partisan allies to make his rulings stick has already forfeited the right to lifetime tenure.”
Like Judge Aileen Cannon? Right? Based on what many are claiming, Judge Cannon should be impeached becaus of her bad faith rulings and/or conduct. No?
Only if the judge’s power survives because of partisanship rather than because of judicial review. And that’s exactly where Cannon and Boasberg differ. Cannon’s rulings were overturned. That means her power was checked by neutral appellate judges. Whatever one thinks of her decisions, the system corrected them openly, on the record, through adversarial review. Boasberg’s orders cannot be appealed or corrected before they inflict harm. They involve:
– secret subpoenas of elected lawmakers,
– gag orders preventing them from knowing it happened,
– lawful tools deployed without adversarial challenge, and
– no pre-intrusion judicial review possible.
That’s the key difference: Bad rulings can be reversed. Secret surveillance against a co-equal branch cannot be “un-done.” So impeachment is not about whether judges make mistakes or hold unpopular views. It’s about whether their misuse of power escapes all normal checks. If Judge Cannon ever used her authority in a way that:
– targeted a branch of government,
– bypassed review,
– relied on secrecy,
– and lacked an appellate remedy, then yes, the same standard would apply to her. But that is not what happened. She was constrained by the very system that is supposed to constrain her. Boasberg, however, operated outside the reach of those checks. That’s why impeachment even enters the conversation.
Boasbergs rulings were also checked by appellate courts. Why do you keep leaving that out?
What “secret surveillance”? There was no wiretapping or secretly getting congressmen’s communications. Legally investigators CAN request certain information being sought be kept from suspects. It’s a legal mechamism that applies to everyone. Professor Turley is leaving his audience to assume that these congressmen were being secretly surveilled or their conversations subpoenaed by witholding the fact that Jack Smith only got phone numbers to from and to who and time date within a particular time-frame. That met the narrow scope the law requires.
“If Judge Cannon ever used her authority in a way that:
– targeted a branch of government,
– bypassed review,”…
She DID bypass review when she denied the defense access to discovery while the government sought a delay, one of many. Remember she was rebuked by the appellate court for engaging in unlawul use of her “discretionary” powers to prolong Trump’s stonewalling. That falls under unfaithul conduct.
“ Boasberg, however, operated outside the reach of those checks. That’s why impeachment even enters the conversation.“
Wrong, Boasberg did not operate outside of those checks. The claims that he did are based on the feeling that he did, not on evidence. You admit the subpoenas were lawful, and his rulings were lawful and within his power. Why would an appellate court intervene when nothing he did was unlawful or outside the scope of the law’s requirements?
Boasberg has been checked by appellate courts multiple times.
You keep insisting the question is whether Boasberg “broke the law.” But that is not the constitutional standard for judicial misconduct. A judge can violate the separation of powers without violating a statute, because the Constitution limits how the branches may intrude into each other even when they use lawful tools. Let’s take your points one at a time:
1. “What secret surveillance?”
No one claimed wiretapping or intercepted communication. The issue is secret compelled turnover of legislative communication data without notice or opportunity to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause or institutional privilege.
The type of data doesn’t eliminate the problem — because metadata exposes protected legislative relationships, investigative strategy, whistleblower contacts, and attorney-clients tied to congressional oversight. This is exactly why metadata is classified intelligence when the NSA collects it. It maps the institution.
Again, the issue isn’t what was obtained — it’s who was deprived of the chance to defend their branch before it was obtained.
2. “It was lawful — so no abuse.”
Many abuses in constitutional history are “lawful” on paper.
FISA warrants are lawful.
Seizing journalists’ records is lawful.
Japanese internment was lawful when ordered.
“Lawful” doesn’t answer the constitutional question.
Using lawful tools to pierce a co-equal branch without adversarial process is exactly the kind of abuse that does not need to violate a statute to violate the Constitution.
3. “Boasberg was checked by appellate courts.”
Not before the intrusion happened — and that is the whole issue. Appellate review after the fact cannot restore:
– breached privilege,
– revealed investigative targets,
– exposed informants or whistleblowers,
– or the Executive’s now-mapped congressional network.
You can’t “unsee” metadata that has already been turned over. Therefore, appellate review does not function as a check. The damage is irreversible. A check that comes only after the injury is not a check at all.
4. Cannon vs. Boasberg
You cite Cannon’s rulings. But you accidentally proved the point:
– Her actions were reversed.
– The system checked her power.
That affirms her decisions — right or wrong — remained within reviewable bounds.
Boasberg’s orders, by contrast, operated in secrecy precisely because they could not be challenged until after the harm. That is not equal. Cannon can be reversed. Boasberg cannot be stopped until after the Executive already has the Legislature’s data. That’s the distinction you’re defending without realizing it.
5. “Why would an appellate court intervene?”
Because appellate courts intervene to correct errors of law, not structural breaches of separation of powers made invisible by secrecy. The remedy for that kind of misuse is not appeal — it is legislative oversight or impeachment. The Constitution didn’t expect courts to police themselves when they secretly enable one branch to harvest another.
That’s why the “good behavior” clause exists. It covers the misuse of power that no court can meaningfully correct.
Olly,
You claimed “secret surveillance”.
What you claim was “secret surveillance is not what the facts show.
“1. “What secret surveillance?”
No one claimed wiretapping or intercepted communication. The issue is secret compelled turnover of legislative communication data without notice or opportunity to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause or institutional privilege.”
There is no secret turnover of data. It’s legally obeying a subpoena. The gag order to phone companies is not evidence of “secret surveillance”.
“ The type of data doesn’t eliminate the problem — because metadata exposes protected legislative relationships, investigative strategy, whistleblower contacts, and attorney-clients tied to congressional oversight.“
You do not seem to understand what “metadata” means. Records of phone numbers from who to who and dates and times is NOT metadata. It’s the most basic information legally allowed for such an investigation and meeting the scope of the investigation. You’re delving into assumption and conclusory statements to arrive at facts not in evidence.
“2. “It was lawful — so no abuse.”
Many abuses in constitutional history are “lawful” on paper.
FISA warrants are lawful.
Seizing journalists’ records is lawful.
Japanese internment was lawful when ordered.
“Lawful” doesn’t answer the constitutional question.
Using lawful tools to pierce a co-equal branch without adversarial process is exactly the kind of abuse that does not need to violate a statute to violate the Constitution.”
Again nothing was pierced therefore no constitutional violation occurred. Only phone numbers, times, and dates were provided. Piercing would involve actual converstions and privileged discussions. Nothing of the sort was divulged. You keep going back to an assumption based on nothing more than a feelin that it’s what could happen.
“ Boasberg’s orders, by contrast, operated in secrecy precisely because they could not be challenged until after the harm. That is not equal. Cannon can be reversed. Boasberg cannot be stopped until after the Executive already has the Legislature’s data. That’s the distinction you’re defending without realizing it.“
No, because the data you keep using does nothing to harm the legislature. Where is the harm in obtaining phone numbers, dates and times? It’s the bare minimum of information that would help place other events into context. The data itself numbers, times, and, dates harm legislators in what specific way? You don’t address that. You just provide a very broad general assumption that it harms them without being specific because that is what a an appellete judge would ask.
“You can’t “unsee” metadata that has already been turned over. Therefore, appellate review does not function as a check. The damage is irreversible. A check that comes only after the injury is not a check at all.”
But you can supress the use of data in court before trial if one is to be held. Legislators can challenge the use of the data in court like any other person with a competent lawyer. The real harm comes when there is a trial and everything is on the record including the data in question.
“ Because appellate courts intervene to correct errors of law, not structural breaches of separation of powers made invisible by secrecy. The remedy for that kind of misuse is not appeal — it is legislative oversight or impeachment.“
The can correct errors, that’s why they are there. Even structural breaches of separation of powers.
The “good behavior” clause is overly vague and subject to arbitrary interpretation. Nothing Boasberg did was “bad behavior”. It’s only “bad” because his critics feel his actions were bad because the outcome was not what they expected or wanted. That is not how impeachments work and that is what Professor Turley has been emphasizng for a long time.
You already admit Boasberg did nothing wrong legally. The only issue is in your view that he did not conduct himself as YOU expected he should. It’s all about his conduct which is much harder to prove and it’s why Turley discourages any impeachment attempts based on flimsy allegations of misconduct.
So your argument is basically this:
Congress’s constitutional privilege is totally safe… as long as the Executive gets to violate it first.
Got it. Brilliant theory — a right that only exists after you lose it. Maybe next you’ll teach us how fire alarms only work once the building has already burned down.
The point stands: if one branch can secretly breach another before that branch can assert its privilege, the separation of powers isn’t being protected — it’s being performed. And no appeal or courtroom suppression order un-sees what the Executive already obtained. A privilege that can only be defended after it’s violated isn’t a privilege. It’s your version of justice: pretend nothing happened, then ask why anyone cares.
There’s nothing left to argue with someone who thinks rights only matter once they’ve already been destroyed.
“Boasbergs [sic] rulings were also checked by appellate courts.”
Really? Which appellate court checked his gag order?
Agreed Olly. If Judge Boasberg’s “rulings” don’t convince you that he has stepped over the line and committed serious judicial misconduct worthy of Impeachment, then nothing will. I usually agree with Jonathan, but not this time. Impeachment. Greg
Well said, Greg. The point isn’t whether a judge occasionally gets the law wrong — every judge does. The issue is when a pattern of rulings reveals that the law is being used as a selective tool against one political side, especially a co-equal branch of government. That’s not “judicial discretion.” That’s judicial misconduct. The Constitution’s “good behavior” requirement was written precisely to guard against a judge who acts as an advocate rather than an arbiter. Lifetime tenure is a shield for impartiality, not a license to weaponize the bench. When a judge repeatedly abandons that neutrality for partisan aims, impeachment isn’t a reaction — it’s a constitutional duty.
Do you agree that Judge Aileen Cannon should be impeached for similar conduct?
It can be argued that many feel she acted in bad faith and engaged in unlawful conduct so she should be impeachable according to your argument.
If a judge’s actions can be corrected on appeal, impeachment isn’t appropriate. When a judge’s actions are secret, unreviewable, and selectively used against political opponents, impeachment becomes the only constitutional check.
George X says Do you agree that Judge Aileen Cannon should be impeached for similar conduct?
No, George X, nobody agrees with your attempted moral equivalency – the wild ongoing psychotic lies that Judge Cannon allowed administration Attorney Generals and FBI directors to repeatedly perjure themselves in her courtrooms as Boasberg did and has continued to do.
We don’t agree with your lie that Cannon allowed federal law enforcement to deprive Americans of their civil rights through color of law as Boasberg did, first with FISA warrants and now these warrants.
And we don’t agree with your lie that Cannon hid a conspiracy between her court room and an administration’s police state fascist prosecutors from Congressional oversight – as Boasberg did with his courtroom and Jack Smith.
You are a Cheap Fake Democrat liar and police state fascist. Your years of pathological lying leave you with zero credibility.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
“Do you agree that Judge Aileen Cannon should be impeached for similar conduct?”
Care to explain how that issue is relevant to the validity of Olly’s argument about Boasberg?
Olly: Excellent well-written comment enriching us all with food for thought. thanks
Thank you, Lin — I appreciate that. Respectful debate about constitutional limits is exactly what keeps all of us honest, whichever side holds power. That’s how the Framers intended these discussions to work.
I think Justice Boasberg is confused by his office. It seems that he acts like a justice under the Napoleonic Code rather than constitutional law. Maybe he should take a break from the D.C. District court and take a 5 year course in Jurisprudence under the US Constitution as well as English and American Common law.
Justice Boasberg reminds me very much of the Justice in Brazil who investigated and tried the prior president and was also demanding Elon Musk kowtow to his rulings on speech or he would shut down X.
Napoleonic Code? You’re trying too hard to seem like an intellectual.
Reminds you of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes? Why, both bald?
Do we really feel comfortable with laws passed by Congress to give themselves immunity or protections beyond that of an everyday person? I don’t. And I doubt most of us would it the target were a Democrat. So, once again, hypocrisy all around.
I respect Professor Turley very much, I read his first book recently, I enjoy him commenting on TV, I read his column every day and I even comment on lots of his columns, but he has a real problem dealing with remedies or even adapting to changed circumstances.
When it comes to being a defender of the First Amendment Turley is as rabid and adamant as any other person I have read or seen but even though it is almost always a Democrat that is attacking the Amendment Turley cannot stop being a Democrat. His columns point out abuses by the Democrats daily and yet he will not change his party affiliation.
When it comes to the professor’s defense of free speech he is like a religious adherent who won’t countenance any infringement. Professors will call for the death if Jews or conservatives and Turley will pooh pooh the speech and then ad his usual caveat that the professor should not be fired. Even as conservative professors are fired all the time.
Here we have an egregious abuse of power and an honest attack on democracy by a rogue judge going after another branch of the government and committing abuse after abuse after abuse and what does Turley say? I don’t support his impeachment????? Why the heck not?
So Democrats can impeach Trump twice (and probably will again) but this black robed criminal gets to never be admonished, charged or removed from his seat of power??
Boasberg is a criminal and he needs to be removed from the bench, arrested, charged and imprisoned.
The only thing criminal is your lame comment. And still you can’t cite the applicable law that make Boasberg a “crimminal”.
Folks, another example of e]rampant stupidity.
If you can’t read all of Boasberg’s slanted partisan decisions and see where he has become a criminal in a robe then you need remedial reading lessons. Do the “shoe on the other foot test” and imagine a conservative judge committing partisan decision after partisan decision while attacking liberal presidents and members of congress and tell us how you would react.
Of course this is just you being your contrarian weirdo self once again with this odd need to take the opposite position on any column that Turley writes. It is lame, pathetic, juvenile and not nearly as intelligent as you think it is. I would say it is sad if you weren’t such a jerk about it.
“Of course this is just you being your contrarian weirdo self once again with this odd need to take the opposite position on any column that Turley writes.”
It’s called an opposing view. Professor Turley is a huge defender of such views. That you seem to be annoyed by it shows that you are not very good at understanding what freedom of speech means according to the Professor.
Hey george.
How come you shut-up about the 747 you went nuts over…
George: Let me step in here.
I join others in making note of your specious, insulting, and evasive commentary.
Never once do I recall any comment of yours in which,- after calling Professor Turley “disingenuous” or “hypocritical’ or ‘naive” or just plain wrong, –did you offer what you like to call an “opposing side” –supported by opposing facts and references. You just trade or offer more negative strokes. Have you ever included an external reference upon which you based your words?
You are not an “opposing side.” Indeed, you have done nothing but convince us that you are not in any way equal to Turley in intelligence, insight, knowledge, or professional character. You even struggle to take US on (with respect to substance). You simply try to insult with your ‘reading comprehension and context’ nonsense. AND you are here almost every day.
I do not know if you are male or a female hiding behind a moniker. But please, for all of us, start providing facts and references/links with your ‘opinions,’ or just give it up for the holidays.
Let’s make more room for comprehensive and honest debate on the topic du jour, instead of attacking and trying to belittle our gracious host. How dare you.
THanks.
lin,
I’m not here to convince anyone. I’m here to post my opposing view or opinion about Professor Turley’s point of view or argument. So that those who don’t post and read only the comments can see an opposing idea or flaw in Turley’s argument. As you are well aware, this is a free speech forum and the Professor is absolutely fair game for criticism, mockery, or opposing his position all day long.
There are far worse posters posting nonsense and personal attacks on others because they don’t like an opposing view or contrary opinion or are just here to insult for personal gratification.
Criticisms are not insults. You seem confused on that subject. If you want comprehensive discussions with real substance on the subject I suggest going to a real legal blog like the Empty Wheel or Substack.
I get your defense of Professor Turley, but as I’ve often pointed out he’s fair game just as I or anyone else is.
If you don’t like my criticisms of Professor Turley’s often flawed or disingenuous arguments you’re free to ignore them completely. I’m not trying to “be better than Professor Turley” I’m just putting in my 2 cents in and pointing out the deficiencies in his arguments.
“I’m not here to convince anyone.” Mission accomplished.
George: You fool no one.
Here are Some of your statements, —just from today!
“I’m just…pointing out the deficiencies in his [Turley’s] arguments.”
“Professor Turley is merely enabling the narratives promoted by Fox News and MAGA”
“He [Turley] doesn’t support impeachment because he knows the allegations against Boasberg are very difficult to prove.”
“Turley’s contradictory criticism of Boasberg’s actions seems designed to provoke MAGA supporters while attempting to maintain an illusion of integrity that he likes to portray.”
“Turley can’t provide a single piece of evidence that makes any of Boasbergs’s actions bad faith decisions or biased. He can only provide outrage and allegations which are not evidence and proof of impeachable actions.”
Excuse me George, and please show me, could you please point out your actual bona fide “opposing view” which offered ANY fact or reference that actually represents or evinces an ‘opposing view.” What specifically was the “deficiency” In “Turley’s arguments?” I await with bated breath.
Good Lord. You don’t even identify what statement or opinion, in specific, you are taking issue with.
Give it up, poor George.
Thanks for your great comments Lin! George is a parasite trying to kill the host because the host is a respected voice in the legal and even political realm and his criticisms call into question many of the Democrats actions.
Lin, apparently you haven’t learned the point of posting here. Turley is fair game. You seem to confuse criticism with attacks.
Turley is fair game for criticism. Just as you or I are. That’s it. You seem offended or bothered by that simple fact.
Lin,
Great comment and an excellent take down of the slow and dumb one!!
Folks, another example of e]rampant stupidity.
Speaking of stupidity, did you even pass high school English?
He doesn’t support impeachment because he knows the allegations against Boasberg are very difficult to prove. Turley’s contradictory criticism of Boasberg’s actions seems designed to provoke MAGA supporters while attempting to maintain an illusion of integrity that he likes to portray.
Professor Turley is merely enabling the narratives promoted by Fox News and MAGA supporters, reinforcing their mantra that “Democrats are evil.” He appears to be motivated by financial gain and possibly feels bound by his contractual obligations as a Fox News analyst who regularly defends the Trump narrative on television.
“he knows the allegations against Boasberg are very difficult to prove. ”
So now you’re a mind reader?
Can you prove Boasberg acted illegally or biased?
Turley can’t provide a single piece of evidence that makes any of Boasbergs’s actions bad faith decisions or biased. He can only provide outrage and allegations which are not evidence and proof of impeachable actions.
It speaks for itself…
Can judges violate the law with impunity? Can judges plead ignorance of applicable law? Doesn’t the judiciary have access to LEXIS?
ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Particularly a federal judge.
X/George you get uglier and uglier every day with your retaliatory remarks. it only shows that we struck target with our criticisms of your fake legal posts.
Hey George, impeachment isn’t a court room action, you don’t need to prove anything. Just ask the Democrats.
’tis a mystery why Professor continues his Team Blue membership. Maybe he doesn’t realize the “Party of JFK” went with him 62 years and two days ago, hillbobby.
I wonder if anyone in the DOJ has sought to get the good Judge’s phone records? In secret of course.
Why would you think that? For what reason?
To support a case of jydicial corruption? Coordination with other DNC operatives? High probability.
Corruption? Coordination? So you’re just guessing.
For the exact same reason!
What a great question. I love it.
“Quiet! Quiet, piggy,”
For those of you that cannot grasp what Professor Turley is saying and hang your hat on “what law did the Judge violate….”, if you click on the text in RED within the Professor’s article…..your answer is immediately provided for you.
I did….and guess what showed up like magic……
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/6628#:~:text=Upon%20a%20motion%20made%20promptly,data%20of%20the%20Senate%20office.
This just proves how intellectually unequipped some of you are.
This was not even five seconds of time to get the answer to the question that was there the entire time ya’ll have been going on about.
I suggest you offer up a public apology for your gross failure to find the answer to your question when as usual the Professor had already provided it. That you are too dense to figure it out is on you….not the Good Professor!
My question is why did the companies and their legal counsel not challenge the Judge’s Order in Court or simply reject it and force the Judge’s hand? That is something the Professor might lay out for us as to what he thinks should have happened to stop this grossly obscene over reach by the Judge in question. At some point….bias or incompetence leading to such ignoring of existing law by a Judge should be acceptable grounds for removal from the bench.
That we see an never ending willful over reach by the same Judge instructs us there is a problem that must be dealt with.
This just proves how intellectually unequipped some of you are.. Okay, but you the one who needed a link to find an answer and you still haven’t provided an answer to “what law” is applicable.
Just proves how intellectually unequipped you are to handle simple tasks.