Noem VINDICATED! DOJ FILING DESTROYS Boasberg Narrative!

Quick Overview

The video argues that Judge Boasberg's contempt finding against Secretary Noem is unwarranted because the written order was not sufficiently specific, selectively ignoring Noem's authority and misrepresenting her intent, thereby failing to meet the three-part test for criminal contempt, especially since the DOJ's own legal advice suggested Noem's actions were lawful and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the court's order.

Key Points: The central dispute revolves around whether Judge Boasberg's order was sufficiently specific to meet the three-part test for criminal contempt (clear order, willful violation, and violation being willful). The speaker asserts that Secretary Noem's decision-making was within her discretion, as she only had one choice to make regarding flight authorizations, differentiating her action from the one Boasberg suggested. Judge Boasberg focused questioning on the DOJ attorney regarding whether Noem understood the order when he left the hearing, proceeding on a "you understood what I meant" basis derived from oral comments and written order. The speaker predicts the outcome will be a finding by Judge Boasberg that Noem knew what was meant but acted to evade intent, yet concludes the directive was too imprecise to support a finding of willful violation, making criminal contempt inappropriate. The written order is deemed clearly less extensive than Boasberg's oral comments, explicitly omitting any requirement regarding returning passengers who had already departed (like the two flights that left before the order was finalized). The DOJ argued that 'remove/removing' should be interpreted as a physical act, not in the context of legal 'custody,' further undermining the claim of intentional violation. The speaker highlights that the DOJ attorneys themselves admitted Boasberg's oral directions would be memorialized in writing shortly after the hearing, but the written order did not perfectly track those comments, suggesting a lack of clarity.