This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An anti-Trump judge in the federal judiciary now has been described as a "threat to the rule of law," by an official in the Department of Justice.
The comments come from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and are about James Boasberg, who repeatedly has used his own agendas in his court rulings that have struck down the president's.
In one case, he demanded that the president order airplanes carrying illegal alien criminals on deportation flights be turned around mid-air and brought back to the U.S., without regarding to whether those jets had enough fuel to do that.
Those airplanes were outside of American airspace already, however, and the White House explained Boasberg's jurisdiction didn't extend to international locations and foreign countries.
It was revealed this week that Boasberg, at a recent judicial conference, had made disparaging remarks about Trump, even though he's supposed to be neutral on issues and people in his court, where Trump is a defendant in a number of cases brought by activists trying to undermine his agenda for America.
A report at the Washington Examiner said Blanche was responding to Boasberg's comments and said, the judge was in "serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law."
"This memo confirms that at least some federal judges were predisposed against the Trump administration," Blanche wrote. "Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum."
The report noted, "Other senior DOJ officials, including Chad Mizelle, called the report 'very troubling' and said it 'perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg (which was unsurprisingly stayed by the D.C. Circuit).'"
WND reported on the revelations about Boasberg's criticisms of Trump.
It was in a report at the Federalist that investigative reporter and senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland revealed Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., advised Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that his colleagues were "concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
Boasberg is the chief judge in the judicial district and has been at center of a judicial campaign to prevent Trump's agenda to secure the American borders and deport illegal aliens, those who are in the United States illegally, and often have committed subsequent crimes.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when Trump was under attack in the fabricated Russiagate conspiracy theory launched by the Hillary Clinton campaign and others with lies about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.
Boasberg was chosen for his job by leftist Barack Obama, who now is just one subject of a congressional investigation into a vast conspiracy that developed in Washington targeting Trump.
Boasberg, in fact, when sentencing an ex-FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who admitted doctoring a 2017 email regarding Deep State's work against Trump, refused to give him any prison time but told him to do community service.
Boasberg ruled against Trump in one deportation dispute and told him to order airplanes carrying illegal aliens out of the United States to turn around mid-air and come back.
The White House responded that the jets, carrying the "terrorist alien" individuals, already had left U.S. airspace and the judge had no jurisdiction there.
Federal judges already have heard hundreds of claims by those wanting to stop Trump's agenda to remove unneeded personnel from federal payrolls, stop handing billions of tax dollars to unfriendly foreign interests and more.
As a result of the campaign by district judges to target Trump's actions, the Supreme Court intervened and said they were misusing their offices by repeatedly ordering nationwide injunctions against Trump's agenda. The court said those judges haven't been granted the constitutional authority to do that.
The Federalist reported it obtained access to a memo from a recent Judicial Conference meeting in Washington.
That group is the national policymaking body for federal courts.
"That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges' clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties," the Federalist reported.
At the meeting, the report said, "a side conversation at the group's most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration."
The memo explained, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
The Federalist noted the memo continued, "Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize."
The report pointed out, "Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court's orders."
The report noted, "Judge Boasberg's comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges' 'concern' also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C."
The Federalist noted just days later, "Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law."
