Judge Shielded Hillary By Stalling 15k Email Release

Person in pink suit speaking with American flag backdrop.

A federal judge appointed by Obama ensured 15,000 of Hillary Clinton’s emails remained hidden from voters until after the 2016 election, raising questions about judicial impartiality and timing that continue to echo into the Trump administration today.

Quick Takes

Judge James Boasberg ordered the State Department to release only a small fraction of Clinton’s 15,000 recovered emails before the 2016 election
Conservative group Judicial Watch filed lawsuits seeking timely email release under federal disclosure laws
The same judge who protected Clinton is now presiding over cases involving President Trump’s deportation efforts
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch called the email delay process “corrupt” for depriving voters of crucial information
Despite the judge’s ruling, Clinton emails discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop prompted FBI to reopen the investigation days before the election

Obama Appointee’s Controversial Decision

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who currently serves as the chief judge for the federal court in Washington, D.C., made a significant ruling in 2016 that effectively shielded Hillary Clinton from potential political fallout. Boasberg determined that most of Clinton’s emails recovered during an FBI investigation would not be made public until after Election Day, despite lawsuits filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch seeking their release under federal disclosure laws. The timing of this decision raises serious questions about judicial neutrality, as the delay prevented voters from accessing information that could have influenced their decisions at the ballot box.

The State Department, under Boasberg’s timetable, was instructed to process just a small percentage of the 15,000 recovered emails before the election, with the majority scheduled for release afterward. This delay prevented the public from seeing the full scope of Clinton’s email practices, which had already become a major campaign issue. The decision exemplified what critics view as a pattern of deference to the Obama administration, contrasting sharply with Boasberg’s handling of cases involving the Trump administration, where he has shown significantly less flexibility in matters of timing and process.

Judicial Watch’s Fight for Transparency

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton strongly condemned Boasberg’s decision at the time, characterizing the process as fundamentally corrupt. The organization had been pursuing legal action to ensure the timely release of Clinton’s emails, arguing that voters had a right to this information before casting their ballots. The delayed release schedule established by Boasberg effectively nullified these efforts, pushing the disclosure of potentially damaging information past the point where it could affect the election outcome. This raised concerns about the practical effectiveness of freedom of information laws when their implementation can be delayed past critical decision points.

Despite Boasberg’s efforts to delay the release of Clinton’s emails, fate intervened when FBI agents discovered additional Clinton emails on former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop during an unrelated investigation. This discovery forced then-FBI Director James Comey to announce the reopening of the Clinton email investigation just days before the election, creating precisely the kind of October surprise that Boasberg’s ruling might have been designed to prevent. The irony was not lost on political observers who noted that judicial attempts to manage information flow were ultimately circumvented by unexpected developments.

Boasberg’s Ongoing Role in Trump-Era Cases

The same judge who effectively shielded Clinton from pre-election scrutiny is now handling multiple high-profile cases involving President Trump’s administration. Recently, Boasberg blocked the administration’s deportation flights targeting Venezuelan gang affiliates, ordering planes to turn around mid-flight. This decision prompted President Trump to label him a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” and call for his impeachment, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. These contrasting approaches to cases involving Democratic and Republican administrations have fueled accusations of partisan judicial behavior.

“Well I think there’s a lot of people who think there’s a bias. After all, as you mentioned Benny, this is the guy who said, ‘turn the flight around, bring all the bad guys, the hardened criminals who were here illegally who did terrible things, bring those folks back to America.’ This is the judge who was there on the FISA court when they issued the warrants to spy on President Trump’s campaign eight years ago. So, there’s a history there and yet no, no recusal, he’s going to get the case,” said Jordan.

Boasberg is now also presiding over a new lawsuit regarding the Trump administration’s use of the Signal messaging app, prompting questions about case assignment randomization. Republican Representative Jim Jordan has publicly questioned whether Boasberg should recuse himself given his history of rulings affecting the Trump administration. The convergence of these cases under Boasberg’s jurisdiction has reignited debate about judicial independence and the appearance of impartiality, particularly in politically sensitive matters that have significant implications for executive authority and national policy.

A Pattern of Judicial Politics?

While supporters describe Boasberg as “principled and fair,” his critics point to a consistent pattern in his rulings that appears to favor Democratic interests in politically charged cases. His handling of the Clinton email case stands as a prime example, where his procedural decision effectively shielded a Democratic candidate from potentially damaging disclosures before voters went to the polls. This contrasts sharply with his swift intervention against the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, where he acted decisively to halt an executive policy already in progress rather than allowing it to proceed while litigation continued.

“Boasberg is the opposite of a radical judge,” a former Justice Department prosecutor said.

The judge’s close personal connection to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, having been law school roommates, adds another layer of complexity to his public persona. Despite this conservative association, Boasberg’s rulings in politically sensitive cases have frequently aligned with progressive priorities, particularly when the cases involve core Democratic interests or Republican policy initiatives. This apparent disconnect between personal connections and judicial outcomes further fuels speculation about the factors driving his decision-making, especially in cases with significant political implications like the Clinton email disclosure timing.