DOJ pushes back at ‘digressive micromanagement’ of interfering judge and his 5 questions

The Department of Justice is accusing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of “digressive micromanagement” for his latest demands of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The DOJ is also seeking more time to answer five questions after Boasberg gave the administration until noon on Tuesday to submit proof that it did not violate his court order from Saturday. The temporary order blocked Trump from using the Enemy Alien Act to swiftly deport illegal aliens accused of having ties to the bloodthirsty Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela without undergoing standard immigration proceedings. This order included the demand to turn around all aircraft that were on their way at the time the order was issued. This has become a point of contention, leading to accusations that Trump violated the order by not bringing the planes back to the United States.

A filing co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and several others slammed the court.

“The Court has now spent more time trying to ferret out information about the Government’s flight schedules and relations with foreign countries than it did in investigating the facts before certifying the class action in this case,” it reads. “That observation reflects how upside-down this case has become, as digressive micromanagement has outweighed consideration of the case’s legal issues.”

“The distraction of the specific facts surrounding the movements of an airplane has derailed this case long enough and should end until the Circuit Court has had a chance to weigh in. The Government respects this Court and has complied with its request to present the Government’s position on the legality of the Court’s [Temporary Restraining Order] and the Government’s compliance with that TRO,” the filing continues. “Whether and how to invoke that privilege involves both weighty considerations and specific procedures that are not amenable to the 21-hour turnaround period currently provided by this Court’s order.”

“The underlying premise of these orders, including the most recent one requiring the production of these facts ex parte today at noon, is that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch, particularly on non-legal matters involving foreign affairs and national security. The Government disagrees. The two branches are coequal, and the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end,” the DOJ noted.

The five questions Boasberg demanded the DOJ answers are as follows:

1) What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where?

2) What time did it leave U.S. airspace?

3) What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)?

4) What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody?

5) How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?”

Additionally, the department claimed the “disclosure of the information sought could implicate the affairs of United States allies and their cooperation with the United States Government in fighting terrorist organizations” and “such disclosure would unquestionably create serious repercussions for the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.”

Writer/Columnist

Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to BizPac Review.

Latest posts by Sierra Marlee (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.