Donald Trump on Sunday shared a report from a far-right influencer about a judge who recently ruled against the President, but they soon got fact-checked by a reporter.
Trump has recently had Judge James Boasberg in his crosshairs after the jurist ordered Trump's DOJ to turn planes around as they deported Venezuelan immigrants to a third country's prison.
Over the weekend, Trump shared a post by a MAGA influencer known as Insurrection Barbie.
ALSO READ: 'Came as a surprise to me': Senators 'troubled' by one aspect of government funding bill
"In a speech on given to law students on January 24, 2023, Judge Boasberg (who heard many J6 cases) openly admitted that he didn’t think harsh enough laws existed on the books to punish J6 defendants," the account wrote. "He stated: 'a lot of law still to be made.' Matching the defendants’ alleged crimes to statutes is one challenge and there were no statutes that were written that said, ‘it is a criminal offense to storm the capital and interfere with the counting of certification of the electoral college after the presidential election.' He also specifically stated that people pled to crimes that were not harsh enough."
They concluded:
"He thought people should have been treated differently because it was J6…. If you don’t want us to drag these people, maybe they should learn to hide their bias."
Trump shared a screen shot of that post on Truth Social on Sunday, writing, "But he doesn’t mind if criminals come into our Country."
"He is a Constitutional disaster!" the President added about Boasberg.
But there's a problem with this take, according to Kyle Cheney, a senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.
"This post flying around is a total misread of Boasberg’s remarks. He didn’t suggest Congress pass new laws to punish J6ers. He was saying the courts were dealing with relatively untested issues, laws that didn’t neatly fit the conduct (because Jan. 6 was a sui generis crime) and many challenges were, at that time, working their way up the chain to SCOTUS. The 'law to be made' was via precedential rulings at the appeals court and Supreme Court level. It’s extremely clear this is what he meant if you read his entire comment, which was conveniently not linked here," the reporter wrote on social media. "It’s now been amplified by both President Trump and Elon Musk based on an illiterate understanding of how judges speak about 'case law.' Not the legislative branch."