Post

More from @julie_kelly2

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Apr 8

NEW: Records obtained by Sens Grassley and Johnson provide further proof DOJ/FBI was in cahoots with Biden WH on "Arctic Frost" investigation, the Jan 6 case against the president.

As I reported in the docs case, Biden WH general counsel Jonathan Su also was working with DOJ and NARA separably to concoct the documents case.

Biden WH turned over govt cell phones used by Pres Trump and VP Pence.

This is from dirty Wash FBI field office official Tim Thibault to others--including WFO chief Steven D'Antuono--about obtaining the devices.

Su arranged the pick up of the devices from Biden WH in May 2022. Again underscoring this is the same time Su was working with NARA to devise the classified documents case, meeting with NARA officials at WH.

Biden general counsel Su says he is the "point of contact" on the case. BTW Steven D'Antuono, former head of Wash FBI field office, retired after Republicans won in Nov 2022 and John Crabb was demoted by Trump DOJ in Feb 2025.

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Mar 26

Last night, the DOJ filed its response to Jeb Boasberg's demand to prove the Trump adm did not defy his court orders related to the removal of Venezuelan illegals covered by the Alien Enemies Act (I also will get to a lot more of this in a separate thread and note his own discrepancies in the first temp restraining order next) on March 15.

As I have discussed here and in numerous interviews, the central dispute pertains to what Boasberg calls his "oral ruling" to turn around two planes already in the air carrying AEA illegals. The DOJ cites case law, jurisdiction, and Boasberg's own confusing orders as to why his verbal statement around 6:45pm on March 15--roughly 40 minutes before Boasberg's written minute order--is not controlling.

Note in particular the times the planes departed (this is from new DOJ filing)

While Boasberg now insists his two temporary restraining orders related to the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act--signed evening of March 14 and posted (and apparently enacted at the time) around 3pm on March 15--he CLEARLY stated TWICE n the rushed March 15 hearing that the first TRO covering the five unnamed illegal Venezuelans represented by the ACLU related to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Not the Alien Enemies Act--the basis of the ACLU lawsuit and request for restraining order.

From March 15 transcript (Gelernt is ACLU atty):

EXCEPT that Boasberg's TROs earlier in the day (those statements above were made after 5pm) granted relief sought by ACLU under the Alien Enemies Act.

Not the INA.

Here is ACLU proposed order, which Boasberg granted at around 9:40am without any input or briefing by the DOJ:

Read 6 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Mar 24

Oral arguments about to begin before 3-judge panel of D.C. circuit court on Pres Trump's appeal of Jeb Boasberg's temporary restraining order halting deportation of illegal Venezuelans subject to the president's Alien Enemies Proclamation.

DOJ in the motion to appeal: "If this TRO were allowed to stand, district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action upon bare receipt of a complaint. District courts might next see fit to issue TROs restraining drone strikes, sensitive intelligence operations, or terrorist captures or extraditions. This Court should stay the district court’s unprecedented order."

DOJ calls Boasberg's orders "an unprecedented and enormous intrusion on the executive branch."

Boasberg's orders consisted of "second guessing" about the president's authority.

DOJ interrupted by Justice Millett (Obama) who pushes back against DOJ claims that this opens the door for a judge to frustrate other presidential powers including war powers.

Millett complains the Venezuelans were "rushed" on to planes and didn't have the chance to dispute their membership to TdA.

Millett asks DOJ atty is there are "any planes anywhere in the world" with individuals covered by Alien Enemies Act. DOJ says yes, that's his understanding.

Removal of Venezuelans under other laws are allowed--they both agree.

Millett: DOJ concern about ordering planes back and forth is "moot." Nothing we can do to remedy that now.

DOJ again argues Boasberg's oral "order" to return the planes did not control. Millett says that's a compliance issue at this point.

Read 13 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Mar 21

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1903076924957589614

Hearing underway in Jeb Boasberg courtroom on Venezuelan terrorist lawsuit and deportation flights.

Coverage coming up:

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1903076924957589614

Boasberg out of the gate accuses DOJ of using "intemperate" and "disrespectful" language in responses to the judge.

He is lecturing the DOJ about its opposition to his alleged "verbal" order to turn around the planes.

"Did you think that was hypothetical or did you understand when I said do that immediately, you meant that."

Boasberg: "Either DHS sent someone who knew nothing about the facts not the law--that's what you are saying, no one told you about those flights?" (2 planes took off during the first part of the hearing.)

"I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world the most valuable thing they possess is their reputation." He admonishes DOJ atty to remember that.

What a POS.

Read 6 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Mar 17

Hearing now underway in Judge Boasberg's courtroom on his nationwide temp restraining order related to the president's March 15 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg acted within hours of a lawsuit filed by ACLU on behalf of 5 suspected Venezuelan terrorists

Boasberg: I have scheduled this hearing for fact finding on government's response to my order. Focus on timeline involved and get a sense of numbers of people here. I just want "facts" not planning to issue any ruling about the government's conduct.

Boasberg asks DOJ if it's still true that the 5 individual plaintiffs are in the US. DOJ says yes.

"How many planes departed the US on Saturday under the proclamation?" DOJ says flights complied with his order but won't disclose more to anyone.

Boasberg: "Anyone including me?"
DOJ: "Yes."
Boasberg: "Based on what?"

DOJ cites national security concerns, flight patterns.

Boasberg: "You're saying it's classified? I can receive classified information. Or there is some other basis?Why are you showing up today without answers?"

Nothing but a power play.

Boasberg: Here is a list of questions I want answered and you can tell me why you won't give me these answer.

How many planes left at any time Saturday based solely on the proclamation.

How many people were on each plane.

In what country did the planes land.

What time did they take off and land.

When were they in air space.

What time were individuals on the plane transferred to custody.

Now asks ACLU if they have any questions about flights.

Read 9 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Mar 12

HAPPENING NOW: Hearing underway in Judge Chutkan's courtroom related to temp restraining order sought by Climate United against EPA and Citibank forcing disbursement of $6.9 billion in "climate" funds sheltered at Citi in Nov 2024. Funds are frozen.

EPA adm Lee Zeldin cancelled financial agreements with Climate United and 7 other climate "nonprofits."

The "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund" is under investigation by DOJ and EPA inspector general.

"As I see it, EPA has to take certain procedural steps before it can terminate the awards," Chutkan says.

Includes written notice of termination and reason for termination.

"It looks like EPA does this in the letter...but EPA must provide evidence of waste, fraud or abuse. EPA has not proffered that information."

Chutkan clarifies Climate United asking for TRO forcing Citi to disburse the funds. "What would maintaining the status quo look like," she asks Climate United lawyer.

Climate lawyer says status quo would require Citi to issue funds as the bank did before EPA/DOJ froze funds in mid-February.

Claims--as Chutkan suggested--the termination of the grants was unlawful and did not meet terms of agreement. Climate lawyer also claims many projects underway and the nonprofit faces "extreme irreparable harm" if they don't get their money.

"At the end of this week, we are out of money."

Keep in mind--this "nonprofit" was formed in June 2023. It took in about $640,000 in 2023 and spent about $550,000. So Climate United had less than $100,000 in the bank--until Biden/Harris selected it to receive $6.9 billion in April 2024.

Chutkan asks how much has been committed. Climate lawyer says he doesn't know but court filings claim about $390 million.

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @julie_kelly2

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!