November 30, 2025 – Judge Boasberg authorized secret spying on Congress and now refuses their subpoena to testify

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

LAWFARE: Judge Boasberg authorized secret spying on Congress and is now refusing to testify. The Senate is now holding hearings to discuss his possible impeachment. He thinks he IS the law.

After revelations that Judge James Boasberg approved clandestine subpoenas and nondisclosure orders targeting congressional Republicans, the Senate demanded his testimony. Boasberg refused, claiming he did not need to answer to the legislative branch he secretly spied on. Senators will now hold hearings on impeachment proceedings for Boasberg and possibly others involved in the unlawful surveillance of elected officials. Lawmakers say Boasberg’s arrogance and defiance show he believes he is beyond accountability, the hallmark of a rogue judge.

The @amuse post frames Chief Judge James Boasberg as a runaway monarch for declining Senate testimony about subpoenas he approved in the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation. The newly unsealed filings show that prosecutors sought subscriber data and metadata in an influence peddling probe touching several figures, some of whom later became elected Republicans. The subpoenas used nondisclosure orders because the subjects had not been notified. This is standard criminal procedure, not a bespoke surveillance campaign against Congress. Sitting federal judges also do not testify about ongoing matters, both by precedent and by judicial ethics rules, something the post omits.

Republicans have introduced impeachment resolutions, but no bipartisan path exists. Boasberg’s record includes rulings that frustrated both Democratic and Republican administrations on immigration, surveillance, and January 6 sentencing. Judicial independence means Congress can scrutinize these decisions, but cannot compel a judge to violate sealed-case confidentiality. The “he thinks he is the law” rhetoric is political framing, not a reflection of how subpoena authority or Article III oversight works. If the Senate wants answers, the proper venue is DOJ, not the judge bound by silence.