11-17-25 - 10am - Alien Enemies Act & Judge Boasberg

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, as usually you appear to be at least one
step ahead of the rest of the people talking about
whatever's going on. And I appreciate that Oka zero A, and.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
I appreciate that you do appreciate it, because I tell
you there are some people who think I'm five steps
behind what everybody else is talking about. I appreciate that
you appreciate that he appreciates it. Yes, and we're all
very appreciative of just everything today. I again, if you
want me to read a text message from you, and

(00:34):
I know that many of you obviously desperately want me
to read your text messages, and you have to send
it to three three one zero three keyword Mike or Michael,
because I ain't reading the others, So just you got it.
You know, I know life is difficult. I know life
is hard. I know that, Oh my gosh, I gotta
punch in another number, which you don't have to remember.

(00:58):
You can put it in your list of favorites three
three one zero three, and then whenever I piss you off,
you can just type in Mike until you kissed me off,
and I'll read it and then I'll not care You're
gonna have I'm telling you, this audience is going to
have to learn that I just don't care. Well, if

(01:21):
you don't care, that you don't care, and I don't
care that you don't care, nobody cares, and nobody cares
that we don't care. Early in the evening Friday, the
District Court Court of Appeals issued an order that denied
an en bank review of an earlier judge's paneled decision
that halted efforts by Judge Boseburg to conduct the hearing

(01:44):
on whether or not to hold certain Department of Justice
attorneys in contempt because they had defied his order to
bring back planes carrying alien enemies to Al Salvador, all
being done pursuant to a presidential order that invoked the
Alien Enemies Act. Now, just so you understand what the

(02:05):
the mechanics of the procedure what I just described, a
three judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals had
reviewed a decision by Judge Boseburg that ordered these planes
to turn around in mid air and come back, all
in violation of Donald Trump's presidential order and invoking the

(02:28):
Alien Enemies Act. So they peeled that decision from that
three judge panel to what's called an en banc review
of the entire all of the judges. Well, they denied
that hearing, so they just let us stand. Now, I've
talked about this before. I've talked about Trump invoking the

(02:49):
Alien Enemies Act. Now I know it was over there,
so you'd have to go listen to that. But I've
talked about him invoking the Alien Enemies Act. I've talked
about this dispute between the Trump administration and this particular
federal judge over removing alien enemies from the country. I've
talked about the Skota's decision on deporting alien enemies, which
is a win. I talked about the probable cause for

(03:12):
this judge to try to find contempt for the Trump
administration not following the orders precisely because the planes were
already in the air, and how the reversal of Judge
Boseburg's contempt finding for not having moved the planes fast enough.
But any contempt finding might be short lived. Now, that's

(03:32):
a pretty long list, but to save you to give
you a summary, let me just give you a quick summary.
Back of March fourteen, on a Saturday afternoon, Judge Boseburg
had an emergency heard an emergency motion for a temporary
restraining order trying to stop the deportation of various illegal

(03:53):
aliens from Venezuela and Nel Salvador who were being prepared
that day for transportation out of the country. At the
end of the hearing, Judge Boseburg decided that he had jurisdiction.
He certified a provisional class of plaintiffs. He did that
because he was trying to comply with the Supreme Court
decision that says you can't enter these nationwide injunctions unless

(04:14):
you have a true class action. And the Supreme Court
warned these trial judges, if you're going to certify a class,
you better follow the statute about certifying a class. So
this trial judge tried to do that, and he tried
to include in the class everybody, every individual being deported

(04:34):
under the president's order invoking the Alien's Alien Enemies Act.
And then he ordered any deportations of anybody that fit
that class to be halted, and he also ordered that
any planes in the air with those members on the
planes to be turned around. Two planes went on to
El Salvador, where about two hundred were held in custody

(04:57):
of the Salvadoran government. Pursuant to our agreement with Salvadoran government.
Two days later, on March sixteenth, the same judge held
its hearing to gather information about the events after he
had issued his temporary restraining order. Then, on April nine,
the DC Court of Appeals declined to hear the Justice

(05:18):
Department's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court
granted to stay, meaning they said, look, your temporary restraining
order doesn't have any effect. And it also found the
Supreme Court did that this judge didn't have any jurisdiction
over the complaint by the Plainists who were still being
held in Texas prior to their removal. But that Supreme

(05:40):
Court decision didn't address the issue of whether they had
unlawfully denied his temporary restraining order. So I mean that's
a legal issuer. Just understand they didn't do that. Then
on April fourteenth, the same judge holds a hearing to
further explore again the offense going back to March fifteen,
and what did the Department of Justice attorneys understand his

(06:06):
order to be, who they communicated with, what steps were
taken to comply with the order. Two days later, he
issues a probable cause finding that justified a trial and
actual trial of the Department of Justice lawyers, which he
ordered the Department of Justice to identify every lawyer that
made part of this decision, and he was going to

(06:29):
he was going to have them tried on charges of
criminal contempt for willfully defying his March fifteen order that
the planes be turned around. Then fast forward to August,
a three judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals
granted a rid a mandamus which set aside his probable
cause finding for the criminal contempt charge that was the

(06:52):
basis to be the trial of these Department of Justice lawyers.
The panel had two Trump appointees, one Obama a point.
But remember it was a three to zero decision. But
now each of them had different reasons for their decision,
but they all came the same conclusion. Yesterday, order of

(07:14):
the full Appeals Court, which be I think a total
of eleven judges for the DC's Circuit, they denied a
review of that earlier panel's decision. Now, contrary to reports
in the media and consistent with the practice of all
the other appellate courts, the order does not give the
result of any vote taking It only says that the

(07:35):
majority of the votes in favor of having the all
eleven judges review the decision, there were not enough votes
to do that. What the order does show is that
three specific judges wrote a dissent from the denial to
allow them to proceed. Judgest Pan and Child's Now, it's

(07:57):
curious the Judge pillar who descended you're on a fifty
page opinion as part of the panel, he did not
vote in favor of all eleven judges reviewing it because
she thought it was wrong to do so. Judge Pillard
authored a statement joined by Wilkins and Garcia, the other
two judges, that rests on Judge Row's opinion part of

(08:18):
the original panel, the opinion that did not include the
dismissal the criminal contempt proceedings. So that accounts for three
judges in the descent. It also accounts for three judges
who did not vote for the full eleven judges reviewing him.
The remaining five judges didn't say anything. All we know
is they did not vote in favor of the en
banc or the all eleven judges reviewing it. So compare

(08:41):
that so they in essence, here's what's happened. They agreed
the probable cause finding by this judge Boseburg should be vacated.
In other words, he should not be able to proceed
with criminal contempt charges against the Apartment of Justice attorneys. Now,

(09:05):
think about what one judge wrote near the end of
her concurrence. Lastly, she writes a word about the appropriateness
of the specific mandamous remedy we grant today in issuing
the writ we vacate. In other words, we set aside
the trial judge's probable cause order, but we do not

(09:25):
grant the government's request to terminate the criminal content proceedings.
In the end, this judge agreed with Judge pillar that
the criminal content proceedings should be sent back to Joe's
Burgh for further proceedings. But the judge that just said
what I told you agreed with another judge that the

(09:49):
probable cause order already entered has to be set aside.
In fact, Judge raw, the judge I'm speaking of, would
allow the trial judge to just start all over again.
And that is exactly what those three judges relied upon.
Based upon the statement by Judge Pillard, and joined by
those two other judges, their reasoning is absolutely absurd. Judge

(10:15):
Bosberg's order was that compliance with the remedy purging the
contempt would put an end to the matter. In other
whereas there would be no further contempt proceedings, either civil
or criminal. It wouldn't be necessary. Now, criminal contempt proceedings
are not about complying with the court's order. Criminal contempt

(10:35):
proceedings are intended to result in criminal punishments of the offender,
including jail or monetary funds. The purpose is to vindicate
the authority of the court and to ensure compliance with
the Court's orders in the future. That has been in
essence these judges, that these eleven judges that looked at

(11:03):
the three panel judges have said, based on a majority, no,
you cannot go forward. Now, I know the statement speaks
for only certain of the judges, but here's what it
really boils down to. That is we're in the middle

(11:24):
of a constitutional stress test. Donald Trump won a second
term on a promise to restore borders, to disentangle the
federal government from all this social engineering going on by progressings,
and to return power to voters rather than bureaucrats. Now,
you can't do that if one single federal district judge

(11:46):
city in Washington, d C. Can repeatedly entangle the entire
administration in lawsuits while sitting on cases that overlap with
his own family's income streams and with their ideal logical projects.
In other words, this judge's family is getting money from

(12:07):
Democrat NGOs, and some of his family members work for
the Democrats. This judge needs to go. The problem is
not Trump's policies. The problem is the judge. And that
point has been reached with Chief Judge James Boseberg of

(12:31):
the DC District Court. He's not a neutral technocrat who
happened to just get a few controversial cases. He has
gotten almost every single controversial cases. Now, there is a
random assignment process for cases to be assigned to judges.

(12:53):
We don't know how, but that random process has been
abandoned in the DC, in the DC Trial Court, and
this same judge that i'll tell you more about in
just a minute has gotten every controversial case, and in
every controversial case, has decided against Donald Trump. So let

(13:18):
me tell you about Judge Boseburg. He's an Obama appointed Democrat.
His family is woven into progressive nonprofits, into the abortion industry,
and his rulings have repeatedly protected the very policy policies
that feed that progressive pipeline. In other words, if you

(13:41):
took all of the progressive policies, as I talked about
the homeless industry, if you took all of the progressive
policies and said there was a progressive politics industry. His
family is in the midst of that. That's how they
make their living. And here he is, as an Obama
appointee's sitting over here making all of these decisions with
these clear conflicts of interest. His wife runs a Medicaid

(14:06):
funded abortion clinic. His daughter manages a Usaid supported anti
deportation nonprofit let that sink in. His daughter runs a
federal taxpayer funded nonprofit that fights deportations. What are his
rulings stopping deportations? His household, his wife, his daughter, and

(14:33):
himself have poured thousands of dollars into Democrat campaigns that
depend on medicaid expansion, generous foreign aid through Usaid, and
Lucy Goosey immigration enforcement. He has then taken and kept
cases that directly affect that flow of money and that
power base, often in ways that later get trimmed back

(14:57):
or vacated by higher courts. There is something called the
appearance of impartiality. Judicial ethics requires the appearance of impartiality.
When you cross that threshold and you're now engaged in
what the judicial canon ethics canons would call the appearance

(15:20):
of partiality, it becomes very troubling. It becomes the appearance
of a rigged gain. Now, to start with his wife,
Elizabeth Manson, she is not an arms linked spouse who
just happens to vote Democrat. She's a political actor in

(15:42):
her own right. After Dobbs, the Dobbs decision that sent
the abortion issue back to the States, she founded something
called Metal Reproductive Health and Wellness. That's an abortion clinic
in Tyson's corner of Virginia. It openly advertises clinic abortion
up to fourteen weeks, and it takes Virginia Medicaid as

(16:03):
payment now all according to public reporting. Public reporting describes
her as serving women traveling from restrictive states. So if
you live in a restrictive state and yet you want
to get an abortion outside that state's restrictions, her clinic
specifically serves you and they take money, with fees approaching

(16:28):
nine hundred dollars and a business model built in part
on public insurance and the broader ecosystem of government supported
reproductive health funding. She's been photographed guiding Doug Imhoff, the
former Second Gentleman, of guiding former HHS Secretary Javier Makara

(16:49):
giving them tours of the clinic. What's that. It's a
visual reminder that this is not a neutral, neighborhood public
health practice. It is a node in the Democrat Party's
abortion infrastructure. Now, I don't care what your position is
on abortion. This is a direct conflict of interest. But

(17:11):
you're four against abortion. Doesn't make any difference to me.
She's actively engaged in Democrat politics, saying to after the
Dobbs decisions. But right after the Dobbs decision, Hey, let's
go open to clinic in Virginia and let's take Medicaid funding.
We'll take Virginia for Medicaid funding, and we will target
and market to people who want abortions who live in say,

(17:33):
red states that have restrictive abortion rules. Now, recall what
Judge Boseburg did to medicaid. So when the Trump administration
approved work requirements for able body adults in Kentucky and Arkansas,
now remember he's a judge city in VC. He struck

(17:54):
them down not once, but in a series of decisions
on the theory that Health and Human Services had not
adequately considered coverage losses in playing language. He did what
I'll tell you next.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
Did you change your time zone?

Speaker 2 (18:11):
Because for me it's the best thing ever.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
I always had to listen to your podcast because of
what I have.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
To do on my farm and ranch and when I
do it, And now I can listen to you live
and I'm outside doing all my chores. So thank you
and have a great day, and we can hear the
chickens and everything in the background, like a goose or
a dog. That was fantastic. You see, we don't we
have We have no clue what you said. I think

(18:38):
it was nice. She gets to listen to no podcasts anymore,
just listens live. But oh, we love the chickens and stuff.
I love it. So let's go back to Judge Bosberg
for a moment. And yes, some of you are kind
of figuring out where I'm headed with this. Surprise, surprise, surprise,
You're doing a good job there. He When states like

(19:03):
Arkansas and Kentucky decided to put a work requirement for
able bodied adults in place. He struck those down from
DC not once, but in a series of decisions. In
just Layman's terms, he used the Administrative Procedure Act to
preserve Medicaid as an open bodied or an open ended

(19:27):
entitlement for non working adults. He blocked states that wanted
to connect Medicaid benefits to a work requirement. Now, obviously
his ruling didn't name his wife's clinic by name, but
the financial financial implications are direct. Clinics that would build

(19:48):
Medicaid for abortion related care are obviously better. Often, mediciate
eligibility is very broad, generous, and it's not conditioned on anything.
So if you're the judge judge's wife, you've built a
practice that is taking Medicaid for abortions, Well, he should

(20:10):
never have sat in that case, much less kept it
for himself as a repeat assignment while he was the
chief judge. Now they rotate his chief judges, you know,
every every so often, But that's exactly what this judge did,
So taking everything else that he's done in terms of

(20:31):
taking away the random selection of judges, taking all the
controversial cases for himself, holding Department of Justice lawyers in
criminal contempt, having the entire eleven judges on the DC
Court of Appeals say Nope, can't do that. Still proceeding anyway,

(20:52):
this guy's got to go. And they have introduced articles
of impeachment. The real test will be whether or not
Republicans have the cajones to at least hold hearings. Just
let me give you a quick overview of impeachment proceedings.
So someone introduces articles of impeachment in the House against

(21:16):
not against Trump, everybody thinks, oh, it's gonna be at Trump.
Now I'm talking about Judge Boseburg. And this is not
this is not unprecedented. Other federal judges have been impeached before.
So this the articles will be introduced in the House.
Per the Constitution, they will hold an impeachment inquiry. That's

(21:37):
not really a full fledged hearing. That's more of Okay, let's,
you know, conduct some depositions, Let's do some investigation, Let's
talk to some people, Let's do some interviews. Let's conduct
an inquiry to see whether or not there is a
valid reason to take the next step, which is an
impeachment hearing. Then the House Judiciary Committee would then hold

(22:03):
a full fledged hearing, depositions, witnesses, public hearings. The entire
gamut is. You can imagine of a public hearing if
if the majority, which Republicans have a majority on the
House Judiciary Committee, if all Republicans, maybe even a couple
of Democrats, but I doubt it, But if all Republicans

(22:25):
voted to proceed with impeachment, it would then go to
the floor of the House for a vote. Once it
gets to the House floor, it'll be all sorts of
wrangling going on. Democrats will try to oppose it, they'll
try to block a procedure. You know, it'll just be
it'll be a cat fight on the floor of the House.
It will eventually get to a floor vote. Once it

(22:47):
gets to a floor vote, if a majority votes in
favor of impeachment, then gets set to the US Senate
and the Senate will hold a trial. It needs to
be done the same pattern that I've outlined of what
he's been doing repeats on immigration. I hated to use

(23:11):
the abortion example because many people's heads will either explode
or they'll quit listening because I use the term abortion.
But it was clear that what he was doing was
making certain that the foe of money, that pipeline to
his wife's clinic remained open because they were very specifically

(23:31):
targeting people who wanted abortions in states who had restrictive rules.
They target they market to those people. So he made
sure that Medicaid money kept flowing even though the cases
arose out of Kentucky in Arkansas, not the district of Columbia.
That same pattern in abortion you find on immigration cases

(23:55):
and Usaid cases, but this time it doesn't overlapp with
his wife. It overlaps with their daughter, Catherine. She works
as something called a capacity builder. She's an associated at
a non government organization and NGO called Partners for Justice.

(24:16):
She's embedded in the public defender offices and they advertise
holistic defense for indigent clients well that includes illegal aliens
and including some who are members of criminal migrant gangs,
including MS thirteen and Trendo Ragua. Partners for Justice is
not a charity funded by church base sales Nope. By

(24:41):
their very own description and by looking at their nine nineties,
roughly three quarters of the seventy five percent of their
budget comes from government grants, meaning taxpayer money. A substantial
share of that flows through federal channels and programs that
are hi directly into the USAID ecosystem. It's just in

(25:04):
the same over of decarceration, you know, let people out
of prisons, open borders advocacy, all these progressive philanthropies, sorows
align foundations that have spent decades constructing where legal services
blurs into political pressure, all with a goal of what

(25:28):
to keep criminal aliens in this inside the country and
inside the US court system. Why do you want to
keep them inside the US court system? Because now you
can claim and constitutionally so, the right to do process
and go through all of the immigration hearings before you
ever get an order of deportation. Don't get me wrong,

(25:52):
I think they're entitled to that. You may disagree with that,
but I think that once you're in the country, even
if you come illegally, now there is a one hundred
mile route well that says they can if they catch
you coming in illegally within one hundred miles of the border,
they can spin you around and send you right back.
But once you make it to Denver, once you make
it to Chicago or New York or LA no, you're

(26:13):
in the country illegally, and now you're entitled to all
the due process rights, both procedurally and substanty, that any
other criminal person would be entitled to. Well, they blur
that those legal services into political pressure because at the
same time that they represent these people, they also advocate

(26:34):
and they advocate within the court system. So against that backdrop,
that's the entirety backdrop. What I want to do next
is I want to look at his clash with Trump's
second term, and then you can make up your own mind.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
Michael, this Bozburg guy seems worse by the day. And
now I believe you said that his wife has and
runs an abortion clinic.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
That I feel gross.

Speaker 1 (27:08):
I have nothing to do with any of it's the
whole thing makes.

Speaker 2 (27:11):
Me feel ill. It's really a denigration of our judicial system.
And I think he is one of those judges that
should be removed. He needs to be impeached. By the way,
somebody mentioned and I double checked, he is the brother

(27:32):
of former Denver Public School superintendent Tom Boseburg. Yes. Uh.
He became superintendent after Governor Ritter appointed Bill Michael Bennett.
After Bill Ritter appointed Michael Bennett to be a US Senator. Now,
let's think about the backdrop of everything I've told you
about the wife and the daughter. In March of this year,

(27:57):
Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to support a bunch
of Venezuelans that were identified as members of Trenda Arragua.
The point was very straightforward, treat the cartels that aligned
with foreign nationals from a hostile regime as enemy aliens
and remove them quickly to protect you and I from

(28:18):
all of their criminal activity. The lawsuits landed, and by
random draw or otherwise, they landed on Chief Judge Bozburg's yes,
so he issued a temporary straining order halting the deportation flights,
went so far as to tell the government and open

(28:38):
courts to turn the planes around mid air, and then
started contemp proceedings when the administration continued to send the
deportees to a prison in l Salvador while the tro
was an effect. Now, what do you think about the
practicality of that? For a moment, once the plane leaves
American airspace and it's in the Gulf of America or

(29:02):
whatever their flight plan was, once they're outside the jurisdiction
of the United States, I would argue that the judges
jurisdiction stops at that border. They've already started, They're already
in flight. They're exercising, pardon me, they're exercising Trump's powers

(29:24):
of foreign policy, and he wants to step in and
charge the lawyers with criminal contempt. It just strikes that
these lawsuits aren't landing by random. They're landing because he's

(29:47):
looking for them, and as chief Judge, he's directing that
those cases be assigned to himself. Now, the Supreme Court
ultimately vacated his injunction on jurisdictional grounds. The DC's circuits,
i explained earlier, vacated his contempt findings, but the damage
gets done for weeks. Boseberg uses his power of the

(30:09):
chambers to slow walk a core plank of the administration's
border security campaign. Now for a judge whose daughter draws
a paycheck from government fund an anti deportation organizations working
with members of Trendo Arragua, that is precisely the kind
of case, in my opinion, where a refusal should have
been automatic. Partners for Justice and similar nonprofits thrive. They

(30:36):
thrive and grow when mass deportation is made difficult and
when illegal alien defendants remain within the US borders. Because
now they're available to be represented, they're available to get
social services, they're available to be used as test cases
to try to expand the rights of illegal aliens within
the country. Now, those same illegal aliens are badly herd

(31:00):
when a president or the executive branch can lawfully move
dangerous foreign nationals out of the country and not have
to have individualized hearings. Now, I don't think anybody needs
to prove a whispered phone call between the father and
the daughter. The question is what an objective citizen would think.
What would you think when learning that the judge blocking

(31:23):
the president's deportation flights has a daughter whose professional mission
is to stop deportations and those and that stopping a
deportations is backed by the very stream of federal money
that the administration is trying to discipline and reign in.
He needs to be impeached, or at least the court
needs to step in and the Supreme Court needs to

(31:45):
slap him down. No more national injunctions. Only people who
are within your jurisdiction can you enforce an injunction against Now,
eventually to make it to the Supreme Court, but until then,
somehow it's got to stop