Team Obama fires back at court’s accusation of lying misconduct; they messed with the wrong judge

Justice Department attorneys who were handed a brutal defeat at the hands of a federal judge Tuesday fired back Wednesday denying they had lied to the federal court hearing a challenge to President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

Obviously smarting from a public dressing down by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who used his order to accuse the administration of “misleading” the court, Eric Holder’s Justice Department went public Wednesday afternoon claiming its innocence.

“We emphatically disagree with the district court’s order regarding the government’s statements,” Justice spokeswoman Emily Pierce said in a statement, according to the Washington Times.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen had some harsh words for President Obama’s Justice Department. (Photo:

It’s not every day that a federal judge releases written orders that essentially accuse his own government’s attorneys of deliberately misleading the court. But that’s what Hanen did in his order late Tuesday denying the Justice department’s request that he lift the injunction he placed on carrying out Obama’s executive action.

“This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote in Tuesday’s order.

And the Justice Department’s decision to issue the statement Wednesday denying the charges just opened up another  news hook for Hanen’s order to be quoted even further.

At one point, referring to the hearing in January, Hanen was clear: “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the fact,” he wrote.

Considering that “their clients” include the man who was twice elected president of the United States, the statement is damning.

Another statement Hanen wrote near the end of the order is even worse.

“Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life,” he wrote. “But in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.”

None of that’s true, the Justice Department insists.

Not a smidgen of it.

The Twitter world wasn’t buying it. Here’s a sample.

A long, long time ago.




Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Joe Saunders


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles