Clinton Appointed Judge BLOCKS DOGE From Reviewing Financial Transactions

Updated: The far left activist judge has blocked DOGE

BREAKING: A Federal Judge just limited DOGE’s access to sensitive Treasury Department payment system records.

Now I wonder what’s in those records that you would restrict another government agency from viewing….

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) February 6, 2025

DOGE: 81yo Judge Kollar-Kotelly is the same judge that sentenced 75yo pro-life protester Paula Harlow to two years in prison. Now she's blocking Trump's administration from making changes to the Treasury Department's payment system. DOGE is blocked completely and Treasury… pic.twitter.com/mMHOEwuxWv

— @amuse (@amuse) February 6, 2025

BREAKING NOW: Federal Judge LIMITS DOGE access to "sensitive" Treasury Department payment system records…

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) February 6, 2025

Perhaps if DOGE looks more closely through these records they will find that there are many Federal Judges being paid, not directly but through a proxy. Why else would they not want the governments expenditures be audited?

Federal judge orders limited DOGE access to sensitive Treasury Department payment system records

By Greg Norman, Bill Mears, David Spunt, Ashley Cozzolino, Fox News, February 6, 2025:

Dems hold all-night protest of DOGE as Musk continues government slashing
Fox News senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram discusses Democrats holding an all-night protest of DOGE and Trump OMB pick Russell Vought.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from obtaining access to certain Treasury Department payment records.

==========================

What are the Democrats so afraid of? How many tens of millions did Clinton and their orgs get from USAID?

They are now filing lawsuits for every single thing that DOGE is doing. And the problem we’re going to have is that we have a bunch of radical DC leftist judges who are activists who are going to grind everything down to a halt.

We have a serious problem in the judiciary and conservatives have not been taking it seriously for a very long time.

The way you stop that is by impeaching some of these judges, who clearly have violated their oath to be impartial and uphold the law.

But other than Donald Trump, Republicans, don’t know how to play smash mouth.

They are now filing lawsuits for every single thing that DOGE is doing. And the problem we’re going to have is that we have a bunch of radical DC leftist judges who are activists who are going to grind everything down to a halt.

We have a serious problem in the judiciary and…

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) February 6, 2025

The inability to remove federal judges for issuing rulings that undermine the Constitution is a glaring oversight in the American legal system. The Constitution provides a process for the impeachment and removal of judges under Article II, Section 4, stating that all civil… pic.twitter.com/O6ttuXhTJ2

— Allister Clisham (@AllisterClisham) January 29, 2025

The inability to remove federal judges for issuing rulings that undermine the Constitution is a glaring oversight in the American legal system. The Constitution provides a process for the impeachment and removal of judges under Article II, Section 4, stating that all civil officers, including federal judges, may be removed upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours. Article I, Sections 2 and 3 establish that the House holds the power to impeach, while the Senate conducts a trial and convicts by a two-thirds majority. This framework was designed to maintain judicial accountability, yet it has been interpreted in a way that shields judges from consequences when they issue rulings that prioritise illegal aliens over lawful citizens. The judiciary was never intended to be beyond scrutiny, and failing to remove judges who disregard constitutional principles is a failure of the system itself.

Historically, the impeachment of federal judges has been limited to criminal acts such as perjury, bribery, and tax evasion. Judge Walter Nixon was removed in 1989 for perjury before a grand jury, and Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed for perjury and conspiracy to solicit a bribe. While these cases demonstrate that impeachment can be used to address judicial misconduct, the process has not been applied to judges who issue rulings that contradict constitutional protections for legal citizens. The refusal to hold judges accountable for ideological decisions that undermine national sovereignty is an unacceptable flaw in the current system. Federal statutes such as 28 U.S. Code § 176 allow for the removal of judges in the United States Court of Federal Claims for incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, practising law while serving as a judge, or physical or mental incapacity. This provision should be expanded to include federal judges who demonstrate a pattern of rulings that favour illegal aliens over the rights of American citizens.

The existing legal framework can be used to remove activist judges, but it requires political will. Congress has the authority to impeach judges who fail to uphold their constitutional duty, and there is no legal barrier preventing the House from drafting articles of impeachment against judges who demonstrate a repeated disregard for federal law. The argument that impeachment only applies to overt criminal acts is a distortion of constitutional intent. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanours” was deliberately broad, allowing Congress to remove those who abuse their office. Congress could initiate impeachment proceedings against judges who issue rulings that obstruct immigration enforcement, undermine legal voting processes, or grant rights to illegal aliens that exceed those afforded to American citizens. A refusal to act enables judicial activism to continue unchecked.

The only solution within the current framework is for Congress to assert its authority and hold judges accountable through impeachment. The Constitution does not prevent this, only political cowardice does. If impeachment is not pursued, then legislation should be passed to expand the grounds for judicial removal beyond criminal acts to include rulings that systematically violate the Constitution. A judiciary that prioritises illegal aliens over the rights of American citizens is not upholding the law, it is subverting it. Judges who engage in such activism must be removed, either through the mechanisms that already exist or by legislative reforms that restore accountability to the judiciary.

Judge Poised to Prevent DOGE From Reviewing Financial Transactions

By: RedState, February 6, 2025:A federal judge has indicated that she will issue an injunction forbidding members of the DOGE team, which is part of the Executive Office of the Presidency, from reviewing some financial records.

During the hearing, a lawyer from the Department of Justice disclosed that two “special government employees” associated with Musk, but employed by the Treasury Department, accessed sensitive records from the Bureau of the Fiscal Service based on “high level guidance” from the Department of Government Efficiency to prevent waste and fraud.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gave the government and unions who brought the case until 6 p.m. ET to say whether they agree to the injunction, which would allow the two employees to continue viewing the records but block anyone from the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the sensitive materials.

The hearing followed a lawsuit filed by three federal unions that alleged DOGE employees violated federal privacy laws when they accessed data from the Treasury Department, including the names, social security numbers, birthdays, bank account numbers, and addresses of taxpayers, as part of DOGE’s effort to trim the size of the federal government under President Donald Trump.

It is apparent that some parts of the judiciary are recreating the bad old days of 2017 when there was a concerted effort by a fairly large number of federal judges to stymie President Trump’s agenda. The ruling seems bizarre given the fetish the judicial community had about “standing” when protecting Joe Biden. It is difficult to see how the plaintiffs — the American Federation of Government Employees, the Service Employees International Union, and the Alliance for Retired Americans — can show how they have any role in this case. There is no evidence that information has been mishandled, and ultimately, the president owns the data.