This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The news has been filled in recent months with instances of federal judges delivering attacks on the administration of President Donald Trump, releasing rulings that take control of Executive Branch decisions, restrict Trump's programs to secure the border and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores.
Those cases have involved cutting federal spending, removing illegal aliens, eliminating destructive DEI programs, protecting children from transgender ideologies, and mutilations, stopping anti-Semitism and much more.
There has been the appearance of bias in the judiciary.
The news has been filled in recent months with instances of federal judges delivering attacks on the administration of President Donald Trump, releasing rulings that take control of Executive Branch decisions, restrict Trump's programs to secure the border and remove illegal alien criminals from U.S. shores.
Those cases have involved cutting federal spending, removing illegal aliens, eliminating destructive DEI programs, protecting children from transgender ideologies, and mutilations, stopping anti-Semitism and much more.
There has been the appearance of bias in the judiciary.
Further, Boasberg also was at the center of activism before President Trump's first term when he 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."
He went even further in his agenda, the report said: "Boasberg would later find 'the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court' by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court's written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither."
Cleveland explained that Boasberg and his colleague "prejudged Trump as a scofflaw," even though that's not the case.
