Post

More from @julie_kelly2

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Feb 9

Hearing about to get underway in the courtroom of Judge Jeb Boasberg, who continues to escalate his personal grudge against the Trump administration by demanding "due process" proceedings for 130+ illegal Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg, despite being bench slapped by SCOTUS and DC circuit in the matter, now wants to know how the DOJ will arrange "virtual" hearings for the illegals, now back in their home country of Venezuela, or return them to the US including making flight arrangements.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt: The illegals in Venezuela should be permitted to file a paper report related to their "due process" claims. Those in third party countries should be allowed to demand virtual hearings.

"No matter what we propose, the government opposes it." No duh.

Boasberg wants to know how many AEA subjects have left Venezuela. Gelernt says a "handful."

"The people who made it out of Venezuela want to clear their name," Gelernt says. Boasberg asks if any have presented at port of entry--he is now suggesting that should be the case.

"We know people who would come back." NO THANKS

"I don't see anything the government is offering. There are some who want to come back and seek asylum. If the only option is to come back, that's what they will take," Gelernt says.

Gelernt tips his hand as to next step: get illegals' designation as Alien Enemies Act subject and/or a member of Tren de Aragua (a foreign terrorist organization) lifted so they can seek asylum.

"If they prevail, they would pursue regular immigration proceedings and seek asylum." This is what both Gelernt and Boasberg want as the outcome.

Boasberg asks Gelernt about how the US government could facilitate the return of the illegal Venezuelans. Boasberg: "Would you request a government plane?" LMAO

Boasberg continues his role as de facto ACLU attorney--prompting Gelernt to explain how the AEA itself based on the TdA designation of the illegals is baseless. (This entire question is now before the 5th Circuit Court--oral arguments held last month. Headed to SCOTUS.)

"It's just dumb," Boasberg says of the nature of the president's AEA proclamation using TdA as justification to immediately remove illegal Venezuelans.

"Nothing suprises me in this case," Boasberg snarks, "but it would not suprise me if none are Tda members."

Boasberg is pushing Gelernt to demand of the government more specific evidence of TdA association for those removed. Now discussing the use of tatoos--Gelernt says the illegals "are so far removed" from TdA and that TdA does not use tatoos to identify gang members.

Boasberg asks about political climate in Venezuala and whether the illegals are still afraid/targeted by the government post-Maduro. Gelernt says his clients are still afraid.

Read 6 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Jan 31

So I decided to burn up my PACER account and do random checks on Judge Patrick Schlitz's claims that ICE violated 96 court orders in Minnesota immigration cases this month alone.

"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence," Schlitz, without evidence, wrote in a court order this week.

Well--his very first citation does not exist. There is no Jan 24, 2026 court order in Hakan v Noem. There is a Dec. 24, 2025 court order (hard to tell exactly what was "violated" in the judge's order) but Schlitz just misrepresented this case in his own court order

It is very important to note that Minnesota judges have uniformly ordered the immediate release of ALL illegals who have filed habeas petitions. I believe the last court was 60+.

In the process, judges impose unreasonable time limits on the DOJ to respond to petitions then release the illegals claiming the administration did not reply in time.

A total racket.

Now let's turn to Francisco E.O. v. Olson and the cited order that Schlitz claims represents ICE's violation of court orders in Jan 2026.

Would be nice to read it--BUT IT IS SEALED.

Schlitz knows that most habeas docs are sealed so it's impossible for the public to judge for themselves the nature of the judge's accusations.

The docket does, however, reflect some back and forth between this judge and Pam Bondi, resulting in the judge on Jan 29 saying--"although the Respondents willfully violated the Court's Orders [again, we have no idea what this magistrate judge claims in the sealed order], the Court appreciates Respondents' counsel's communication and their efforts to promote Respondents' compliance with the Court's directives. The Court therefore declines to impose any sanctions. This matter therefore shall be closed."

OOPS actually--Schlitz in his haste to put together this appendix claiming ICE violated more court orders in Jan 2026 than some federal agencies violate in their entire history (LOL), he double counted the same order.

So out of the 1st 7 cases Schlitz listed--one does not exist and another is counted twice.

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Jan 23

A few things to note here:

> Jack Smith not only pushed for an unreasonable trial date of Jan 2024, he asked the Supreme Court to take the “extraordinary” step of bypassing the DC appellate court in deciding on Judge Chutkan’s immunity order, which denied all forms of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. (SCOTUS said no.)

> When Trump’s defense lawyer objected to the hasty trial date due to the massive amount of discovery discussed here, Judge Chutkan said the president should have been reviewing discovery BEFORE the indictment, referring to Jan 6 committee materials. Chutkan something to the effect of, “you knew you were going to be charged you should have prepared ahead of time.”

In his application for cert before SCOTUS, Smith called his J6 indictment against the president an “extraordinary case.” Having Chutkan rule on the unprecedented question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution in just 7 weeks; oral arguments set by DC appellate 5 weeks later; and DC appellate court opinion upholding Chutkan issued 4 weeks after that was not quick enough for Smith.

In fact, Justice Roberts criticized Chutkan and the appellate court judges for their rush to judgment in such an historic matter.

Smith, as usual, lied about why he sought a hasty trial schedule.

This is just a taste of what the president and his lawyers had to deal with before Judge Chutkan.

She spent several minutes arguing with attorney John Lauro about the trial date and voluminous discovery. Not only did Chutkan say repeatedly—you knew this indictment was coming—she suggested he was a bad lawyer for not reading not yet produced discovery before the indictment.

This is from the hearing held 4 weeks after Smith announced the J6 indictment:

Read 4 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Jan 22

Chairman Jim Jordan opens Jack Smith hearing with overview of Russiagate, various prosecutions of President Trump, and an account of Smith's unprecedented two criminal indictments against the president.

Notes that Judge Cannon disqualified Smith under the Appointments Clause and how he successfully pushed (thanks to Judge Chutkan) to release a report on the Jan 6 case after the election.

Oh FFS Jamie Raskin opens his statement by acknowledging the attendance of the 4 J6 celeb cops including Mike Fanone and Harry Dunn.

It is truly unfortunate those lying clowns haven't been charged with perjury.

Raskin now swooning over Smith's resume--I am sure he will omit SCOTUS' 8-0 reversal of Smith's case against the McDonnells.

Raskin calls Judge Cannon a "sychophant" for not permitting the release of Smith's report on the documents case. Raskin claims Smith cannot talk about the docs case due to those orders however Smith has already openly talked about the case.

Read 6 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Jan 6

Sen. Rand Paul just published records showing the FBI's two-year surveillance of an American citizen suspected of entering the Capitol on Jan 6. The spying included physical surveillance of her home and movements; she, like thousands of others were placed on a TSA "terror" watch list...

Christine Crowder is a Catholic school teacher and her husband a federal air marshal. Paul released 70 pages of docs related to the FBI's full throated investigation into an innocent American.

Just imagine how many times this happened--and not just to J6ers--under Chris Wray:

Outrageously--DC US Attorney Matt Graves wanted to pursue a criminal prosecution of Crowder DESPITE the FBI finally admitting it did not have enough evidence to bring a case against Crowder.

Why Graves is still off the hook for his handling of J6 prosecution in beyond me:

Read 5 tweets

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

@julie_kelly2

Dec 31, 2025

NEW: Jack Smith's transcript released.

🧵on his misrepresentations, falsehoods, and straight up lies told by the special counsel to House Judiciary Committee on Dec 17.

Smith had no evidence that any of the so-called "classified documents" he claimed to have found were in boxes temporarily stored in MAL ballroom or bathroom after the president left the White House.

Lie #2:

Smith was extremely aware of the 2024 election calendar--which is why he took what he himself described as the "extraordinary" step in asking the Supreme Court to bypass the DC appellate court--the next normal step-- in considering Judge Chutkan's Dec. 2023 order denying all forms of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and take up the immunity question immediately. (SCOTUS denied his request, Chutkan's order was upheld by 3-judge panel in Feb. 2024, which was then considered by SCOTUS in April. On July 1, 2024, SCOTUS issued its decision providing for a broad swath of immunity for acts in office, resulting in a major gutting of Smith's J6 indictment.)

Lie #3: That the unarmed protest at the Capitol on Jan 6 was an "attack" incited by the president and the still unsubstantiated allegation that 140 officers were injured by protesters.

Keep in mind: Smith's J6 indictment was four counts: two related to 1512(c)(2)--a corporate fraud statute unlawfully used in J6 cases according to SCOTUS in the Fischer decision--and two other VERY vague conspiracy counts, conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy against "rights."

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!