New revelations have connected U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, known for halting President Trump’s deportation efforts against Venezuelan gang members, to the controversial 2016 Hillary Clinton email scandal. Investigations have revealed that Boasberg played a role in delaying the release of nearly 15,000 of Clinton’s emails until after the 2016 election, a move that has raised eyebrows.
President Trump, who has often criticized Boasberg as a “Radical Left Lunatic,” has faced opposition from the judge in key cases, including those involving deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The connection between Boasberg and Clinton has drawn attention from those scrutinizing his decisions, especially after Trump’s narrow victory over Clinton in the 2016 race.
A post from March 2025 surfaced, where one user pointed out, “🚨 What?! Judge Boasberg, the activist judge blocking Trump’s deportation of violent gang members, delayed Hillary Clinton’s email release until after the 2016 election…This is CORRUPT! How can people not see this?” Conservative commentator Tom Renz also weighed in, stating, “The perception of impropriety is crucial for maintaining trust in the justice system. Boasberg’s actions seem to cross clear lines, undermining the credibility of our courts.”
Many have voiced frustration with Boasberg’s perceived bias. One comment accused him of serving the interests of the Democratic Party, saying, “It’s outrageous and unconstitutional that he’s influencing U.S. foreign policy like this. The integrity of the Electoral College and the will of 77 million voters is at risk.”
Some commentators also theorized that the Democratic Party may have infiltrated the judiciary as part of a long-term strategy to protect their power. A response stated, “I’m convinced the Democrats knew the judiciary was key to maintaining power and that Republicans must have known this too. The truth is only now coming out, thanks to Trump.”
Others pointed out that the influence of unelected federal judges like Boasberg is particularly problematic, with one person remarking, “It’s federal judges like Boasberg, serving for life, who are creating these issues.”
Anger toward Boasberg’s decisions continued to grow, with one comment calling his actions “political warfare,” claiming he has repeatedly protected Democrats while targeting Trump. In addition, some people highlighted potential conflicts of interest, noting that Boasberg’s family members have lucrative positions with government-funded NGOs.
This unfolding story raises questions about the role of the judiciary in American politics and the growing public concern over perceived bias in the courts.