?
Monday, April 7, 2025
Chilling Connections Between Anti-Trump Judge, Supreme Court Revealed
“The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. “The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own.” His remarks echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.
Boasberg, a native of Washington, D.C., earned a graduate degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 before attending Yale Law School, where he reportedly shared housing with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports. After graduating in 1990, Boasberg clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then joined the San Francisco law firm Keker & Van Nest as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later practiced at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington, D.C., from 1995 to 1996, Fox noted.
After working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the city. In 2011, President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He was confirmed by the Senate and officially received his commission on March 17, 2011.
Boasberg was later appointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) by Roberts to serve a seven-year term. The FISA Court consists of 11 federal judges, each selected by the chief justice. Judges on the court undergo extensive background checks and are tasked with reviewing and authorizing surveillance and wiretap requests from federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. Much of the court’s work is classified. Boasberg served as the presiding judge of the FISA Court from 2020 to 2021, after which he resumed his duties on the D.C. District Court.
Boasberg faced renewed criticism after being randomly assigned to oversee a lawsuit related to a leaked Signal chat involving the Trump administration. Following the assignment, Trump took to Truth Social to accuse Boasberg of “grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself.”
Davis also took to social media, writing, “Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb.”
Sunday, April 6, 2025
The Founding Fathers deeply distrusted judges. They thought the lawyer class was dangerous, and if given unbridled power they would undermine and destroy free society. Newt Gingrich April 1 2025
The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history.
In order to establish republican self-government, the American Founders had to solve these complicated problems. The solution they came up with is famously stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
This revolutionary truth, combining human reason and divine revelation, provided the basis for establishing religious liberty for the first time in human history.
By looking to the laws of nature (or laws of reason) and nature’s God as the ultimate justification for their revolution, the Founders were asserting that there was an objective moral order in the world because that world was created by a benevolent and reasonable God.
Since our minds are a gift from God, and He intended us to use them, we can perceive much of this moral order through our own rational faculties.
This natural moral order exists outside of our will—it exists whether we like it or not. We are born into both a physical and a moral world that we do not create. the laws of nature and nature’s God are fixed and unchanging. They serve as the ground for political authority and supply conventional or everyday law with sacred and transcendent authority. In establishing this foundation for American politics,the Founders -
First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality. Because the morality of the Bible and the morality of reason are compatible, one can be both a pious believer and a good citizen, while avoiding the contentious sectarian disputes that tore Europe apart.
Second, the separation of church and state becomes possible for the first time. The Declaration’s teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws “sacred” without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc. According to many Protestant ministers of the Founding era, this also allowed true Christianity to flourish for the first time because Christianity could be practiced by choice rather than by coercion.
Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other. It becomes possible to institutionalize religious liberty by prohibiting religious tests for office and keeping government out of the business of punishing heresy.
The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history. The question which we and all American patriots confront today is whether we still understand and appreciate this incredible gift of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the Founders.
Do we still have the knowledge and courage to keep alive the sacred fire of liberty?
Glenn Ellmers
Christianity was the first non-political religion in the West. Being a Christian was not a question of what political community you belonged to, it was a matter of faith or belief. While that was incredibly liberating—because it meant salvation was open to every human being—it created unprecedented challenges for politics and citizenship.
In order to establish republican self-government, the American Founders had to solve these complicated problems. The solution they came up with is famously stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
This revolutionary truth, combining human reason and divine revelation, provided the basis for establishing religious liberty for the first time in human history.
By looking to the laws of nature (or laws of reason) and nature’s God as the ultimate justification for their revolution, the Founders were asserting that there was an objective moral order in the world because that world was created by a benevolent and reasonable God.
Since our minds are a gift from God, and He intended us to use them, we can perceive much of this moral order through our own rational faculties.
This natural moral order exists outside of our will—it exists whether we like it or not. We are born into both a physical and a moral world that we do not create. the laws of nature and nature’s God are fixed and unchanging. They serve as the ground for political authority and supply conventional or everyday law with sacred and transcendent authority. In establishing this foundation for American politics,the Founders -
First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality. Because the morality of the Bible and the morality of reason are compatible, one can be both a pious believer and a good citizen, while avoiding the contentious sectarian disputes that tore Europe apart.
Second, the separation of church and state becomes possible for the first time. The Declaration’s teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws “sacred” without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc. According to many Protestant ministers of the Founding era, this also allowed true Christianity to flourish for the first time because Christianity could be practiced by choice rather than by coercion.
Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other. It becomes possible to institutionalize religious liberty by prohibiting religious tests for office and keeping government out of the business of punishing heresy.
The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history. The question which we and all American patriots confront today is whether we still understand and appreciate this incredible gift of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the Founders.
Do we still have the knowledge and courage to keep alive the sacred fire of liberty?
Glenn Ellmers
WH Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett: More Than 50 Countries Started Trade Negotiations This Weekend
Posted By Tim Hains On Date April 6, 2025
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the president promised all through the campaign that prices would come down right away. Said they’d come down right away. Now he's saying, hang tough. It won't be easy. How high are prices going to go? How long will they stay there?
KEVIN HASSETT: I actually saw in this story that you just gave, George, there's kind of like a logical disconnect between the stories – the competing stories that your team is using to attack President Trump.
On the one hand, you're saying that the countries are really angry, they're going to have to retaliate. On the other hand you're saying that consumers are going to bear the costs and it’s going to drive inflation up. But if U.S. consumers are bearing the cost, there's no reason for the countries to be angry. So, the fact is, the countries are angry and retaliating and, by the way, coming to the table.
I got a report from the USTR last night that more than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin a negotiation. But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff. And so, I don't think that you're going to see a big effect on the consumer in the U.S. because I do think that the reason why we have a persistent, long-run trade deficit these people have very inelastic supply. They've been dumping goods into the country in order to create jobs, say, in China.
And, George, also, I promise you, I'll answer your question directly and not filibuster. So, I'll stop with that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you base your – where do you base your conclusion that you're not going to see an increase in prices? Just about every economist who’s looked at this said you are going to see an increase in prices, including Goldman Sachs, including JP Morgan, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve?
HASSETT: Well, there might be some increase in prices. But the fact is that if we’re going to be a heavy burden on the U.S. consumer, then this trade deficit that for 30 years we've seen really since China entered the WTO would be something that would have gone down. It would have gone down over time. It would have responded to the prices.
The bottom line is that China entered the WTO in 2000. In the 15 years that followed, real incomes declined about $ 1,200 cumulatively over that time.
And so, if cheap goods were the answer -- if cheap goods were going to make Americans real wages, real welfare better off, then real incomes would have gone up over that time. Instead, they went down because wages went down more than prices went down.
So, we got the cheap goods at the grocery store, but then we had fewer jobs. And that's why President Obama and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and President Trump have come out saying, we've got to come up with a better policy, a policy that treats our workers fairly compared to everybody else.
And now, President Trump, true to his word, just like he promised during the campaign, just like he put into his campaign platform, he's delivering on his word.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right, but you also -- he also said prices were going to come down and he just conceded the prices are going to go up,
Also on Truth Social, the president retweeted a post that said the market drop was part of a deliberate strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates. Is that the president's strategy? If not, why did he post it?
HASSETT: Yeah -- that -- you know, the bottom line is the president has been talking about tariffs for 40 years and this is like been absolutely the policy that he's focused on in the campaign and throughout his political career. And you know, the cyclical cycle of the Fed, it comes and goes. That's a different matter.
But this is President Trump's desired policy. He's been arguing for it ever since. I think he was on “The View” 30, 40 years ago, and it's exactly -- the baseline tariff is exactly what he -- he put into the convention.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it his strategy --
HASSETT: So, this is not a surprise for anyone.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it his strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates, and that the market crash was part of that strategy?
HASSETT: We understand the Fed is an independent agency. We respect the independence of the Fed. But the president's allowed to have an opinion. The -- absolutely, the president's allowed to have an opinion but there's not going to be any political coercion over the Fed, for sure.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So -- so that is his strategy? Tank the market so the Fed will lower interest rates? Well, you just said the president's allowed to have an opinion. Is that his opinion or not?
HASSETT: He's not trying to tank the market. He's trying to deliver for American workers.
And -- I mean, what would you have him do? Again, real wages down 15 years in a row under the previous policy, and that's why Americans voted for him. They brought him in to turn the economy around for the American worker, and that's what he's focused on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm -- I'm just trying to get some clarity. Is that the strategy --
HASSETT: I’m going to give clarity.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, is that the president's strategy or not? He posted it. He said the strategy is to lower to -- for the markets to crash so the Fed lowers interest rates. Is that the president’s strategy?
HASSETT: It's not a strategy for the markets to crash. It is not a strategy for the markets to crash. It's a strategy to create a golden age in America for the American worker. That's his strategy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: JPMorgan says the risk of a recession has climbed to 60 percent. Your response?
HASSETT: We just had one of the stronger jobs reports I've seen in a long time. It was about 50 percent better than markets expected. It's the second one in a row. We've created already something like 10,000 auto jobs since President Trump took office, and I just got word -- anecdotal word last night that auto plants are adding second shifts in the U.S. in order to respond to these tariffs these days.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've also seen auto companies like Stellantis say they're having layoffs.
HASSETT: There's -- we've got the data. We just got the data for last month or the month before, both times, manufacturing employment went up, and auto employment went up. And again, we're looking at about 10,000 auto jobs. George, that's more than we got all of last year with Joe Biden.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's looking back. But looking forward, Stellantis did say this week they were laying off workers. They did.
HASSETT: The reason that they were starting it in the last two months was they anticipated the tariffs that were announced this week and they're starting to ramp up in anticipation of that.
I would expect that the jobs numbers and I'll come back and talk to you about it when they come out or going to go up by even more now that the tariffs are in place.
Posted By Tim Hains On Date April 6, 2025
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the president promised all through the campaign that prices would come down right away. Said they’d come down right away. Now he's saying, hang tough. It won't be easy. How high are prices going to go? How long will they stay there?KEVIN HASSETT: I actually saw in this story that you just gave, George, there's kind of like a logical disconnect between the stories – the competing stories that your team is using to attack President Trump.
On the one hand, you're saying that the countries are really angry, they're going to have to retaliate. On the other hand you're saying that consumers are going to bear the costs and it’s going to drive inflation up. But if U.S. consumers are bearing the cost, there's no reason for the countries to be angry. So, the fact is, the countries are angry and retaliating and, by the way, coming to the table.
I got a report from the USTR last night that more than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin a negotiation. But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff. And so, I don't think that you're going to see a big effect on the consumer in the U.S. because I do think that the reason why we have a persistent, long-run trade deficit these people have very inelastic supply. They've been dumping goods into the country in order to create jobs, say, in China.
And, George, also, I promise you, I'll answer your question directly and not filibuster. So, I'll stop with that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you base your – where do you base your conclusion that you're not going to see an increase in prices? Just about every economist who’s looked at this said you are going to see an increase in prices, including Goldman Sachs, including JP Morgan, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve?
HASSETT: Well, there might be some increase in prices. But the fact is that if we’re going to be a heavy burden on the U.S. consumer, then this trade deficit that for 30 years we've seen really since China entered the WTO would be something that would have gone down. It would have gone down over time. It would have responded to the prices.
The bottom line is that China entered the WTO in 2000. In the 15 years that followed, real incomes declined about $ 1,200 cumulatively over that time.
And so, if cheap goods were the answer -- if cheap goods were going to make Americans real wages, real welfare better off, then real incomes would have gone up over that time. Instead, they went down because wages went down more than prices went down.
So, we got the cheap goods at the grocery store, but then we had fewer jobs. And that's why President Obama and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and President Trump have come out saying, we've got to come up with a better policy, a policy that treats our workers fairly compared to everybody else.
And now, President Trump, true to his word, just like he promised during the campaign, just like he put into his campaign platform, he's delivering on his word.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right, but you also -- he also said prices were going to come down and he just conceded the prices are going to go up,
Also on Truth Social, the president retweeted a post that said the market drop was part of a deliberate strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates. Is that the president's strategy? If not, why did he post it?
HASSETT: Yeah -- that -- you know, the bottom line is the president has been talking about tariffs for 40 years and this is like been absolutely the policy that he's focused on in the campaign and throughout his political career. And you know, the cyclical cycle of the Fed, it comes and goes. That's a different matter.
But this is President Trump's desired policy. He's been arguing for it ever since. I think he was on “The View” 30, 40 years ago, and it's exactly -- the baseline tariff is exactly what he -- he put into the convention.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it his strategy --
HASSETT: So, this is not a surprise for anyone.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it his strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates, and that the market crash was part of that strategy?
HASSETT: We understand the Fed is an independent agency. We respect the independence of the Fed. But the president's allowed to have an opinion. The -- absolutely, the president's allowed to have an opinion but there's not going to be any political coercion over the Fed, for sure.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So -- so that is his strategy? Tank the market so the Fed will lower interest rates? Well, you just said the president's allowed to have an opinion. Is that his opinion or not?
HASSETT: He's not trying to tank the market. He's trying to deliver for American workers.
And -- I mean, what would you have him do? Again, real wages down 15 years in a row under the previous policy, and that's why Americans voted for him. They brought him in to turn the economy around for the American worker, and that's what he's focused on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm -- I'm just trying to get some clarity. Is that the strategy --
HASSETT: I’m going to give clarity.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, is that the president's strategy or not? He posted it. He said the strategy is to lower to -- for the markets to crash so the Fed lowers interest rates. Is that the president’s strategy?
HASSETT: It's not a strategy for the markets to crash. It is not a strategy for the markets to crash. It's a strategy to create a golden age in America for the American worker. That's his strategy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: JPMorgan says the risk of a recession has climbed to 60 percent. Your response?
HASSETT: We just had one of the stronger jobs reports I've seen in a long time. It was about 50 percent better than markets expected. It's the second one in a row. We've created already something like 10,000 auto jobs since President Trump took office, and I just got word -- anecdotal word last night that auto plants are adding second shifts in the U.S. in order to respond to these tariffs these days.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've also seen auto companies like Stellantis say they're having layoffs.
HASSETT: There's -- we've got the data. We just got the data for last month or the month before, both times, manufacturing employment went up, and auto employment went up. And again, we're looking at about 10,000 auto jobs. George, that's more than we got all of last year with Joe Biden.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's looking back. But looking forward, Stellantis did say this week they were laying off workers. They did.
HASSETT: The reason that they were starting it in the last two months was they anticipated the tariffs that were announced this week and they're starting to ramp up in anticipation of that.
I would expect that the jobs numbers and I'll come back and talk to you about it when they come out or going to go up by even more now that the tariffs are in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
