'Option on the table': Ex-prosecutor says judge might move to 'expose' Trump's DOJ

A judge might decide to prosecute Trump's DOJ officials for disobeying a court order, despite the fact that Trump would likely pardon them, an ex-prosecutor said on Saturday.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance over the weekend weighed in on the case in which Judge James Boasberg ordered Trump's DOJ to turn planes around as they deported Venezuelan immigrants to a third country's prison. Vance told a story which she said could tell us how Boasberg might handle the Alien Enemy Act case, "where the government seems disinclined to provide factual information regarding contempt allegations the Judge is reviewing."

"In July of 2007, I was the appellate chief in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Alabama when Judge William Marsh Acker, may he rest in peace, requested that my office prosecute Dickie Scruggs for criminal contempt," Vance wrote. "Scruggs was a well-known Mississippi lawyer with a civil case before Judge Acker, involving allegations of insurance fraud that impacted Hurricane Katrina victims. Judge Acker believed Scruggs had violated the terms of an injunction entered that required Scruggs to turn over documents in his possession."

ALSO READ: 'Came as a surprise to me': Senators 'troubled' by one aspect of government funding bill

Vance said Boasberg might follow a similar path, but warns Trump could always issue a pardon. That being said, according to the legal expert, there would still be a reason to prosecute nonetheless.

"That option would be on the table for Judge Boasberg too, if he were to refer the matter for contempt proceedings, and the Justice Department, as it almost certainly would, declined to play ball," Vance wrote.

She continued:

"One caveat: Because this type of contempt is criminal, there is some possibility Donald Trump could use the pardon power to give a pass to anyone charges are brought against. He could even issue a pardon early on, to prevent a full inquiry. However, in a recent letter to Trump regarding the importance of complying with court orders, Congressman and constitutional law scholar Jamie Raskin noted that 'the President may be unable to pardon a federal employee if found in contempt pursuant to the court’s inherent authority because such an offense may not qualify as an ‘offense against the United States’ [under] U.S. Const. art. II. § 2, cl. 1,'" Vance wrote. "That means that there would at least be litigation over the extent of the pardon power in this unusual situation. That would mean a full airing of the facts and exposure of the Trump administration employees involved in pushing for the deportations, which we are now learning included women and people who weren’t gang members despite the administration’s claim they were all violent criminals."

Read the post here.