Is Jeb Boasberg Endangering President Trump?

Recent decisions by the chief judge of the D.C. District Court not only contradict the full court's handling of Jan 6 defendants but appear to represent a dangerous way for Boasberg to retaliate.

There is, to put it mildly, no love lost between President Donald Trump and James Boasberg, the chief judge of the D.C. District Court.

After presiding over grand jury proceedings in Washington related to the two federal criminal indictments against Trump—both dismissed after he won the election last year—and handling numerous Jan 6 cases, Boasberg now is wielding his enormous power to sabotage the administration’s agenda; the Obama appointee made headlines, and raised the ire of the president, after his aggressive intervention in Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation last March. Trump immediately called for Boasberg’s impeachment in a salty rant on Truth Social:

In July, Trump’s Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg for politically-charged comments he allegedly made during a judicial conference. On the flip side, Boasberg is trying to advance a contempt case against the DOJ related to the Alien Enemies Act litigation.

But it appears Boasberg—who notably attended Trump’s arraignment in the DC courthouse in 2023 on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6 indictment—is taking his animus toward the president to a new, and dangerous, level.

In a matter of a few days, Boasberg released two demonstrably deranged individuals who had been arrested and charged for making threats against President Trump. Those decisions should prompt immediate questions from Congressional Republicans as to whether Boasberg is using the bench to retaliate against the president and endanger the safety of a public figure who survived two assassination attempts last year.

Good Thing They Didn’t Chant ‘Hang Mike Pence’

On August 16, Nathalie Jones was arrested near the White House after posting a series of online threats aimed at the president. Jones had traveled from New York City to Washington the day before—shortly after agreeing to a voluntary interview with Secret Service agents in New York tracking her online activity, which included a Facebook entry stating she was “willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea.”

Jones told Secret Service agents she had a “bladed object” that she could use to “carry out her mission of killing” the president. (This indeed raises corollary questions about the conduct of the Secret Service.)

Jones, a pharmacist and pro-COVID “vaccine” activist, then attended the ‘No Fascist Takeover of DC’ rally on August 16, according to court documents. (She again met with Secret Service agents in DC earlier that day; they conducted a search of her vehicle and did not find any weapons, apparently determining she was safe to go.)

When she got close to the White House fence line that afternoon, however, Jones was arrested and then charged with two federal felonies related to making threats against the president.

D.C. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya denied Jones’ release and ordered a competency evaluation. (In a letter to the court asking for leniency, a friend admitted Jones “has had mental health issues throughout her life.” Another friend said Jones deals with schizophrenia and thought she had it under control with medication. )

But then Jeb Boasberg got involved. In a highly unusual move, Boasberg reversed Upadhyaya’s detention order and scheduled a hearing for August 25. While acknowledging the “oddly specific” nature of Jones' social media posts, Boasberg nonetheless downplayed her intentions. “[Why] shouldn’t we consider this the rantings of someone with a mental illness with no ability to carry this out?” Boasberg asked prosecutors. “If she had a gun with her, this case is easy.”

Boasberg then allowed Jones to collect her items from police, drive back to New York wearing a GPS device, and meet with her psychiatrist.

But Jones may soon be free of her ankle monitor. After a D.C. grand jury just refused to indict Jones—a rarity becoming commonplace in the D.C. courthouse (more on this shortly)—her public defender is asking Boasberg to drop all conditions of release.

Boasberg is Only Part of the Problem in DC Courthouse

While Boasberg reversed Upadhyaya’s decision in the Jones case, he upheld a separate ruling by Upadhyaya to release Edward Dana on a similar charge. Dana was arrested on August 17 while vandalizing a restaurant in Washington; during his transport to the police station, Dana stated he “was going to kill the president.” He was charged with one count of threatening the president.

Like Jones, Dana has a history of mental health problems. The DOJ’s motion to deny bond for Dana listed several violent incidents over the past eight years including nine prior convictions and 23 prior arrests. He also was on probation at the time he threatened the president.

Upadhyaya acknowledged the charge against Dana was “serious” but claimed the DOJ did not meet the burden of keeping Dana behind bars awaiting trial. (Perhaps Boasberg had already signaled his intention to overrule Upadhyaya in the Jones case, which could explain the magistrate judge’s change of heart in the Dana case the very next day.)

And as history repeats itself in the DC courthouse, the DOJ disclosed on Tuesday afternoon that another DC grand jury—made up of people who voted 92 percent for Kamala Harris last year—once again refused to indict Dana for threatening the president. That means two mentally ill individuals, emboldened by Boasberg running defense on their behalf and DC jurors’ defiance related to anything Trump, could be back on the loose soon, facing only misdemeanor charges.

Jeanine Pirro, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, today weighed in on the farcical legal/judicial system in the nation’s capital: “A Washington DC Grand Jury refused to indict someone who threatened to kill the President of the United States,” Pirro said about the Jones case. “Her intent was clear, traveling through five states to do so. She even confirmed the same to the US Secret Service. This is the essence of a politicized jury. The system here is broken on many levels. Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in DC refuses to even let the judicial process begin. Justice should not depend on politics.”

Putting a smile, undoubtedly, on the face of Jeb Boasberg.