Recent developments—the memorandum between El Salvador and the United Nations regarding the detention of U.S. immigrants, alongside allegations from a whistleblower about dismissed Justice Department attorneys—highlight the need for special advisors to probe potential criminal activity by top officials in the Department of Justice.
There appears to be significant evidence suggesting that Attorney General Pam Bondy, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Emil Bove may have engaged in illegal actions. It seems they collaborated to delay civil cases filed by Venezuelan immigrants against the government, as outlined by the Supreme Court.
Judge James E. Boasberg, who oversees this case, holds the power to initiate investigations and prosecutions by appointing a private attorney as a special advisor.
This kind of judicial appointment isn’t without precedent. Back in 1987, during the Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et fils case, the Supreme Court established the authority under Rule 42 of the Federal Criminal Rules, allowing federal district courts to appoint private attorneys for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters when probable cause is demonstrated.
The newly surfaced evidence strongly supports Judge Boasberg in considering the appointment of special advisors. When Archibald Cox was designated as Special Counsel during the Watergate scandal, there was significantly less known about the criminal behavior of Nixon’s former Attorney Generals, John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst. After a thorough investigation, both faced serious felony convictions.
It looks like Bondy, Blanche, and Bove have been directly involved in defending this particular case from the outset. On March 19, they all signed government claims related to documents filed in court, which can only be signed by lawyers and their direct supervision, following Judge Boasberg’s request regarding the “movement of the aircraft” that transferred Venezuelans to El Salvador after he ordered their return to the U.S.
On April 16, Bondy addressed the Justice Department’s confirmation that Kilmer Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador due to “administrative mistakes.” She remarked in an interview that the government would only fly him back if Salvadoran President Naibe Bukele agreed to it. Bondy stated, “President Bukele said he wouldn’t send him back. That’s the end of the story.”
Her assertion aligns with claims from other administration members, including President Trump, suggesting the government lacked jurisdiction to return Abrego Garcia. Justice Department attorneys also indicated that both the “detention” and final actions regarding Venezuelan immigrants “are within the legal authority of El Salvador.”
Nonetheless, Bondy’s stance contradicts information from documents released on March 26, when El Salvador acknowledged to the United Nations, in response to a deportation investigation, that “jurisdiction and responsibility for these individuals rested solely with competent foreign authorities. [i.e., American].” This memorandum indicates that the U.S. government received a version of this document.
The credibility of Bondy’s claims is further undermined by the unexpected return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S., raising questions about the foundations for ongoing criminal charge proceedings against him. A Tennessee Magistrate Judge discovered unreliable testimonies from two supportive witnesses in his case.
The truth regarding the Salvador document gains more weight, especially considering the reported $6 million payment made by the U.S. to El Salvador for the imprisonment of a Venezuelan.
This troubling situation is compounded by revelations from a whistleblower, Erez Roubeni, a former Justice Department attorney. He recounted a meeting held on March 14, moderated by Bove, during which he claimed all participants were pressured to proceed with deportation regardless of legal constraints. It was stated that they might need to simply disregard any potential court orders.
Support for Roubeni’s account comes from communications released by the Department of Justice, which included discussions among various attorneys, even those from the Department of Homeland Security concerning that March 14 meeting.
Banche has denied Roubeni’s claims, stating he was present at that meeting and did not hear Bove suggest ignoring court orders. Roubeni argued, however, that Blanche “didn’t remain for the entire meeting,” and thus did not witness the discussed disregard for legal mandates shortly after his departure.
Defying Judge Boasberg’s directive, the aircraft took off the day after March 15 without returning the Venezuelan immigrants to the United States.
Prior to these surprising developments, Judge Boasberg had indicated on June 4 that existing records did not support the Venezuelans’ claims of being under constructive U.S. custody, meaning the government lacked the authority to mandate their return. He concluded that the Venezuelans “failed to overcome the declarations made by knowledgeable government officials.”
However, discrepancies in Salvadoran documents presented to the U.N. contradict those official statements.
Based on the information from Salvadoran government documents and the whistleblower’s revelations, there appear to be justifiable grounds for Judge Boasberg to appoint a special advisor to investigate potential criminal activity by top officials within Trump’s Department of Justice. An extensive court investigation could clarify when and how those in the Department of Justice became involved in obstructing court orders.
Nick Akerman, who served as a special counsel during Watergate and is now a lawyer in New York City, provided his insights on the matter.
