https://www.profitableratecpm.com/f4ffsdxe?key=39b1ebce72f3758345b2155c98e6709c
A lot has happened today in some of the major mass eviction and rule of law cases, but I want to tell you about another major clash brewing:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
All of this potentially sets the stage for a wave of weekend filings in district and appeals courts — and puts evidentiary hearings next week at risk of being blocked or at least postponed.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
At the same time as asking the D.C. Circuit to stop Boasberg in his tracks, the administration asked it to suspend the investigation until the D.C. Circuit intervenes. So far, Boasberg has not yet ruled on the stay motion, but he has steadily moved his investigation forward (while the appeals court did not unnecessarily slow him down), paying attention to whether there are sufficient grounds to file a criminal contempt of court referral.
All of this potentially sets the stage for a wave of weekend filings in district and appeals courts — and puts evidentiary hearings next week at risk of being blocked or at least postponed.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
Boasberg had ordered testimony over two days next week, beginning Monday morning with former DOJ lawyer-turned-whistleblower Erez Reuveni and continuing Tuesday afternoon with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign. Both attorneys were deeply involved in the emergency litigation over the mid-March weekend when the AEA evicted to CECOT in El Salvador were in progress. Boasberg wants to use their testimony to shed light on whether his failure to comply with his order to stop deportations and turn planes around was deliberate, a key element of a contempt of court conviction.
At the same time as asking the D.C. Circuit to stop Boasberg in his tracks, the administration asked it to suspend the investigation until the D.C. Circuit intervenes. So far, Boasberg has not yet ruled on the stay motion, but he has steadily moved his investigation forward (while the appeals court did not unnecessarily slow him down), paying attention to whether there are sufficient grounds to file a criminal contempt of court referral.
All of this potentially sets the stage for a wave of weekend filings in district and appeals courts — and puts evidentiary hearings next week at risk of being blocked or at least postponed.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
The Trump administration today went to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to block Judge Boasberg’s contempt of court investigation into the original Alien Enemies Act case. In doing so, he is attempting to permanently end the entire contempt investigation, thereby ending the only chance of accountability for an executive branch that has trampled the judiciary in what is an ongoing constitutional dispute.
Boasberg had ordered testimony over two days next week, beginning Monday morning with former DOJ lawyer-turned-whistleblower Erez Reuveni and continuing Tuesday afternoon with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign. Both attorneys were deeply involved in the emergency litigation over the mid-March weekend when the AEA evicted to CECOT in El Salvador were in progress. Boasberg wants to use their testimony to shed light on whether his failure to comply with his order to stop deportations and turn planes around was deliberate, a key element of a contempt of court conviction.
At the same time as asking the D.C. Circuit to stop Boasberg in his tracks, the administration asked it to suspend the investigation until the D.C. Circuit intervenes. So far, Boasberg has not yet ruled on the stay motion, but he has steadily moved his investigation forward (while the appeals court did not unnecessarily slow him down), paying attention to whether there are sufficient grounds to file a criminal contempt of court referral.
All of this potentially sets the stage for a wave of weekend filings in district and appeals courts — and puts evidentiary hearings next week at risk of being blocked or at least postponed.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
The Trump administration today went to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to block Judge Boasberg’s contempt of court investigation into the original Alien Enemies Act case. In doing so, he is attempting to permanently end the entire contempt investigation, thereby ending the only chance of accountability for an executive branch that has trampled the judiciary in what is an ongoing constitutional dispute.
Boasberg had ordered testimony over two days next week, beginning Monday morning with former DOJ lawyer-turned-whistleblower Erez Reuveni and continuing Tuesday afternoon with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign. Both attorneys were deeply involved in the emergency litigation over the mid-March weekend when the AEA evicted to CECOT in El Salvador were in progress. Boasberg wants to use their testimony to shed light on whether his failure to comply with his order to stop deportations and turn planes around was deliberate, a key element of a contempt of court conviction.
At the same time as asking the D.C. Circuit to stop Boasberg in his tracks, the administration asked it to suspend the investigation until the D.C. Circuit intervenes. So far, Boasberg has not yet ruled on the stay motion, but he has steadily moved his investigation forward (while the appeals court did not unnecessarily slow him down), paying attention to whether there are sufficient grounds to file a criminal contempt of court referral.
All of this potentially sets the stage for a wave of weekend filings in district and appeals courts — and puts evidentiary hearings next week at risk of being blocked or at least postponed.
But the most important takeaway is that the Trump administration is desperate to prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
It would take a dissertation to reveal all the misleading elements of this single sentence from the petition for mandamus filed by the administration not long ago: “This long saga should never have begun; should not have continued at all after the last intervention of this Court; and should certainly not degenerate into the inappropriate and unnecessary inter-professional conflict that it now portends imminently. »
Boasberg must feel enlightened. This is part of the administration’s conduct throughout this matter.
The DOJ has been reluctant all week to file complaints that Boasberg could not or should not pursue its investigative inquiry further. Last week, she filed what Boasberg called “superficial statements” from Trump administration officials that concede little and offer no details or specificity. He attempted to use these statements — including that of former Trump DOJ official Emil Bove, who is now a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals — as a substitute for live testimony. When Boasberg ordered live testimony anyway, he asked her to reconsider.
In its call for the DC Circuit to intervene, the administration also asks it to remove Boasberg from the case, in a purely political attack on its integrity: “The Court should also order reassignment of the case given the strong appearance that the District Judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this case impartially.” »
The administration’s fierce response against Boasberg appears designed not only to spare DOJ and DHS officials from possible criminal liability, but also to protect the White House. The administration improbably said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was the final caller when the decision was made to continue AEA deportations despite Boasberg’s order. Think of Noem as a firewall between Boasberg and the White House. I suspect that the more Boasberg is able to uncover who did what over that March weekend, the harder the claim that the buck really stopped at Noem will become to support.
With the help of the DC Circuit, the administration has already succeeded in delaying the contempt investigation once, from April to November. When the D.C. Circuit finally returned the contempt investigation to Boasberg, it was a confusing mess. But the appeals court appeared to leave a path for Boasberg to move forward. Now, Trump’s DOJ is working to close that avenue for Boasberg and prevent the contempt of court investigation from moving forward.
Late update: Shortly after posting this message, Boasberg rejected the administration’s request to reconsider holding hearings next week. In a terse three-page text, Boasberg rejected virtually all the claims made by the administration, but he began by recalling the issues:
To begin with, this investigation is not an academic exercise. Approximately 137 men were removed from that country without being heard and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many were mistreated and possibly tortured, despite a court order barring their disembarkation.
Boasberg reiterated that the D.C. Circuit gave him leeway to pursue the contempt investigation. He again dismissed as insufficient sworn statements from administration officials in lieu of live testimony. But Boasberg also offered new comments that don’t bode well for the government:
- He called Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint “important new information.”
- He particularly drew attention to the March 14 meeting on the impending AEA evictions that Reuveni previously described, the one in which Bove allegedly told DOJ lawyers that they should consider telling the court to “fuck you”:
What happened at the March 14 meeting with Justice Department lawyers (including Emil Bove, Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign), for example, may well help inform the officials’ decisions the next day and their mental states. And not everything said in such a meeting will necessarily be covered by attorney-client privilege…
- He largely rejected the DOJ’s assertions that attorney-client privilege would prevent much of the testimony Boasberg sought. “[T]”To the extent that future contempt was contemplated, the felony-fraud exception would vitiate any privilege,” wrote Boasberg, who seemed receptive to the privilege arguments of attorneys representing the AEA expellees. “Plaintiffs have pointed out numerous reasons why the privilege might well not apply.”
For administrative reasons, Boasberg also denied the administration’s request to suspend next week’s hearings until the appeals court rules.
Back to top button
