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.
If you are against impeaching the judge, what is your solution to stopping this crap?
OT, Senator Slotkin concedes she is not aware of any unlawful military orders issued by President Trump. So the Dem stunt was aimed at undermining the lawful military chain of command. It had no other purpose. Reckless and outrageous. IOW, typical Dem behavior.
Subversion; insurrection; treason; impeach and convict with extreme prejudice.
Stop it. Lets not make the same mistakes the left makes.
Treason is defined in the constitution – this is not Treason, it is not sedition, it is not insurrection.
It is however bad conduct.
It should be censured by the senate and it should be published by the voters.
However – Boasberg must be impeached.
His actions are way beyond partisan bias, This was lawlessness.
This was violations of rights under color of law.
John Say,
“ However – Boasberg must be impeached.
His actions are way beyond partisan bias, This was lawlessness.
This was violations of rights under color of law.”
There is zero evidence for your claim. Everything Boasberg did was legal and proper. Feeling that he acted in bad faith is not evidence. This is why even Turley cannot support calls to impeach.
^^^from our expert georgie who never shows “evidence” for his claims.
I believe Boasebergiu
I believe that Judge Boasberg’s Arctic Frost subpoenas with gag order crossed the line into an impeachable offense and it should be pursued.
Interesting that you BELIEVE this.
You probably also BELIEVE in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Sandman, and that there are monsters in your closet.
Go home troll, this is a serious conversation, something you are incapable of being involved in.
ATS – the 1984 word games are idiotic and tedious.
The use of the word “beleive” here is mostly politness.
Further there is no “beleive” – Boasberg violated the law.
He did so in his official role as a judge – that is “under the color of authority”.
the result was the civil and constitutional rights of others being violated.
That is both a crime and the grounds for private civil action.
That is far more substantial than the coterie of left wing nut federal judges who have been enmgaged in idiotic “interpretations” of the law to gum up the works.
That is a problem that solves itself eventually – albeit slowly. Eventually this biased decisions are shot down by appellate courts or SCOTUS.
This illegal act by Boasberg – was not a difference of opinion, and was not apealable at the time. And it resulted in a violation of the constitutional rights of a number of congressmen.
Turley is wrong – this REQUIRES impeachment.
John
You spelled believe wrong, not once but twice. How are we to take you seriously? I before e except after c…
What law did he violate?
You probably also BELIEVE in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Sandman, and that there are monsters in your closet.
But you in comparison want us to believe because you’ve declared yourself Tranny, you’re about to begin menstruating and look forward to having a baby.
Which is worse than continuing to believe the Russia Dossier was real and not a Clinton/Obama felony, that the Biden Bribery Laptop was actually Putin’s, and intended to be election campaign disinformation.
Oh, and believed that the Oval Office House Plant was working his youthful aids into exhaustion despite the fact you watched him mumbling and stumbling around in public, being helped around by rescuing foreign heads of state.
Yes Turely details his law breaking and abuse of power, then says he should not be Impeached without giving a different sufficient punishment so this never happens again. I agree with Mr. Turely most of the time, but not this time. No judge is above the law. If judges are above the law they will continue to abuse their power for political purposes. Democrats are being stupid too, Conservative judges could start doing the same thing for political purposes. Where would that leave us, two battling judicial Dictatorships?
No Boasberg must be Impeached and punished or the courts will be ignored and a civil war ensue.
Anonymous – in this case there is a basis for criminal charges for violating constitutional rights under color of law.
This is the same federal law used to go after the police in the Rodney King case and applies perfectly here.
Further there is a civil variant that provides for a private lawsuit against Boasberg.
I understand Turley’s desire to ratchet things down.
There are way too many people making bogus claims of insurrection and sedition and treason over bad conduct – often legal bad conduct.
That is occuring on all sides.
That is perfectly legitimate and protected by the first amendment, but it is also wrong.
We do need to ratchet things down.
But we also need to prosecute REAL crimes.
And we need REAL consequences for bad conduct.
The consequences need to reflect the conduct – everything is not treason, but you can befired for bad conduct.
And you can be impeached and removed as well as criminally prosecuted for violating others rights using your government powers.
Anonymous – they cross the line not only into an impeachable offence but a criminal one and are beyond the judicial immunity protections.
I do not know if the law that Turley cites that was violated was criminal or civil. But the law WAS violated, by a judge, nor is that an opinion.
The law was clear.
Further the civil and constitutional rights of these targets were violated.
Federal law makes the violation of the rights of a person by those in government both a crime and grounds for a private lawsuit.
knowingly Violating the law strips the judge of immunity.
“ I do not know if the law that Turley cites that was violated was criminal or civil. But the law WAS violated, by a judge, nor is that an opinion.
The law was clear.”
You do not know because even Turley does not know. The law does not specify a punishment. It’s a nothing burger.
“ knowingly Violating the law strips the judge of immunity.”
Good luck proving that in court. It will never get that far.
OT:
Loose lips sink ships….
Department of War 🇺🇸
@DeptofWar
OFFICIAL STATEMENT:
The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN (Ret.). In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
All servicemembers are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful. A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.
11:50 AM · Nov 24, 2025 · 6.2M Views
https://x.com/DeptofWar/status/1992999267967905905
18 U.S. Code § 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2387
If we only had a JAG attorney to provide us a UCMJ lawyerly opinion
“If we only had a JAG attorney to provide us a UCMJ lawyerly opinion”
Call Governor DeSantis…
Obviously thought Boasberg could kill any legal issues. Hadn’t counted on military courts.
Free speech? Then there is the Eichman problem.
Estovir – I am fully prepared to impeach Judge Boasberg for the illegal conduct Turley described above.
I am prepared to have DOJ prosecute him for violating civil rights under color of law.
I am NOT at all prepared to back DOD recalling retired officers and prosecuting them for bad political statements made as politicians.
The conduct of these democrats is bad. It is also fully protected by the first amendment.
It appears to have backfired on them – which is appropriate.
I think that the House and Senate can consider censuring them particularly if hey can not provide a basis for the claim that illegal orders were issued.
But that is the absolute limit of any appropriate response to this – besides the political shelacking they are getting.
https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/MC-Branches-112125-thm-800×0.jpg
According to Justice Story, “high crimes and misdemeanours” include not just crimes but “political offenses,” which themselves include “usurpation.” In repeatedly going beyond the law and his role, Boasberg has usurped power that is not his. Impeachment is an appropriate remedy.
OT: The dismissal of Comey’s indictment is without prejudice. I believe the DoJ has six months to restore it, notwithstanding the lapse of the SoL. This would not be the case if a motion for dismissal on the grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution were also to prevail.
President Trump does not need to follow any unlawful rulings or orders from Judges.
– Senator Mark Kelly ex BFF
Pentagon threatens to prosecute Sen. Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pentagon-threatens-to-prosecute-senator-mark-kelly-by-recalling-him-to-navy-service/ar-AA1R45x8?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6923e38a3c92442f966b10dff296d79a&ei=22
That is a mistake. Though not as bad a mistake as Kelley’s remarks’
Actually the 6 month rule does not apply.
In this case the indictment was invalid from the start.
It was illegally obtained.
Note the judges ruling:
“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”
No valid indictment ever existed.
The 6 month rule applies only to legally obtained indictments that are dismissed for some correctable deficiency.
There are no correctable deficiencies here.
See 18 USC 3288. It appears to apply. If it doesn’t please explain why.
Daniel
From 18 USC 3288:
“This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution”
The judge has ruled:
“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”
He is saying that Halligan acted unlawfully. She is in violation of the law. She had no standing to bring, or sign an indictment.
He is saying that the indictment was obtained by illegal means.
This means that no valid, legal indictment EVER EXISTED before the statute of limitations expired.
Since no valid, legal indictment was ever obtained, and since the SOL has expired, the DOJ is precluded from invoking the 6 month rule.
And where is your source of legal authority for that interpretation? It was an unlawful indictment not a non-existent indictment. And as with all unlawful indictments filed within the SoL it can be refilled within six months.
Daniel
The judge also ruled:
“the fact remains that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law to conduct grand jury proceedings” when she secured Mr. Comey’s indictment,”.
Her appointment as US Attorney was ruled to be illegal.
The appointment was null and void.
She was not a part of the DOJ at that time.
When the case was presented to the Grand Jury, Halligan was the ONLY attorney present. She handled the entire presentation.
Since the judge ruled “that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law” to conduct grand jury proceedings, then there never was a valid and legal presentation of the case to the Grand Jury.
If the case was not presented by an “attorney authorized by law to conduct grand jury proceedings” then no legally valid indictment is possible from such a situation.
“The judge also ruled:
“the fact remains that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law to conduct grand jury proceedings” when she secured Mr. Comey’s indictment,”.”
This would be the biggest reason that he will be overturned on appeal.
This judges decision not only means Comey can no longer be indicted, but it means that from the moment Siebert was appointed that neither Comey or James could EVER be indicted.
The courts are just not going to swallow that.
It ALSO means that from the moment that Seibert was fired NO ONE in EDVA could be indicted until congress confirmed a successor.
Again The courts are just not going to swallow that.
“Her appointment as US Attorney was ruled to be illegal.”
Based on a read of the applicable law that defies the plain text.
“The appointment was null and void.
She was not a part of the DOJ at that time.”
Which AGAIN beggs the question of who COULD be legally appointed at that time ?
This judges decision means that No one could be appointed until congress confirmed a replacement.
Do you really think the courts are going to adopt that ?
“When the case was presented to the Grand Jury, Halligan was the ONLY attorney present.”
I beleive that is false. It is also irrelevant. The Grand Jury was in EDVA, Only the AUSA for a distrcit can indict in that district.
Many other Lawyers within DOJ can handle all kinds of aspects of the indictment process, but only the AUSA can convene a grand jury and only the AUSA can sign off on the indictment.
The ONLY part that is relevant – is NOT who was presenting information to the GJ, that is not relevant.
It is who can sign the indictment – and that is ONLY the AUSA for that district.
Many other attonery’s in DOJ = including AG Bondi were involved in this case.
There are approximately 100 US Attorney’s in DOJ – there are probably thousands of attorney’s in DOJ
Further there is no question that Halligan is an attorney.
I would further note there is no question she is part of the DOJ.
This judge does not have the power to fire her or invalidate her hiring.
His ruling is limited to whether she is a US Attorney with the power to sign an indictment.
Any claim he tries to make beyond that is far outside his jurisdiction.
Regardless, this is a tempest in a tea pot and will be overturned.
It will be overturned because this case is not about comey or james,
it is about whether the law and constitution requires a US attorney position to be vacant if an acting US attorney is fired before a new one is appointed.
That is the question – and it has nothing to do with Haligan, Comey, James or Trump.
All those do is highlight that this judges decison – not only made Comey and James unindictable once Siebert was appointed – but essentially mean that the President abdicates his constitutional power to seek an indictment once he appoints an acting US attorney.
“She handled the entire presentation.”
That is highly unlikely to be true. A US attoney’s office is quite large and many people are involved in everything.
“Since the judge ruled “that Ms. Halligan was not an “attorney authorized by law” to conduct grand jury proceedings, then there never was a valid and legal presentation of the case to the Grand Jury.”
And the judge’s ruling means that NO ONE could possibly have been authorized and that is why he will be overtunred.
“If the case was not presented by an “attorney authorized by law to conduct grand jury proceedings” then no legally valid indictment is possible from such a situation.”
That is your opinion and the judges.
I doubt we will get to applying the 6 month rule.
This judges order on Halligan will be stayed and then vacated.
But in the unlikely instance it is not.
the 6 month rule will apply.
Please tell me any type of defect that an indictment can have that invalidates it – nullifies it in your words.
But still allows the DOJ to reindict in 6 months ?
The only time that the 6 month rule applies is when the Courts decide an indictment is INVALID – i.e. NULL.
Let’s look at a few of the idiotic remarks from John Say the Stupid.
“This judges decision not only means Comey can no longer be indicted, but it means that from the moment Siebert was appointed that neither Comey or James could EVER be indicted.”
Absolutely false and absurd.
Any “authorized government attorney” can conduct a grand jury proceeding and bring an indictment.
It is very rare for the US attorney to do this by himself. Usually a team of career line attorneys conducts the proceedings. The problem that Bondi had is that none of the line attorneys in EDVA were willing to do this.
“It ALSO means that from the moment that Seibert was fired NO ONE in EDVA could be indicted until congress confirmed a successor.”
Absolutely false.
As I said, ANY “authorized government attorney” can conduct a grand jury proceeding and bring an indictment.
““The appointment was null and void.
She was not a part of the DOJ at that time.”
Which AGAIN beggs the question of who COULD be legally appointed at that time ?
This judges decision means that No one could be appointed until congress confirmed a replacement.”
Absolutely false.
As Judge Currie pointed out, after the 120 day Interim US Attorney appointment expires, 28 U.S.C. § 546 the appointment falls to the District Judges of EDVA until such time as the Senate confirms someone else. The EDVA judges had not made an appointment, but that does not stop career line attorneys to bring the indictment under the direction of Bondi. But Bondi could not find anyone willing to do so.
“When the case was presented to the Grand Jury, Halligan was the ONLY attorney present.”
I beleive that is false. It is also irrelevant. The Grand Jury was in EDVA, Only the AUSA for a distrcit can indict in that district.’”
Absolutely false.
Halligan was the ONLY attorney to appear.
Judge Currie specifically requested to review in camera the full GJ transcript and audio recordings. She explicitly stated that the purpose of this was to make absolutely sure that Halligan was the only attorney present, because if another attorney WAS present to participate in the proceedings, then the indictment would be validated.
Judge Currie explicitly stated in her decision that NO OTHER ATTORNEYS WERE PRESENT.
“The ONLY part that is relevant – is NOT who was presenting information to the GJ, that is not relevant.
It is who can sign the indictment – and that is ONLY the AUSA for that district.”
Absolutely false.
The indictment can be signed by any “authorized government attorney”, according to the DOJ US Attorney Manual. Again, the problem was that no other attorneys were willing to do this.
Unfortunately John Say lives in a fantasy world completely disconnected from reality where his delusions run rampant in absurd flights of fancy.
You and the judge – as is typical of left wing nuts, engage in analysis at the shallowest of levels.
You fail to consider the consequences of different choices – beyond those specific to YOUR desired outcome.
This is why left wing nuts argue the opposite the next day – when the desired outcome is different even if the facts are the same.
ATS an indictment was followed.
Beyond that we have seen over much longer than the past 11 months left wing nut judges “order” all kinds of nonsense
Lets review the facts and the law.
First the claim that the law prohibits successive appointments is nonsense.
The left claims there is an OLC opinion by Alito from decades ago that opines that successive apointments are unconstitutional.
No one has produced this OLC opinion.
Regardless, that was for law several decades ago.
The law in question regarding the appointment of US Attonery’s has been revised 3 times since then and is quite different.
Regardless, there is not a constitutional issue here.
And the judges ruling violates the plain text of the law, which is pretty much at the top of the list of requirements for statutory interpretations.
Further the Judges ruling means that from the Moment that Eric Siebert was appointed to the EDVA it was impossible to indict anyone that he was not willing to sign off on in the EDVA.
Maybe that is OK for this judge – but it is not going to fly at SCOTUS.
The FIRST issue is that by the plain text of the law Haligan was appointed legally.
There is nothing in the text of the law precluding successive 120 day apointments – and in fact it has happened many times before.
The most natural read of he statute is that it allows successive appointments.
It is highly unlikely that SCOTUS or even the appeals courts are going to be willing to decide that because Siebert was appointed to be a AUSA in EDVA and it turns out that he had a conflict of interest with the Comey case – that the courts will decide that He alone rather than the AG or President gets to decide whether Comey can be indicted.
While you are unlikely to accept that Siebert was conflicted.
Lets look at a hypotheticial,
An acting AUSA is appointed and either committs a crime and is forced to resign or dies prior to a permanent attorney being appointed.
Do you really beleive SCOTUS is going to decide that the business of the EDVA must stop until congress confirms a permanent replacement ?
You are unlikely to get the appeals courts – much less SCOTUS to decide that a vacancy in a appointed office makes it impossible for that portion of government to continue to function.
SCOTUS is not going to allow these indictments to be tossed. Depending on the makeup of the appellate pannels they are unlikely to either.
Not because they give a Damn about Halligan or Trump or Comey. but because. Statutes of limitations are not a right, they are among the weakest of legal impediments to a prosecution.
Personally i think that SOL’s should be enshrined in the constitution as a right. But it would still be statutory law that sets what they should be for each crime.
But that is not our constitution.
The simplest way for the courts to fix this is to stay this judges decision – which is highly likely.
But the alternative is to overule the idiotic claim that there is some special catagory of defective indictments that are invalid, but not null.
The claim that Comey’s indictment is null and void – but other indictments with flaws sufficient to invalidate them are not, is idiotic.
Ultimately my expectation is that SCOTUS or an appeal court will decide that Halligan’s appointment is legitimate.
There is no great constitutional issues involved in that decision.
The text of the law argues for that.
And the significant problems created by claiming that successive 120 day apointments are invalid are avoided.
AGain there is no constitutional issues here – or to the extent there are, those work AGAINST this judges decision.
The constitutional does not expect that appointed executive offices will be vacant.
But presuming that SCOTUS decides to toss Halligan. The next major issue for you and this judge is that they are near certain to decide that the 6 month period for re-indictment applies.
Again there is no constitutional right of Comey or James being violated.
And there is a large body of case law were the courts poke holes i SOL’s to allow prosecutions.
But if you wish to beleive that SCOTUS is going to create Comey specific law – I can not free you from that delusion.
“Actually the 6 month rule does not apply.”
Actually, that’s another Democrat lie. With about the same credibility of the felonious Clinton/Obama Russia Dossier
Bondi merely has to sign it to go forward on James. Comey may be timed out , maybe not. It is a little unserious to send an insurance lawyer in these cases.
Did James have more than one primary residence? Is that by State?
This will be appealed and the judge will be overturned.
His reading of the law is unatural.
I would further note that even if Halligan’s appointment was improper – which is was not 18 USC 3288 would still apply.
“Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason”
I would further note contra the judge – even if Halligan was improperly appointed – which she was not,
this is a defect, not a nullification of the indictment.
Comey and James without a doubt committed the crimes in question.
A grand Jury voted to indict. The evidence was president to the GJ,
A judge supervised the GJ,
This is not the same as invalidated an order from an unauthorized person.
“The 6 month rule applies only to legally obtained indictments that are dismissed for some correctable deficiency.”
ATS – if an indictment is legally obtained – then is by definition has no correctable deficiencies.
The 6 month rule applies to ALL indictments that are dismssed for some problem. Whatever that problem that caused the indictment to be dismissed that problem caused the indictment to be a nullity – otherwise it would not have been dissmissed.
I doubt the 6 month rule will matter in this case – eitehr the appeals courts or SCOTUS will overturn this order.
As I have noted before – being indicted is a constitutional right.
But being indighted within the Statue of limitations is not.
There is a long long list of cases where the courts have found by myriads of different ways that SOL’s did not apply.
All that has happened here is that this judge has assured that Comey will be fighting to avoid prosecution for an extra 6 months,
Re: OT: -Daniel
I certainly pray that the Indictments find new legs again, with the appropriate People (Seasoned Legal representation).
This recent decision makes the White House appear weak (The Atty. Gen’s post). In addition to the FBI’s ability to police it’s own.
Grassely needs to show what kind of balls he’s got, to bring forth the evidence his Committee holds and to stand up to Senate Leaders; John Thune (R-SD) Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), and underwrite the support with Comer and Jim Jordan to hold Speaker of the House Mike Johnson
to the task of bringing James Comey’s treasonous subversion(s) to Trial.
Grassley could just confirm Halligan as US Attorney to thumb his nose at this judge.
But I do not expect that.
Daniel, see the following analysis of the ruling by @willchamberlain, Senior Counsel of @Article3Project
Twitter/X is really the go-to site for current news
Will Chamberlain
@willchamberlain
Today, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed as US Attorney.
She got it wrong, quite clearly, and will almost certainly be reversed.
Here’s the relevant statute. The provision authorizing AG Bondi to appoint Lindsey Halligan to a 120-day term as interim US Attorney is subsection (a). The grant of authority is broad; if “the district in which [an] office of United States Attorney is vacant,” Bondi can make an appointment, with the ONLY specified exception being subsection (b). That subsection prohibits Bondi from appointing someone who has been voted down by the Senate.
Comey argued, and Judge Currie agreed (both wrongly) that subsection (d) overrides this, by saying that “if an appointment expires…the district court…may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.” That’s a *concurrent* authority. If it were an *exclusive* authority (meaning Bondi had no right to make consecutive appointments), it would have been mentioned as an exception to her authority in subsection (a).
[…..]
But the judge went a completely different direction – deciding that the statute unambiguously favored Comey. How’d she do that? By effectively adding words to the statute. Notice the unsubtle interpretive move in the last sentence here – framing the concurrent authority granted in subsection (d) as an exclusive authority.
DOJ, again, explained why Judge Currie should have been more cautious. Any interpretation of the statute that would grant the District Court exclusive authority to appoint a US Attorney runs headlong into the separation of powers. The prosecutorial function belongs to the executive branch.
This opinion will be reversed. The Supreme Court has indicated in a slew of cases over the past year that the unitary executive isn’t a “theory” – it’s the Constitution, and interpretations of statutes that purport to confiscate executive authority and give it to actors uncontrolled by the President don’t pass constitutional muster.
FIN
https://x.com/willchamberlain/status/1993028895483085179
“Twitter/X is really the go-to site for current news”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!
The DOJ has an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel saying exactly what Judge Currie has ruled.
It says the Attorney General can appoint an Interim US Attorney for no more than 120 days, and that he/she can only do this ONCE.
The OLC opinion states that if the AG could make serial interim 120 day appointments ad infinitum, that this would be unconstitutional since it would circumvent the Constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm appointments.
The OLC opinion was written in 1986, by none other than Samuel Alito when he worked in the Reagan White House, before he became a SCOTUS Judge.
Estovir
Did you see the reports that most of the MAGA influencers on Twitter/X are actually foreigners in Russia, Eastern Europe, Africa, India, and other places in Asia.
Last week, Musk added a new feature that would allow everyone to see where any account is located.
He did it in the “interests of transparency”, but it backfired bigly.
Most of the the prominent MAGA influencers claiming to be American Patriots are actually foreigners, probably poor schmucks being paid to troll.
X is a trash pile of foreign disinformation.
If X is reporting the location of influencers – I think that is great.
As to the rest
Really ? There are 350M people in the US – atleast 120M of them are MAGA.
IF every single russian Troll on X was pretending to be MAGA that would likely be a small percent of MAGA “influencers”.
This is just more stupid left wing nut nonsense form people who are unable to engage in critical thinking.
There is no significant group of subject matter influencers that Russia dominates outside of Russia itself.
If you can not graps that – you are incapable of critical thinking.
You are likely one of the idiots who bought into the collusion delusion.
Further, Russia/Putin’s interests and MAGA are not the same. Putins paid Trolls are NOT MAGA.
They are whatever Putin wants.
“The DOJ has an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel saying exactly what Judge Currie has ruled.”
We have been told that repeatedly, yet no one has linked that opinion.
Further the claim is that opinion was written by Alito 40 yeas ago.
40 years ago the LAW was different.
The current law is approximately a decade old, and it replaces a version passed early in Bushes term that worked poorly.
Regardless, non-existant OLC guidance on laws that no longer exist are not especially relevant.
The current law was written withing the past 15 years.
That may be right, but if it’s not the question of refiling will arise. A court will then have to resolve whether the six month rule applies. I think it does, others think it doesn’t.
Estovir, This is like the 4th incarnation of this law in 40 years – which is why the supposed WAlito OLC oppinion that I have never seen linked is irrelevant.
The prior law specified that subsequent appoinmtment SHALL be by the courts.
The difference between SHALL and MAY in law is established for over 2 centuries.
Further the law was changed from requiring subsequent appointments to be by the courts to allowing subsequent appointments by the courts because of all kinds of problems that arrose from the prior law.
Specifically that:
The courts sometimes did not fill a position.
The courts filled a position with someone hostile to the executive.
Not only was the language changed to MAY, but arguably the portion fo the law allowing courts to appoint a temporary replacement are likely unconstitutional.
Constitutionally Only the president and the senate have a role in presidential appointments.
United States v. Comey (1:25-cr-00272)
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Nov 24, 2025
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (2) All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside. (3) The Attorney General’s attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside. (4) Mr. Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 60) is granted in accordance with this order. (5) The indictment is dismissed without prejudice. (6) The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541 as to James B. Comey Jr. Signed by Senior District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on 11/24/2025. (jlan) (Entered: 11/24/2025)
[PDF]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136/gov.uscourts.vaed.582136.213.0_7.pdf
The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541 ”
It is precisely this statement that is the root of the error.
If True than 28 USC 546 is unconstutitional.
The constitution does not grant any power regarding Appointments to the courts. PERIOD.
The constitution provides that the PRESIDENT can make interim appointments, and that the PRESIDENT with the cconfirmation of Congress can make permanent appointments.
The law the judge cites says that the disctrict courts MAY make an appointment – not they SHALL – prior law specified SHAL and Congress changed the law to MAY.
Arguably the provision of the law that says that district courts have any ability to make an appointment is invalid. In numerous other instances SCOTUS has invalidated laws that delegated a constitutional power of the legislature to the courts.
Regardless there are only two constitutional possibilities.
Either MAY means either the courts or the AG can appoint an Acting US attorney,
or the power to apoint an acting US attorney can not be delegated from the exectutive to the courts by congress and that provision of the law is invalid.
Regardless, MAY does not mean SHALL, and it does not take from the President a power that the constitution granted.
This is unlikely to stand long.
It is clear and stupid error.
Comey and this judge accomplished nothing except dragging this out.
DEar Prof Truely,
I do not, necessarily, support impeachment in this case either. According to President Trump, this may be “Seditious Behavior, punishable by DEATH”!
Thankfully, there is no need to secretly spy on President Trump. You/we don’t have worry about what Trump may say in private, it’s what he says in public that is so alarming. .. unlike President Biden’s nefarious dark doings.
Secondly, it was a ‘Stop the Steal’ rally (i.e. of the election). Not an armed rebellion by the still-sitting president. Who, evidently, can lawfully order Hellfire military strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean. .. if not the Democrat TRAITORS in congress.
*no order is lawful outside the authority of U.S. Navy regulations and rules of engagement. .. for good reasons.
edit. I am not anonymous
sincerely,
dgsnowden
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
_________________________________________________
As difficult as it is for some to grasp and assimilate, the judicial branch has the judicial power, and it has no executive power, as Chief Justice Taney described well.
The judicial branch may judge, but its decision may not usurp or exercise executive power, just as the legislative branch may legislate, but its legislation may not usurp or exercise executive power.
The executive branch enjoys all of the executive power exclusively.
If Congress determines that the president has committed high crimes, Congress may impeach and convict.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
George X: how is it that one minute you can post under your latest screen name “X” – and then minutes later yet again post your almost daily favorite Kluxxer Confederate Democrat favorites as “Anonymous”?
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
“I have constitutionally ruled that you Confederate Democrats can keep your Darkies as your farm animals because they are clearly not human beings.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, March 6, 1857
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Chief Justice William Rehnquist spent 300 pages explaining and dealing with Confederate Commie GeorgeX’s Marxist wet dreams and revisionist historical and Constitutional analysis of both Lincoln and the Confederate Democrat Civil War (as seen through the eyes of today’s Democrat Kluxxers who have now turned to communism when their Civil War ended in a crushing FAFO).
Given that George has proved his reading comprehension has never gotten beyond what he developed in kindergarten, Justice Rehnquist’s work and explanations may as well be laying on the surface of the moon as far as George is concerned. For everybody else who are normal Americans:
ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN WARTIME
https://www.amazon.com/All-Laws-but-One-Liberties/dp/0679446613
*. PT, what you’ve said is all well and good. If impeachment is not the best option please clarify with other possible options. The buck actually stopped at Judge Boasberg and his orders or not were to prevent or stop a miscarriage, misinterpretation, misapplication of the law.
Please succinctly state laws not applied correctly and options for remedy. Can a person be covertly under surveillance or investigated without being notified if suspected of unlawful conduct? Obviously yes, I can hire a PI and investigate anyone myself. What laws prevent such by the judiciary or the legislative or executive branches?
How tangled is the web?
The current Indictment-Case against Comey is dismissed, the Clintons are a No-Show, Brennen is in the Basement hiding….
Marjorie Taylor Greene is vindicated – in that “… Americans are used by the Political Industrial Complex of both Political Parties, election cycle after election cycle, in order to elect whichever side can convince Americans to hate the other side more.
And the results are always the same.
No matter which way the political pendulum swings, Republican or Democrat, nothing ever gets better for the common American man or woman. …” -MTG
SWAMP – 100% PURE SWAMP
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
Judge dismisses DOJ criminal cases against Comey, James
A federal judge on Monday dismissed the cases against two of President Trump’s political adversaries after finding that the prosecutor Trump handpicked to pursue charges against them was unlawfully appointed.
By: Ella Lee ~ 11/24/25
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5620432-judge-dismisses-trump-adversaries-cases/
Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy
Case 1:25-cr-00272-MSN-WEF Document 105 Filed 10/30/2025
Oct 30, 2025 — COMEY JR.’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF. MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT. James B. Comey, Jr., by and through undersigned counsel, and …
[PDF Link] levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-10-30-Comey-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment-Based-on-Fundamental-Ambiguity-and-Literal-Truth.pdf
Comer Threatens to Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against the Clintons if They Continue to Ignore Epstein Subpoenas
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) warned Bill and Hillary Clinton Friday that if they continue to ignore deposition subpoenas regarding their history with Jeffrey Epstein, he will initiate contempt proceedings.
By: Debra Heine ~ November 21, 2025
https://amgreatness.com/2025/11/21/comer-threatens-to-initiate-contempt-proceedings-against-the-clintons-if-they-continue-to-ignore-epstein-subpoenas/
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DEEP DEEP STATE “SWAMP”!
THE DEVIL IS IN THE CORRUPT “JURISTOCRACY”!
If this is what a corrupt juridical branch does, what does a corrupt executive branch do?
I know, let’s ask Lincoln: Impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, smash printing presses, throw opponents in prison, start a war, deny constitutional rights, etc.?
The Deep Deep State “Swamp” is invincible.
The Deep Deep State “Swamp” will next resurrect the Bush Dynasty.
Don’t fret Boy’s – “THE SHOW’S NOT OVER”
OT;
Aaaand scene, James Comey and Letitia James cases have been dismissed. As predicted Trump lawyer Halligan was illegally appointed. Shocking, I know.
Will Professor Turley try to spin this on a positive note for Trump or will he admit the prosecutions were doomed from. the very beginning?
X seems to think a court ruling against Trump ends the case. Is that funny or what?
I beleive Trump has 24 straight wins at SCOTUS.
But I do not hink this case gets to SCOTUS.
Lindsey Halligan (Insurance Lawyer) riding upon her nearly Taylor Swift look-alike charm is gone.
Halligan will be hoping for a Megyn Kelly on-the-air deal now that she’s no longer encumbered by the Trial.
So goes this weeks Capitol Hill’s Showboat as we pause for the Thanks Giving holiday Station Break.
Seems like those of you on the left do not like attractive intelligent successful women.
Kelley does not have an “on air deal” – she is completely independent doing extremely well and providing jobs for a dozen others.
As to goings on.
Typical. Left wing Judge makes stupid unconstitutional and lawless ruling.
Which has less than a 50% chance of surviving on appeal to other left wing nut justs and about a 2% chance of surviving if it gets to SCOTUS.
And outside the left we are used to this. Ho Hum.
It is just a question of when this gets flipped and we go back to Prosecuting a liar, a perjurer, a leaker, and a crook.
X – you are correct this was expected.
You fail to mention that being overturned on appeal is expected.
The judges own order makes the problem with his order clear.
Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision for the courts to appoint acting US attorney.s ‘
Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision limiting the number of successive US attorney’s to president can appoint.
Nowhere in the law – if the law is constitutional, is there a limit to the number of successive acting US attorney’s that the president can appoint.
It is arguable that the provision of the law that says the courts MAY appoint acting US attorney’s is unconstitutional.
It is NOT arguable that the constituion and the law empower the President to appoint acting US attorney’s in succession.
That “justice” can be meted out based on “whose ox was being gored in a tripartite contest,” should indeed render Boasberg IMPEACHABLE!
We must remove the moral-relativism, the prejudicial and capricious, left wing juris-LACK-OF-prudence from our court system.
IMPEACH, NOW!
I agree with your clear thoughts, but am concerned over impeachment based on a judge’s philosophy rather than one of the stated reasons for impeachment written in the Constitution. However, I think he should be impeached for the abuse of judicial power and undermining the rule of law.
Turley provided proof that Boasburg violated the law.
That is not merely an opinion.
It is an opinion whether the criteria for a warrant were met.
It is NOT an opinion that the laws says you can not subpeona records of members of congress without notifying congress.
I do not know if that law is a criminal law or not.
But it is a law, and Boasberg violated it.
That is impeachable.
Further he violated constitutional rights of individuals under color of law when he did so – that is a crime.
And DOJ can prosecute.
Further it also is a civil cause of action for which judges are not immune.
The Constitution uses the words:
Treason
Bribery
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
My feelings mimic yours and Dianne’s. That is why I said, “I think he should be impeached for the abuse of judicial power and undermining the rule of law.” You and Dianne probably understand the law better than I, so you can tell me what I got wrong.
Judge Currie has dismissed the case against Comey.
He ruled that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed to the position of US Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia and all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.
This also effectively dismisses the case against Letitia James.
Halligan and Bondi will face disciplinary proceedings and possible disbarment.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2. All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.
3. The Attorney General’s attempts to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions were ineffective and are hereby set aside.
4. Mr. Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 60) is granted in accordance with this order.
5. The indictment is dismissed without prejudice.
6. The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546 during the current vacancy lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. § 541.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Sitting by Designation
Someone should remind Pam Blondie that Nixon never went to prison for his crimes, but John Mitchell, his Attorney General went to prison for enabling Nixon’s crimes.
Not to mention the other dozen or so attorneys who worked for Nixon who went to prison.
Judge Currie also ruled that at this point, in the absence of a Trump nominee confirmed by the Senate, only the District Judges in EDVA have the power to appoint a US Attorney.
It would be an appropriate touch if they appointed Comey to the position as US Attorney in EDVA.
LoL
Please read the constitution – Article III does not provide ANY appointment power to the judiciary – none- zip nada.
The appointments clause gives the power to make acting appointments exclusively to the president.
The power to make permanent appointments belongs to the president but requires senate confirmation.
NOWHERE in the constitution is the judiciary mentioned with regard to appointments.
Curry is relying on a very twisted misread of a Statute that if it actually said what he claimed would be unconstitutional.
Arguably it is unconstitutional as written.
But no matter what it is NOT written as he claims.
MAY does not mean SHALL.
The provision allowing judges to make appointments does not require them to make apointments, nor does it grant that power exclusively.
If you are expecting this rulling to hold up you are laughably ignorant of the constitution and SCOTUS.
There is a 50:50 chance this is stayed by the appeals courts, and a 98% chance it is stayed by SCOTUS if the appeals courts do not.
But it is unlikely the case will be fully heard on the merits anytime soon. When it is the courts – and likely SCOTUS will have only two choices – throw out Judge Curries decision, or throw out provision (d) of the law delegating appointments power to the judiciary as unconstitutional.
They should do the later. There is good reason that the constitution very narrowly defines the power of the courts.
The nonsense we are seeing now is why.
It is the courts role to apply the constitution and the law AS WRITTEN – not as they wish they had been written.
It is NOT the courts role to decide on the merits of the policies of either the executive or the congress,
Only their legality and constitutionality again AS WRITTEN.
It is the very narrowness of the power of the courts that gives the courts their respect and their authority.
The more the courts become political actors, the less respect and authority they have.
We have a collection of Democrat Senators encouraging the military and executive branch employees to disregard orders they do not like. That i their opinion are wrong/illegal.
Obediance to the courts rests entirely on the respect and authority they have.
Decisions like Judge Curies damage that respect and authority.
It is not common in US history for presidents to ignore the decisions of the courts – but it has occurred several times.
The judiciary is not elected. Their views on Policy are not supposed to be considered, and they are not supposed to give their views on policy any weight when they make their decisions.
The more they imerse themselves into policy, legislation and executive actions they more they become like the president and congress EXCEPT without the legitimacy of having been elected.
It is unfortunate that so many left wing nut judges do not seem to grasp the harm they are doing to the judiciary.
They are playing in a domain they are constitutionally barred from.
And we see the mess that results from that in banana republics like Brazil.
Though more likely they just advance the moment when the president ignores the courts and gets away with it.
Is that really waht you want ?
There were only a handful of Watergate convictions – there were not all that many people involved and most were not lawyers.
Comey is a lawyer who committed crimes while in office as is James.
Shameful as it was that Attorney General John Mitchell hired the Watergate burglars, he did so through CREEP, the Committee to Re-elect the President, not the DoJ.
So what !!!!
That is a distinction without a difference.
The point is that while he was AG he engaged in criminal activity, and tried to cover up Nixon’s crimes.
Correct.
Comey was engaged in illegal activity and tried to cover it up.
Holder was engaged in criminal activity and tried to cover it up.
Garland was engaged in criminal activity and tried to cover it up.
Bondi is not enaged in any criminal activity and is definitely not trying to cover it up.
Everything Trump’s 2024 appointments are doing is WAY OUT IN THE OPEN.
There is no coverup. There is no criminal conduct.
While Curries decision will be overturned – even if it were not – there are a FEW EO’s that Trump is going to lose on.
There are a number of others where his powers will be narrowed.
NONE of that is misconduct.
NONE of that is a crime.
The reason that you left wing nuts are so dangerous is that you consider all political disagreeement to be a crime.
Comey is being prosecuted for Perjury – something he obviously did.
James is being prosecuted for Mortgage Fraud – something she clearly did.
I am sure Trump revels in the possibility that his tortureres themselves may be headed to prison.
But they are being prosecuted for obvious CRIMES – not merely because they were political enemies.
You idiots we so stupid you impeached Trump for seeking to investigate the well established criminal corruption of the Biden crime syndicate. So far Trump is not going after Biden, possibly because he is not competent to stand trial. But he has also not gone after Hillary – despite promises that he would and despite real criminal conduct on her part.
There is pleanty of Worse than Watergate here – in the Obama and Biden administration.
Everything in Trump’s terms was done completely out in the open, and completely legally.
There is no crime here.
Comey committed multiple crimes. James committed Crimes.
While wrong, all this judge is saying is that Halligans appointment was improper,
That is no more a crime than his improper decision.
The “Water Gate” equivalents we have are Crossfire Huiricane, Arctic Frost, and numerous other examples of spying and misconduct by the Biden and Obama administrations.
Please name and produce some evidence of any actual Trump Crime ?
I would further note – that unlike Biden and Obama and Nixon – Trump is doing everything right out in public.
There is no secret spying on political oponents. There is very real prosecutions of bad people for actual crimes.
Thus far both the crimes being prosecued and the prosecutions are all being done entirely in public.
Comey perjured himself IN PUBLIC – he leaked classified information to the press, and left a paper trail a mile wide.
Much of this he only denies – under oath.
James file false mortgage documents that are public records, and that it is a crime to provide false information for.
She is being prosecuted in public.
There is none of the secret spying that characterized Nixon Obama and Biden.
ATS
Currie is obviously wrong. There is no constitutional delegation of appointments power to the judiciary.
SCOTUS has found laws providing for that unconstitutional in the past.
But even if it does not find that portion fo the law unconstitutional,
Currie is also trying to read MAY as SHALL, that is a 1L legal error, that will not hold up on appeal.
That is not only a misread of the law, but in the unlikely even that the delegation of the executive appointment power to the judiciary is found constitutional there is ZERO chance that the EXCLUSIVE delegation of the appointmnent power of the executive to the Judiciary will be found constitutional.
This is just a stupid decision that will rile up a left wing base briefly and then die.
Not only will Halligan be back – she is not even going to have to leave.
Haligan will be gone in 120 days as the law requires – after which she will be replaced by someone else, and another and another until a Trump appointment to EDVA is confirmed.
Comey and James will be prosecuted. Likely in a few years.
They will probably be aquitted or get a hung jury- convictions are harder than indictments and this is EDVA all James and Comey need is one left wing nut jurror.
But though all of this – Comey and James will be frequently in the news as the fight over their malfeasance continues.
And they and democrats deserve that.
At the tail end of this op-ed, Professor Turley says he does “not support the calls for Boasberg to be impeached.” And yet the totality of the text prior to that statement provides a powerful case for impeachment. If Turley is against impeaching Judge Boasberg simply because he doesn’t fancy that particular course of action, he should say so. But — and more importantly — if there are constitutional reasons why the judge can NOT be impeached, Professor T should explain what they are. Otherwise, he comes across as wishy-washy.
Professor Turley cashes in on his fellow Washington DC bar association inmates continuing their careers of malfeasance and criminality. I doubt he wants to piss his fellow bar association Democrat lawyers by going so far as to condemn them and admit that there are more than ample grounds for their impeachment. Or disbarment and loss of professional status as lawyers and judges.
They are his fellow brother members of that bar association, after all. It would be a loss of Professor Turley’s social stature to have them excommunicate him from their cocktails and canapes social circles for going too far with them in his criticism.
Columns like this? They understand that, as long as it stays at this level, it’s just business – just like fellow members who are prosecutors and defense attorneys can belly up together to the liquor bar.
The last time Professor Turley actually called for the impeachment of one of his fellow members of the Washington DC bar, was just after the beginning of this blog when he wrote a single column saying he agreed that Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder should be impeached.
He has never even reported their violations of bar association rules of professional conduct to the bar association they are all members of. No money to be made in doing that versus selling columns about them.
The gag order certainly
All that it takes for evil men to succeed is for allegedly good men to do nothing but look the other way.
Professor Turley: you’ve articulated your selective outrage of Judge Boasberg to save him from condemnation with mild criticism instead. You could finally do the right thing by fulfilling your legal duty to articulate his malfeasance and probably criminality to the DC Bar Association that you both serve in a professional legal capacity as members of.
As you know, you’ve watched him be in violation of your bar association’s Code Of Professional Conduct since at least 2016 when he allowed Obama to repeatedly send his Attorney Generals and FBI directors to his FISA courts to perjure themselves, giving them illegitimate spy warrants to feloniously deprive THOUSANDS of Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights by color of law.
You’re just as much in violation of your bar association’s Code Of Professional Conduct as Judge Boasberg is by refusing to carry out your duty to report his malfeasance and corruption to the bar association you both belong to.
And the reason the malfeasance of Boasberg and your fellow members (like your dear friend Merrick Garland) occurs and continues to occur is you look the other way rather than reporting it to your bar association for disciplinary action.
He works at illegitimate, unethical and probably felonious political activism.
You work at cashing in by violating the same code of ethics by not reporting, but instead writing articles about Boasberg and other bar association members doing it.
Former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb on Sunday warned that President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judiciary now represent “one of the greatest threats to our democracy.”
Cobb, who served as a lawyer for the White House during Trump’s first term, suggested that Congress had been “neutered” by its own cowardice and by Trump’s attacks, to whom it had ceded basically all control.
Trump dictates everything that House Speaker Mike Johnson does, Cobb argued. “That’s tragic because the way the Constitution is designed, Congress, not the courts, were deemed to be the first wave of resistance to an evil president,” said Cobb “The courts don’t have the ability to say what’s best for America. They can’t look at a case that way,” he explained. “They have to say what does the Constitution require, and the Constitution really is not adequate to deal with a president as evil as Trump, somebody whose desire is to accumulate and abuse power.”
By “denigrating the judiciary, Trump is basically trying to weaken the only remaining pillar that is standing up to prevent the total authoritarianism that he desires,” Cobb said. “And that war is very dangerous for us all. We need a very strong judiciary, particularly at this time, where the constitutional stresses are extreme and Trump’s abuses of power are unprecedented.”
Former Trump White House attorney Ty Cobb on Sunday warned that President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judiciary now represent “one of the greatest threats to our democracy.”
Cobb never said that about Jack Smith, even after SCOTUS had declared Smith operating as Obama/Biden’s version of Lavarentiy Beria a threat to our democracy. Didn’t say it about Boasberg giving Boasberg these warrants to deprive hundreds of Americans of their 1st and 4th Amendment rights through color of law. So what do we have here?
BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMPPPP!!!!
Boasberg? Nothing To See Here, Please Believe Us, Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes™
This is the same Ty Cobb and his criticisms who was silent during the four years of Biden police state fascism. I remember when Democrat trolls here loathed and hated Ty Cobb like they used to loath and hate Dick Cheney.
In fact, I remember not too long ago when these same Democrat deflecting trolls were in a temporary love affair with another one of Trump’s many former lawyers, Michael Cohen. They were even suggesting that he run for president.
Awkward that he went from being their anti-Trump lawyer, purveyor of nothing but the truth, straight to prison for defrauding other clients. Laughable that Cobb who they once excoriated as a vicious liar is now their latest purveyor of Trump Truth.
Cobb joins his reputation with that of Dick Cheney and Michael Cohen, thanks to Democrats.
Cobb is making money off the left wing nut media – more power to him.
If you wish to give him your attention – that is your business.
We are not a dmeocracy, and they threat to the republic is from lawless judges like Boasberg as this article is about.
Thus far Trump has followed the most ludicrously stupid judicial orders – until they were overtunred as nearly all have been.
It is the judiciary that is the threat – not the president.
Absolutely the president has too much power – but that is all presidents, and congress willingly gave it to him.
The courts can thwart that by following the constitution – but they are not doing so.
They are not limiting executive power they are making judicial decisions based on prefered policies – which is radically different and why respenct for the courts is lower than it has ever been.
Criticizing lawless judges is a constitutional right, not a threat to a non-existant democracy.
Congress has not been “Nuetered” – they have chosen to act or not act, to delegate power and they have done so freely.
They have the power today to reverse that – they have chosen not to.
Have they ceded a great deal of power to the executive – absolutely. Your ans Cobbs ranting over why is irrelevant.
Why is irrelevant.
Are they cowards ? So What. Elect people who aren’t if you do not like your congressmen.
Are they supportive of Trump’s policies ? Many of them are – because most of the policies we are fighting over have supermajority public support.
As Obama said – elections have consequences.
Has congress ceded power to the president – absolutely – and they did that long ago.
I beleive it was Gorsuch who jabbed Kaytal for arguing non-delegation regarding Trump’s tarriffs – when he spent years as soplicitor general arguing congress can delegate its powers.
I think Kaytal is right – but not just about Tariffs. Congress can not delegate its powers to the executive – that is how the government our founders created was supposed to work. But SCOTUS has not significantly reigned in congressional delegation tot he executive in almost a century. Generally they have expanded it.
Trump is not even slightly unusual is presuming that the powers delegated to him are his. No president since Wilson has not sought as much power as possible. Nothing new here.
What is Unique about Trump ?
He does or tries to do what he promises.
He acts entirely out in the open – not in secret.
And he is openly critical of those who oppose him. He does not stab people in the back. He does not betray people.
He does what he says he will do and criticises those who get in his way
I do not agree with all he does. I have rarely aggreed with what presidents do.
But he is refreshingly honest. Something we may not have seen in DC since Washington.
“Trump dictates everything that House Speaker Mike Johnson does, Cobb argued.”
If True SO WHAT. Johnson and hose republicans can do whatever they wish.
If they have hitched their wagon to Trump it is because it is in their interests.
It is what their constituents want.
“That’s tragic because the way the Constitution is designed, Congress, not the courts, were deemed to be the first wave of resistance to an evil president,”
partially true. Regardless, you are under the delusion that congress is not doing what their constituents want.
Trump’s power in congress is because he wants the same things that the people who elected him and republican congressmen want.
You rant about Trump’s power – but the fillibuster is still there even though Trump demanded that the Senate get rid of it since he was elected.
You do not live in reality.
“They have to say what does the Constitution require”
Correct. Now if we could just get judges to grasp that.
“the Constitution really is not adequate to deal with a president as evil as Trump”
ROFL, everything that is at odds with you is not evil.
Regardless the constitution is not about good and evil. It is about the rights of individuals and the powers of the state.
“by “denigrating the judiciary, Trump is basically”
Exposing that they are exceeding their power and authority.
We do not need the judiciary to decide policy. Voters did that a year ago.
The same others that elected congress and have the same expectations of congress as they do of Trump.
The only antidemocratic efforts are on the left.
While we are NOT a democracy and I would limit the powers of ALL presidents.
For the most part Trump IS acting within the constitutional powers of the president as envisioned by our founders.
Congress passed our immigration laws decades ago.
Trump is the first president actually enforcing them.
If you do not like that – we have a congress to change those laws.
This congress is not inclined to do so – not because they are scared of Trump. but because the people who elected them want the immigration laws enforced.
A presidents emergency powers should be reigned in – but that is nothing new. Congress has been expanding presidents emergency powers for 50+ years, and the courts have allowed that. Nothing Trump is doing with emergency powers is new or unusal – it is just for the first time at odds with YOUR desired policy goals.
But I will be happy to see either congress or SCOTUS narrowly define presidential emergency powers – so long as that applies to ALL future presidents.
With respect to using the NG to protect government agents or property – that is again nothing unusual. Other presidents have deployed the NG to protect individuals and to fight crime. Trump’s use of the NG is NARROWER than past presidents – going all the way back to Washington.
Washington is BTW the Only US preside to actually lead troops in combat while president – when he put down several tax revolts.
That is a far greater excercise of presidential power than protecting ICE Agents.
Trump is looking to use the Alien Enemies Act – passed under out 2nd President John Adams.
These are TWO examples of ACTUAL FOUNDERS as President using the same power Trump is using.
Threat to democracy ? YOU are the threat to democracy.
“trying to weaken the only remaining pillar that is standing up to prevent the total authoritarianism that he desires,”
No trying to get the courts to stay in their lane.
If you do not like Trump’s policies – policies that are supported mostly by super majorities and policies that he was elected to carry out, then elect a congress to change the law, and in 2028 elect a democrat president.
“”We need a very strong judiciary,”
No we need a judiciary that follows the law and the constitution.
It is not the role of the judiciary to decide public policy – only the constitutionality and legality of govenrment actions.
The choice of policies belongs to congress and the president.
And the people elected a congress and president to do exactly what Trump is doing.
“this time, where the constitutional stresses are extreme”
Constitutional stresses are not even close to extreme right now.
The primary threat to constitutionality is posed by judges sticking their nose into policy and politics rather than enforcing the law and constitution.
“Trump’s abuses of power are unprecedented.”
What abuses of power ?
Has he tried to rip tax payers off for several trillion dollars wiping out loans ?
Has he ignored our immigration laws ?
Has he turned a blind eye to spending that is waste fraud and abuse ?
What abuse of power ?
Everything Trump does is right out in the open.
And it is what he promised to do if elected.
It is also what those who voted a republican majority into congress expect of their congressmen.
Congress is not reigning in Trump because they were not elected to reign him in, they were elected to do exactly the same things he is doing.
Congress is not reigning in Trump because that is DEMOCRACY.
Perhaps we could expand articulable claims by asking Congress to amend Section 1983 actions (42 USC 1983, violating or abusing rights) to now expressly read,
“every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage…..OR under cloak of any judicial robe….”
“… 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. …”
Grassely, Comer, Jordan, (and MTG before you leave, put forth the Bill)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
Boasberg’s Higher-Command is in the Details!
(and maybe Boasberg himself – sure seems like it)