Judge Blocked Email Release To Safeguard Hillary’s Campaign

Person speaking at a podium with flag background.

In 2016, Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg delayed the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails until after the presidential election, potentially shielding her campaign from damaging revelations at a critical moment.

Key Insights

Judge Boasberg ruled that most of Clinton’s emails recovered during an FBI investigation wouldn’t be made public until after the 2016 Election Day.
The State Department was ordered to process only a fraction of the emails before the election, with the majority being released post-election.
Despite Boasberg’s ruling, Clinton’s emails were later discovered on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, which led to the reopening of the FBI investigation.
The same judge is now presiding over high-profile cases involving President Trump’s administration, including deportation policies and a lawsuit regarding Signal app communications.

Clinton Email Controversy and Judicial Intervention

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, appointed by President Obama, made a controversial decision in 2016 that has continued to raise questions about judicial impartiality. As Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign entered its final stretch, Boasberg effectively shielded her from potential political fallout by delaying the release of thousands of her emails until after voters had cast their ballots. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch had filed lawsuits to make these emails public under federal disclosure laws, arguing that voters deserved to know their contents before making their decision at the polls.

Despite these concerns, Judge Boasberg established a timetable that required the State Department to process only a small portion of the emails before the election, with the majority scheduled for release afterward. This decision drew sharp criticism from transparency advocates who argued it deprived the public of essential information about a presidential candidate. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton specifically condemned the process as corrupt, suggesting it represented a deliberate attempt to withhold potentially damaging information from voters.

The Judge’s Record of Selective Enforcement

Boasberg’s handling of the Clinton email case appears to fit a pattern that some observers have identified in his judicial career. While showing significant deference to the Obama administration in the Clinton email matter, his approach to the Trump administration has sparked controversy. Recently, Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a decision that has raised eyebrows given his earlier willingness to delay transparency in matters affecting Democratic interests.

“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,” Jordan said.

Concerns About Judicial Assignment Patterns

Questions have emerged about the seemingly non-random assignment of cases to Judge Boasberg. He is currently presiding over multiple high-profile cases involving the Trump administration, including the deportation case and a new lawsuit regarding military messaging via the Signal app. This lawsuit targets Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – all key figures in President Trump’s administration.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan has voiced concerns about the assignment process, stating: “You’re right it’s supposed to be random. Supposed to be random, but Judge Boasberg could recuse himself from this case … if there’s a preceded bias, a potential for bias, if there’s a conflict.”

The Judge’s Connections and Character

Boasberg, who serves as the chief judge for the federal court in Washington, DC, has close personal connections that have raised additional questions about potential conflicts of interest. He was law school roommates with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and is known for his social demeanor and quirky rulings that sometimes include pop culture references. While some former Justice Department officials have defended him as “principled and fair,” his handling of politically sensitive cases has continued to draw scrutiny.

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

Despite the attempts to delay the release of Clinton’s emails in 2016, Boasberg’s ruling couldn’t prevent the ultimate discovery of Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, which led to then-FBI Director James Comey reopening the investigation just days before the election. This sequence of events demonstrates how judicial attempts to control the flow of information to the public – particularly around election time – may have significant unintended consequences for our democratic processes.