Connect with us

News

‘Absolute Nonsense’: Bondi Blasted for Saying Judge Has ‘No Right’ to Question DOJ

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is the latest official to expand the Trump administration’s attack on the judicial branch of government, denouncing U.S. Chief District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is questioning their use of an 18th century wartime-only law and attempting to determine whether or not the administration violated his Saturday order to redirect planes sending detainees to an El Salvador “slave jail.”

Bondi appeared on Fox News on Wednesday afternoon (video below) to discuss the questions Judge Boasberg has asked the Trump administration to answer, after it had refused to order the planes to return, saying the aircraft were over international waters and therefore he had no lawful authority to make the order.

Bondi appeared on Fox News Wednesday afternoon (video below) to discuss the questions Judge Boasberg has posed to the Trump administration, which had declined to order the planes’ to turn around, arguing that once they were over international waters, Boasberg lacked the legal authority to order their return.

When asked how the Department of Justice will respond, Bondi lashed out.

“Well, well, our our our lawyers are working on this, we will answer appropriately, but what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions,” the Attorney General declared. “You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over and there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now. Because those people are out of this country.”

READ MORE: White House Press Secretary Schooled on ‘Democrat Activist’ Judge Trump Wants Impeached

She continued: “The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.”

Bondi also blasted the judge for recognizing that time was a critical factor in this matter.

Judge Boasberg “came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice at any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom, you know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges you just spoke about that. It’s been a pattern with what they’ve been doing. This judge had no right to do that,” Bondi claimed, wrongly identified tidying Boasberg as a “liberal judge.”

“They’re meddling in foreign affairs, they’re meddling in our government, and the question should be, why is the judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens?” she asked.

Questions have been raised about why none of the 261 deportees have been publicly identified, why most were not criminally charged, and why none appeared before a federal judge before being sent to a brutal mega-prison in El Salvador—a country to which few, if any, have ties.

READ MORE: ‘Delusional’ Schumer Spirals in ‘Devastating’ New Interview as Leadership Crisis Deepens

“You know, TdA is a terrorist organization,” Bondi said, referring to Tren de Aragua, “they are organized, that they have a government structure within them. They are sending money not only throughout this country to each other, but back to Venezuela, they are a terrorist organization and we are not going to have that in our country.”

Attorney and immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick blasted Bondi.

“This is such absolute nonsense because the judge isn’t trying to control anything about foreign policies, he’s trying to figure out if his court order was violated,” Reichlin-Melnick remarked. “Bondi simply is refusing to engage with the reality of what is happening in the court case.”

The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell posted an excerpt from Judge Boasberg’s order: “The Court seeks this information, not as a ‘micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition’, but to determine if the govt deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.”

With the video below or at this link.

RELATED: Trump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant

 

Image via Reuters

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

These 19 Democrats May Already Be Jockeying for a Presidential Run: Report

Published

on

The November midterms are more than nine months away, but already there are well over a dozen Democrats who could be showing signs of interest in running for the White House in 2028.

That’s according to Zenith Research pollster Adam Carlson, who identified nineteen Democrats with varying degrees of proximity to a presidential race.

The list includes current and former U.S. Senators, Congress members, governors, and mayors. One former cabinet secretary, one former ambassador, and one former astronaut. But overall, the list is heavy with executive experience — not just Washington politicians. That could be a feather in the cap for Democrats, as the GOP’s current bench appears to be drawn largely from inside the Trump administration — and voters may not want four, if not eight, more years of the same.

Nearly all have accumulated years — and in some cases, decades — of experience in government, spanning local, state, and national offices, yet none is older than in their mid-60s. The youngest is currently just one year beyond the Constitution’s 35-year age threshold. And today, after nearly a decade of some of the oldest U.S. presidents in history, that age range could bring a sigh of relief for many voters.

Many also hail from across the country, rather than being concentrated among so-called coastal elites — a longstanding critique often leveled at Democrats.

READ MORE: ‘Damage Control’: Trump Mocked for New Weekly Barnstorming Blitz Months Ahead of Midterms

Carlson divided the list into categories. Five are “clearly running,” six seem likely, four fall into a “wouldn’t be surprised” section, and just one is seen as “unlikely.” The future of two could depend on the 2026 race, and one is a “wildcard.”

Here are Carlson’s predictions:

Those clearly signaling a run include Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear; former U.S. Transportation Secretary and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg; former Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador Rahm Emanuel — who also served in the Obama White House; California Governor Gavin Newsom; and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

The “seems likely” group ranges from former Newark mayor and current U.S. Senator Cory Booker, to former Vice President Kamala Harris, along with U.S. Senator and former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Under “wouldn’t be surprised,” are U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (AOC), and U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen.

The “unlikely” candidate, according to Carlson, is Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

The two “depends on 2026” candidates are both U.S. Senators, and both from Georgia: Senator Jon Ossoff and Senator Raphael Warnock.

Lastly, the “wildcard”: political commentator and television host Jon Stewart.

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

‘Damage Control’: Trump Mocked for New Weekly Barnstorming Blitz Months Ahead of Midterms

Published

on

As his poll numbers continue to drop, the White House is announcing that President Donald Trump will begin a weekly barnstorming blitz of the country to rally supporters with stump speeches designed to change voters’ perceptions that high prices are Trump’s fault.

“Trump’s first stop will be on Tuesday in Iowa, where he will deliver a speech on the economy and energy, chief of staff Susie Wiles told reporters on the way to Davos, Switzerland,” Politico reported. “The travel blitz beginning in January is much earlier than during his first term, when he began traveling aggressively to support candidates just after Labor Day.”

“Trump has struggled to articulate an affordability message that moves the needle with voters, and a purposeful tack back to domestic matters could help that perception,” Politico noted, adding that “polling has regularly shown Trump’s popularity slipping and voters beginning to blame his policies for the high cost of living.”

According to Zeteo News’ Prem Thakker, Trump is running negative — and in some cases double-digit negative — in a dozen states that will hold elections for the U.S. Senate this November. Thakker cited data from The Economist, which also shows that the president’s net approval rating is now -19 percent, down two points from last week and “the lowest it has been this term.”

READ MORE: DOJ Delay Continues as Judge Denies Epstein Files Special Master

Some of those state ratings, Thakker noted, include:
Georgia: -18.6%
Maine: -18.4%
Texas: -17.2%
Michigan: -15.8%
N Carolina: -13.6%

Meanwhile, some appeared optimistic.

“As President Trump barnstorms the country to advance his America First agenda, Republicans are poised to defy history in the midterms,” Republican National Committee spokesperson Kiersten Pels told Politico.

Others took a different view.

The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell rejected former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) spokesperson Katie Miller’s suggestion that Trump’s travel to Iowa means that he’s “running.”

“This is a hilarious tweet,” Longwell wrote. “Trump isn’t going to Iowa because he is running. He’s going for damage control because his tariffs have made the state a pickup for Democrats.”

The Lincoln Project added, “Trump’s ‘Affordability Hoax’ heads to Iowa to tell Iowans that everything’s fine, despite their worst-in-the-country economy.”

On Tuesday, CNN’s John King reported that while Democrats understand that Iowa will be an uphill battle, they see opportunity.

“Democrats have a huge opportunity and Republicans acknowledge it,” King also told Anderson Cooper. “If the election were tomorrow, the Democrats would take back the House without question. The only part is the margin.”

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

DOJ Delay Continues as Judge Denies Epstein Files Special Master

Published

on

Thirty-three days after the Trump Department of Justice was required by law to release the Epstein Files — but failed to produce even one percent of them — a federal judge has rejected a bipartisan effort to appoint a special master to oversee production of the documents.

U.S. Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), went to court to make their request. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer declined that request, stating that he does not have the authority to appoint a special master.

“Their request is ‘important’ and ‘timely,’ but the appropriate vehicle may be a lawsuit or Congress, the judge says,” according to All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld.

“This criminal case does not give the Court any charter to supervise DOJ’s compliance with the EFTA,” Judge Engelmayer wrote, as New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman reported. “And the motion exceeds the bounds of permissible amici participation. This decision is without prejudice to the Representatives’ right to initiate a separate lawsuit. The Representatives are also, of course, at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools available to Congress.”

READ MORE: ‘Can Barely Keep His Eyes Open’: Trump Mocked Over ‘Ramblefest’ Davos Speech

On Tuesday, Crane-Newman reported that attorneys for the two congressmen had renewed “their push to seek a special master to oversee the Epstein files release, saying the government ‘cannot be relied upon to act with disinterest and objectively to do what is best for the survivors. It has its own conflicting interests.'”

Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg, earlier on Wednesday, told MSNOW, “I don’t think we’ll see the entire file until Trump is out of office.”

“I think part of the problem here for Congressmen Khanna and Massie is that the law that they wrote is riddled with loopholes. It does not have an enforcement mechanism. So they’re trying to figure out how to get the DOJ to turn over all the documents, but there’s nothing in the law that forces them to do so under penalty of whatever,” he explained.

Aronberg called it “a real big question whether or not they, as members of Congress, have the standing to get this judge in a closed case to force the DOJ to turn over the documents.”

READ MORE: Canadian Prime Minister Warns World Order Has Ruptured

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.