Congress
Trump calls for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportations
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for the impeachment of the federal judge who ordered a two-week halt to his efforts to remove Venezuelan migrants using extraordinary war powers that haven’t been invoked for decades.
Trump’s call to remove U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. — is the first time since taking office for his second term that he’s asked Congress to seek a judge’s removal, joining increasingly pointed calls by his top donor and adviser Elon Musk and a segment of his MAGA base.
Trump also suggested that “many” of the judges who have ruled against him in other cases should be impeached as well. It’s a significant incursion on the judiciary that comes as Trump has asserted unprecedented unilateral power over federal spending — despite Congress’ constitutional power of the purse — and sweeping authority to remove executive branch officials that previous presidents believed were protected by law.
Although the call represents a significant escalation, any impeachment effort is all but certain to be doomed in Congress, where narrow Republican majorities would lack the votes to remove a judge along party lines. Congress has been loath to entertain impeachment efforts for judges based purely on rulings they disagree with and has typically invoked the extraordinary procedures in cases of clear corruption or misconduct.
Trump, in a post on Truth Social Tuesday morning, called Boasberg a “troublemaker and agitator.” The president also boasted of his sweeping electoral win, underscoring the mandate he believes he was given by the American people to govern. (Judges are given lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure and shifts in public opinion.)
“FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” Trump wrote. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do.”
For Trump, the attack on Boasberg is also an attempt to settle a score with a significant figure in his long-running criminal cases. Boasberg, as the chief judge, presided over key aspects of the grand jury proceedings that led to Trump’s criminal charges in Washington, D.C. for his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Among Boasberg’s decisions: Requiring former Vice President Mike Pence to testify to the grand jury over Trump’s objection, and ruling that hundreds of emails from Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) should be disclosed to investigators.
Boasberg also presided over some of the grand jury proceedings related to Trump’s criminal case for hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has warned of the pernicious threat of politically motivated calls for the impeachment of judges over disagreements on rulings.
“Public officials … regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges — for example, suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations,” Roberts wrote in a New Year’s Eve message last year. “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”
Prior to Trump’s social media post, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing Tuesday that she had “not heard the president talking about impeachment.” But Trump allies, including conservative lawyer Mike Davis, had been floating a possible impeachment of Boasberg throughout the day on cable and conservative news networks.
The White House has, however, brushed off the idea that Trump’s expanding assertions of power over his coequal branches is causing a constitutional crisis, arguing that it is the courts who are overstepping their legal authority. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have largely been content to allow Trump to override their prerogatives.
In court on Monday, Boasberg peppered the administration with questions about whether it had deliberately ignored his order to turn around planes carrying the deportees — an argument the Justice Department responded to by arguing that his verbal order did not count, only his written order.
The Justice Department has also asked a federal appeals court to have Boasberg removed from the case, but the appeals court has not yet acted on their demand. The administration is due to respond to Boasberg’s request for information about the flights by noon Tuesday.
A key U.S. spy law remains on track to expire at the end of the week after Speaker Mike Johnson met with President Donald Trump Tuesday about the future of a key section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Trump indicated in the private White House that he’s not inclined to appease Democrats and pave the way for a FISA extension by nominating a permanent director of national intelligence to succeed Bill Pulte, the acting director he installed last week, according to three people briefed on the conversation who were granted anonymity to describe it.
Most Democrats are refusing to move forward with any FISA extension so long as Pulte, a close political ally of the president with no national security experience, remains in the intelligence post. Some Republicans have been hoping a new Trump nomination could provide an off-ramp ahead of the quickly approaching FISA deadline.
But the people briefed on the meeting were left with the impression it didn’t go very well as Trump continues to push back on any suggestion that he needs to placate Democrats to pave the way for a FISA extension.
Johnson told reporters Tuesday the meeting went well but declined to discuss specifics. He added that “Democrats have taken a hostage” and that the Senate would need to quickly figure out a path forward.
Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant Lesley Groff said in a closed-door interview Tuesday that she arranged phone calls between the late, disgraced financier and President Donald Trump, two Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told reporters.
“I believe she referred to a time before, before Mr. Trump was president, that she did arrange for multiple phone calls between the two,” Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said of Groff, who worked for Epstein for around 18 years beginning in 2001.
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) also said that Groff told the panel that “she arranged calls for them to connect,” referring to the president and Epstein, but that those calls were not frequent.
Groff is on Capitol Hill to speak to the Oversight committee as part of its ongoing Epstein investigation. Trump has insisted he cut off ties with Epstein years before his death and has not been charged with any misconduct, but Democrats have repeatedly questioned whether the administration has worked to cover up evidence of a continued relationship.
“Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson in a statement. “And by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”
Groff was never charged with any wrongdoing, but in a class-action lawsuit against the co-executors of Epstein’s estate, she is cited as “Epstein’s secretary who made travel arrangements for the girls, tended to their living needs, and scheduled massage sessions.” She also was named as an unindicted co-conspirator as part of Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement.
A key player in Epstein’s orbit throughout his life, Groff’s name is featured prominently in the Epstein files rolled out by the Justice Department late last year, showing her on the front lines of arranging meetings on her former boss’s behalf.
But behind closed doors Tuesday, lawmakers said Tuesday that Groff sought to distance herself from Epstein’s improprieties, telling the Oversight committee she did not see Epstein engage in misconduct.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) said in an interview that he did not believe it was “remotely plausible” for Groff to be oblivious to Epstein’s deeds.
“He was a registered sex offender, and she arranged young women for massages with a registered sex offender, and I just question whether, whether she can rightfully and truthfully maintain that she saw nothing improper,” said Lynch.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) said in an interview Monday night he was eager to “get [Groff] on the record, so that when we find out later she was lying, we can arrest her.”
An attorney for Groff did not return a request for comment.
House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Ted Lieu hammered a bipartisan AI framework Tuesday, saying the proposal his colleagues introduced last week “cannot meet the enormity of the moment.”
Lieu, who is also one of three members on an AI commission convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, said at his weekly news conference that the regulatory blueprint championed by his fellow Californian, Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte — and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) — “was not something that would work, because there’s a lot of issues it does not cover.”
Lieu said he welcomes other House Democrats to engage on the topic, but suggested that Trahan and Obernolte had failed to win over adequate support to make their framework politically viable. Their 269-page draft bill would, among other things, override some state AI laws, drawing attacks from many House Democrats and safety advocates.
“In Congress you have to build a consensus, you actually have to get groups and members of Congress and organizations to support what you’re trying to do,” Lieu added. “The particular framework that was released last week got intense pushback from the civil rights community, the labor community, AI safety folks — and so you know, if we’re to get something done, we need to build consensus and build a coalition, and that’s the first step that needs that.”
His unsparing comments are a blow not only to efforts to find common ground on a thorny policy matter, but also expose deeper rifts among Democrats as the party has struggled to coalesce around a unified vision for how to regulate the emerging technology.
Trahan has said she jumped into AI negotiations with Republicans because she is worried about mass economic and humanitarian disruption from Anthropic’s Mythos model, necessitating quick legislative action and cross-party dealmaking. Lieu said he is well aware of the urgency to produce a framework to regulate AI, insisting his commission would roll out its own proposal by the end of the year.
“Shortly after OpenAI released ChatGPT to the world, I wrote an op-ed in the New York Times that was titled, essentially, ‘AI freaks me out,’” Lieu said. “I am well aware of the urgency, many people are well aware of the urgency, so it’s not lost on the people working on this issue that we need to urgently get something done.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words