Tag Archives: Activist Judges

Dec 16 2025

JD Vance Points Out the Consequence of the Senate “Blue Slip” Veto of Judicial Nominees


Posted originally on CTH on December 15, 2025 | Sundance 

The blue slip process has been a part of the Senate’s judicial nomination procedure since at least 1917. When a President nominates an individual for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip —a form colored blue— to the two Senators representing the nominee’s home state. This form allows the Senators to express their opinions about the nominee.

Positive Response: If a home-state Senator has no objections, they return the blue slip with a positive response, indicating support for the nominee. Negative Response or Withholding: If a Senator objects, they may either return the slip with a negative response or choose not to return it at all. In both cases, this is treated as a lack of support for the nominee, which halts the nomination process.

JD Vance notes this process is being used to manipulate the appointments of Judges in leftist states.  This creates a dual justice system; one of the core issues within our extremely divided nation.

[SOURCE]

JD Vance is not wrong.  However, as with all things corrupted within the state of our Republic, if the blue slip process is removed the next leftist President can corrupt the judiciary within Republican states.

Of course, all of this is an outcome of the 17th Amendment, which stopped the state legislatures from having control over their senators.  Under the original constitutional framework, the Senate was designed to represent the interests of the state, as the Senators were appointed by state legislature, not popular votes.  The Sea Island assembly destroyed this cornerstone when they triggered the 17th Amendment.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and just about everything in federal government changes.

Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time, those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th Amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system, the Senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

The nucleus of corruption amid every element of the federal institutions of government is the United States Senate.   The U.S. Senate, also known as the “upper chamber,” is the single most powerful elected element in modern federal government.

The Intelligence Branch is the most powerful branch of government.  However, the U.S. Senate is the most powerful assembly of federally elected officials.  We pretend the IC branch doesn’t exist; that’s part of our problem.  At least we admit the Senate exists.

All other elected federal corruption is dependent on a corrupt and ineffective Senate.  If we correct the problems with the Senate, and reconnect the representation within the chamber to the state-level legislative bodies, we will then see immediate change.  However, there would be ZERO institutional allies in this effort.

When the 17th Amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The Senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The Senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th Amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th Amendment.

Because of the scale of their power, the Senate will not give up control easily; and every institution of society and government will actively work to block/stop We The People from taking back control of the upper chamber.  Every entity from Wall Street to multinational corporations, big tech, banks, foreign governments and world organizations would align against us.   When you truly understand the epicenter of the corruption, then you are able to see the tentacles extending from it.

It would be easy to say “repeal the 17th Amendment;“ it is ‘another kettle of fish’ entirely to walk through the process to make that happen.  Yes, ultimately, we do need a full repeal of the 17th Amendment and return the selection of the senators from each state with a nomination and appointment process within the state legislature.  [Common Explainer Here]

Seventeenth Amendment- “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (link)

Prior to the 17th Amendment, there was significant state level corruption as business interests, and Senate candidates worked in power groups with party officials to attain the position.  Politicians seeking Senate seats began campaigning for state legislative candidates in order to assemble support.

The state legislative races then became a process of influence amid powerful interests seeking to support their Senate candidate.   Get the right people in the State legislature, and you can get the Senator appointed.

Those state-level entities, bankers, wealthy people of influence, later became the permanent K-Street lobbying groups once the 17th Amendment was ratified. In essence, they just shifted the location of their influence operation from the state to an office in Washington DC.   [Those same power groups, albeit much larger, now write the physical legislation we see in congress.]  Additionally, prior to the 17th Amendment, there were issues of vacancies in federal senate seats as state legislatures could not agree on an individual Senator.

The biggest issue following the passage of the 17th Amendment became Senators who were no longer representing the interests of their state.  Instead, they were representing the interests of the power elite groups who were helping them fund the mechanisms of their re-election efforts.

A Senator only needs to run for re-election every six years.  The 17th Amendment is the only amendment that changed the structure of the Congress, as it was written by the founders.

Over time, the Senate chamber itself began using their advice and consent authority to control the executive and judicial branch.  The origination of a nomination now holds the question: “Can this person pass the Senate confirmation process?”

The Senate now abuses this power to ensure no one challenges them.  Additionally, the Senate began using their oversight capacity to control elements within the executive branch and judicial branch.   The full scope of that issue in modern form is OUTLINED HERE – which is the cornerstone of the Intelligence Branch of Government.

If we could repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection to the state legislature, you can see where the background work of Tactical Civics and Extreme Federalism begin to take on importance.   [NOTE: Within the repeal effort, we would need to include a recall process for states to reach out and yank back their Senator if they go astray; the ability to recall was missing in the original construct of the framers; it would need to be added.]

◊ PATH ONE is the primary platform of the presidential candidate…. a visible and emphasized mandate that includes: “vote me into office and you are voting to repeal the 17th Amendment “.  This specific election issue would need to be the #1 priority of the candidate and spoken at every event.

This approach gives a presidential candidate the mandate to demand congress to act if he won the 2024 election.  We need a warrior of epic strength, resolve and fortitude.

◊ PATH TWO is the parallel path built along with the election platform path and put into place in the event that Congress refused to accept the mandate.

Obviously, this would be an ugly battle.   The second path is a convention of states. 

The ‘convention of states‘ would need to be detailed, strategically planned, and the future schedule determined during the GOP convention preceding the November election (assuming the right candidate wins).   That way, if Congress refuses to act on their own, within say the first 100 days of the new administration, the state legislatures will then assemble a convention for the singular and limited purpose of one action item: “repeal the 17th Amendment “.  That’s it. Full Stop.  Nothing more. Nothing else entertained.

There is a lot more to this, and a lot more to cover in discussion of this.  However, this is the path that can resolve most of the issues we face with an out-of-control federal government.   The shift in power would kneecap the Intelligence Branch of Government by re-instituting genuine oversight and control. A repeal of the 17th Amendment stops Senators from campaigning, needing to raise money and puts them directly into the accountability position as a steward for the interests of their state.

The people within each state would then have a mechanism to address any negative federal action by contacting their state legislative representative.  In a worst-case scenario, a rogue Senator could be removed within days if they support any federal legislative activity that is not in alignment with the state interest.  This approach also wipes out most of the power amid the Senate Majority Leader, as he/she could also be recalled by the state and would be less likely to work against the interests of the majority in the chamber.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th Amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this UniParty problem that Donald Trump fully exposed.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and we would see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.

Dec 9 2025

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Argues for Supreme Power of DC Bureaucracy


Posted originally on CTH on December 8, 2025 | Sundance 

Highlighting exactly why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and James Clyburn needed to deploy a 2021 Machiavellian strategy to get her moved onto the Supreme Court, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) argues for the supreme power of the DC bureaucracy that must not be challenged by the President of the United States (Executive Branch).

In the case of Trump v Slaughter, the removal of the FTC Chair, Justice KBJ argues that presidential authority must be kept in check by the unelected “professionals and experts” who make up the bureaucracy underneath him.  The “No Kings” argument is entirely ridiculous given the plenary power of the executive and the constitutional authority of the office.

Ketanji Brown-Jackson was always going to be installed in the supreme court as part of the overall Obama team’s use of Joe Biden.  Merrick Garland was removed from his position specifically to create the path for KBJ to travel.  Everything about this was planned well in advance of Biden’s installation.  KBJ is to the judicial branch what BHO was/is to the executive branch.

It was February 25th, 2020, to be precise, just four days before the South Carolina Democrat primary.  South Carolina Representative James Clyburn went backstage at the presidential debate and told Biden, “You’ve had a couple of opportunities to mention naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn lectured his friend of nearly half a century, like a schoolteacher scolding a child. “I’m telling you, don’t you leave the stage tonight without making it known that you will do that.” {link}

Unbeknownst to Biden at the time, just two days earlier Barack Obama and James Clyburn came to an agreement and created the most consequential alliance of the 2020 Democrat campaign.  Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and James Clyburn the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had struck a deal.

Obama and Clyburn really had no choice but to come to an agreement and form the alliance.  If they did not act fast, Bernie Sanders was gaining momentum, and they could not have Sanders at the top of the 2020 ticket, because he was too outside the club system which was now almost exclusively focused on racial identity as a tool for political power.

A Bernie Sanders -vs- Donald Trump general election would have been a disaster; and it would be almost impossible for the racial operatives in the key precincts [Atlanta (GA), Philly (PA), Clark County (NV), Wayne County (Mich), Madison (WI)] to feel inspired enough to risk themselves and commit fraud to help Bernie win.

To get rid of Sanders, BLM and AME aligned.  This was the actual moment when Hillary Clinton was cast into the pit of irrelevance in Democrat politics.

Within the agreement, Obama and Clyburn selected Biden as the tool they could easily control to deliver on their larger, progressive, leftist intentions.

A few days later, James Clyburn then endorsed Biden while Barack Obama began making phone calls telling each of the other candidates to drop out in sequence and support Biden or else the club would destroy them.  The only one told not to drop out yet was Elizabeth Warren, as she would be needed as the insurance policy, the splitter against Bernie Sanders.

Each of the candidates was promised the traditional indulgences for toeing the party line, and the rest is history.  Joe Biden wandered around doing what everyone told him to do, which was mostly stay in his basement and let the club work on his behalf, until the club delivered the nomination.

Inside that process, the strategic map was modified to ensure Ketanji Brown-Jackson would advance to the Supreme Court.

With Biden installed, he would select Merrick Garland as his Attorney General.  Judge Garland was an important judge on the important DC Circuit Court.  Garland’s replacement would need to be a Senate confirmed seat for that court.  Brown-Jackson would be put into Garland’s open spot. {Go Deep}

As a standalone Supreme Court nominee, Brown-Jackson would have been a radical pick.  Justice Brown-Jackson is a known activist in the DC District Court; however, with this maneuver she could get through nomination easier and then sit on the highest court for thirty years.

Once Brown-Jackson was Senate confirmed for the DC Circuit Court, the countdown began until she was elevated as a Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice Stephen Bryer, now 83-years-old.  The Senate had no political ammunition to block or not confirm the radical SCOTUS pick, because she was confirmed a few months before with support from Republicans.

[White House Announcement]

Nov 18 2025

Magistrate Judge Positions Case Against James Comey for Almost Certain Dismissal


Posted originally on CTH on November 17, 2025 | Sundance

At this point, anyone who is left thinking James Comey will stand trial in DC is just pretending for their own agenda.  Unfortunately, the dismissal of the case against him is a foregone conclusion.

The DOJ Lawfare embeds purposefully dragged their heels toward the statute of limitations, AG Pam Bondi didn’t respond fast enough to the institutional stonewalling, and that set up Lindsey Halligan for an almost impossible task.

[SOURCE]

Former FBI Director James Comey was leaking information to the media through his friend and FBI Special Government Employee Daniel Richman. When Comey was fired in May 2017, he knew what his risks were. Comey hired Daniel Richman as his personal lawyer and legal counsel. Comey knew this would make targeting him for leaking to media more difficult.

Last month U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case against Comey, assigned magistrate judge William Fitzpatrick to review the issues surrounding potential violations of attorney-client privilege within the indictment.

Today Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick sides with the Comey defense and blasts the prosecution for violating attorney-client privilege. [SEE RULING HERE] In addition, Judge Fitzpatrick instructs the prosecution, Lindsey Halligan, to give the defense team all of the evidence used in the grand jury indictment.

Fitzpatrick is setting the stage to dismiss the charges. There’s zero doubt about it when you read the 24-page order.

It’s enough to make you blow a blood pressure cuff when you see a judge upholding the Fourth Amendment argument on James Comey’s behalf, considering the blatant Fourth Amendment violations that Comey conspired to violate within his fraudulent investigations of Carter Page and President Trump.

Seriously though, don’t waste any hopium on this case, and expect the judge to require the government to pay all of Comey’s legal fees.

We read enough of this stuff to see a Lawfare set up when it is visible.  The Lawfare crew has this case easily won. Judge Fitzpatrick gives the defense eleven points of process with which to file a motion to dismiss.

[COURT ORDER] – First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.

Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.

Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.

Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.

Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.

Sixth, the facts provide a reasonable basis for the defense to show that they were prejudiced by the government’s use of the Richman materials in the grand jury, particularly if the government’s conduct was willful or reckless, given the centrality of these materials to the government’s presentation.

Seventh, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government took sufficient steps to avoid the collection and review of privileged materials, including the reasons why Mr. Comey was never afforded the opportunity to assert a privilege over his communications until after the indictment was obtained.

Eighth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether privileged information was used, directly or indirectly, by the government to prepare and present its grand jury presentation. This is particularly troublesome because the government’s sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a “limited overview” of privileged material shortly before he testified.

Ninth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of potentially privileged information establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law. This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey.

Tenth, as discussed in Section IV above the prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.

Eleventh, the grand jury transcript and recording likely do not reflect the full proceedings because, although it is clear that a second indictment was prepared and presented to the grand jury (ECF 3), the transcript and audio recording of the proceedings do not reflect any further communications after the grand jury began deliberating on the first indictment.

Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). [more]

There are two tiers of justice.  The legal system is as rigged as the intelligence system.

It’s not Halligan’s fault; she tried.

Nov 10 2025

Sunday Talks: Devin Nunes Discusses Trump Media Company Targeted During “Arctic Frost” Operation


Posted originally on CTH on November 9, 2025 | Sundance 

CEO of Truth Social Devin Nunes appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss how the Trump Media Group was targeted by the Jack Smith operation and FBI Operation Arctic Frost.  In combination with the Arctic Frost targeting, JPMorgan Chase debanked the Trump Media Group (Truth Social) after receiving a subpoena from Jack Smith.

Devin Nunes is demanding answers into the collaboration between JPMorgan and the FBI specifically to target Truth Social at the time the larger tech industry was deplatforming, cancelling and targeting anyone -including us- who represented a counter information network to the 2020 election outcome.  This was part of a larger coordinated effort.

Nunes then follows up with a discussion of how former FBI Director James Comey specifically targeted Donald Trump in the 2016 election by aligning the FBI interests with the objectives of the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Additionally, Nunes and Bartiromo then extend the discussion to how the CIA led by John Brennan and the DNI led by James Clapper joined in collaboration with the FBI and Clinton campaign.  WATCH:

Thankfully, people in Washington DC are finally starting to realize the full scale of the Obama surveillance system. All of the evidence and datapoints -released and yet to surface- flow in one direction. Even the professionally reluctant are starting to admit.

What Obama, Biden, Comey, Crossfire Hurricane, Robert Mueller, Arctic Frost and Jack Smith were doing, was using their offices -and govt systems- to watch their opposition, spy on them, then take action based on the results.

From the perspective of Obama, Comey and Brennan, expanding Hillary Clinton’s Trump-Russia collusion narrative was the key element to hide the activity of the administration prior to the November 2016 election.  That’s the motive for the FBI and CIA to collaborate on the agenda after the shocking outcome of the 2016 election result; but pay close attention to the activity of the primary “at risk” official, James Comey.

From a risk management perspective, initially the surveillance and spying operation was a low-risk endeavor.  Obama held power and was going to hand off operations to Hillary. The Clinton administration would retain the officials who were doing the surveillance/spying, and no one would ever know.

Donald Trump was not expected to win the election.  When he did, all of the participants were suddenly at risk. President Obama and every member of his cabinet involved in the spying operations, then used Clinton’s “Russiagate” smear to cover up Obama’s “Spygate” activity.

The IRS was used to identify targets 2010 through 2012, until discovered in April ’12. Suddenly, President Obama has a problem. President Obama then sends his Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, to run the IRS and block discoveries around the IRS weaponization.

♦ From 2012 through April 2016, the Obama administration was spying on their political opposition using the FBI to conduct surveillance through their access to the NSA database.

♦ In April 2016, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was alerted by the NSA compliance officer who noted the uptick in database access activity by the FBI searching the Republican primary candidate field.

♦ Post April 2016, the Obama administration had a problem. Enter FBI operation “Crossfire Hurricane,” July 2016, in an effort to remove the political risk.

♦ October 2016, the FBI rushes a FISA application through the FISC, circumventing the missing ‘Woods File’, with the Chris Steele dossier as evidence.

♦ October 2016, NSA Director Rogers sends the first official notification of the FBI using the NSA database to the oversight body, the FISA Court.

♦ December 2016, worried about Trump now discovering the NSA database spying, the Obama administration wraps the Clinton smear into official policy, blaming the Russians and validating Crossfire Hurricane. That’s where the Intelligence Community Assessment becomes critical.

♦ May 2017, needing to extend the coverup of the FBI activity, special counsel Robert Mueller then takes over Crossfire Hurricane. All FBI evidence and personnel transfers to Mueller.

♦ April 2019, Robert Mueller operation wraps up, prior activity coverup shifts to Impeachment process.

♦ July 2019, John Durham kicks in extending DOJ/FBI control through 2020 election.

♦ Fall 2020, mail-in ballots triggered to facilitate 2020 election outcome.

♦ January 2021, FBI triggers unofficial Operation Arctic Frost, targeting Trump supporters and 2020 election researchers. FBI again using NSA database search queries to identify targeting.

♦ March 2021, unofficial FBI Arctic Frost results fed to J6 Committee and DHS. TSA trigger “Quiet Skies” targeting via results from Arctic Frost.

♦ August 2022, FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago to retrieve any evidence Donald Trump might have of FBI spying and surveillance activity.

♦ September 2023, Jack Smith targets congressional members who had contact with President Trump.

It’s one long continuum of coverup activity within Main Justice and the FBI, supported by all other various agencies who operate in support.

What are they covering up? The 2012 through 2016 political spying operation within the Obama administration, as carried out by the same Main Justice and FBI operations.

Nov 4 2025

DOJ Responds to Comey Motion to Dismiss – Provides Attachments of Extensive use of Daniel Richman to Leak and Shape Media


Posted originally on CTH on November 3, 2025 | Sundance |

USAO Lindsey Halligan has responded to James Comey’s motion to dismiss the charges against him in a lengthy response and multiple attachment filing [Full COURT FILE HERE] – [Response MOTION HERE].

In addition to refuting the effort by Comey’s lawyers to challenge the appointment of USAO Halligan [See Response Here], the USAO office also provides evidence of James Comey’s extensive use of Daniel Richman to act as a cut out for leaks and communications with the media [Attachments HERE].

Beginning on January 2, 2015, James Comey hired Daniel Richman to be his conduit to the media for all things around the Clinton investigation.  Exhibit #3 highlights Richman emails to Office of Legal Counsel, Patrick Findlay, to begin the process of officially working for Comey as a special government employee. [Attachment #3 HERE].

There are multiple exhibits highlighting emails between James Comey (aka Reinhold Niebuhr7) and Daniel Richman [HERE-4 and HERE-5 and HERE-6 and HERE-7] proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Daniel Richman to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information, or instruct them on information, James Comey provided. The evidence on this issue is overwhelming.

Daniel Richman, working directly on the instructions of James Comey, worked closely with New York Times journalist Mike Schmidt, husband of MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, to publish material [ex. Exhibit #8].  Richman then coordinated the FBI director’s message with dozens of national journalists, writing the scripts for them to publish on behalf of James Comey [ex Exhibit #9].   Again, the evidence on this collaborative endeavor is overwhelming.

Interestingly, [Govt Exhibit #12] is the criminal complaint stemming from the FBI investigation which began on July 21, 2025.   The investigative summary notes the purposeful use of Room #9582 at FBI headquarters, intended to destroy classified evidence concealed in five burn bags.

[SOURCE Exhibit #12, page 2]

I’m still reviewing the information.

More to come…

Oct 30 2025

Senators Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt Call for the Impeachment of DC Judge James Boasberg


Posted originally on CTH on October 29, 2025 | Sundance 

Now that they personally become a target of Lawfare practices, suddenly the Senate wants to see some actionable accountability. Funny that.

After years of corrupt weaponization of his position, Judge James Boasberg is now outlined as having authorized the search warrants against the Arctic Frost targets which included nine Republican senators.  Boasberg also wrote restraining orders forbidding the cell phone carriers from informing the targets of the corrupt search warrants.

Now senators Ted Cruz and Eric Schmitt are calling for House Speaker Mike Johnson to impeach James Boasberg.  WATCH:

.

There is a long history of corruption from the bench by James Boasberg, specifically surrounding the effort to target Donald Trump in a host of DC court rulings, injunctions and affirmations from the judicial branch [SEE HERE – TAKE A SNICKERS].  However, now that it hits close to home, suddenly Congress is outraged.

Everything Senator Eric Schmitt and Ted Cruz say is accurate.  But why did they ignore the long history of Boasberg’s activity?  Schmitt statement below.

.

Judge James Boasberg signed off on the ‘Arctic Frost’ search warrants against Congress.

Boasberg issued blanket orders to the cell phone companies not to reveal the search warrants.

Boasberg is a FISA Court Judge.

Boasberg authorized one of the Carter Page title-1 surveillance warrants.

Boasberg hired Mary McCord as amicus to the court.

After appointing Mary McCord to take up a defensive position for herself and the FISA Court (cover), Judge Boasberg then becomes the presiding judge in the case against the FBI agent who falsified the FISA application, Kevin Clinesmith. Boasberg gives Clinesmith a slap on the wrist and a few months probation (more cover).

Boasberg told John Durham (Bill Barr) allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly of the FISA application; a nice way to cover the issue.

https://t.co/FXXV4c89kE

This is the same Judge Boasberg who gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation.

This is the same Judge Boasberg who established a horrible precedent by forcing Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a DC grand jury about his conversations with President Trump (breaking executive privilege).

While on vacation, Boasberg attended the criminal indictment hearing of President Trump.

Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking DHS, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE from deporting illegal aliens and narcotrafficking gang members belonging to Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

There were calls for Boasberg to be impeached.

Immediately, the same day President Trump noted Boasberg should be impeached, Chief Justice John Roberts jumped to his defense:

...”“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said Tuesday in a rare and brief statement issued just hours after Trump publicly joined demands by his supporters to remove judges he called “crooked.”

https://politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeach-federal-judges-00235742

F**k off with this nonsense telling me Roberts is NOT protecting Boasberg.

Keep in mind, Mary McCord operates in all three branches of government: Deputy AG in charge of the DOJ-NSD (executive), on both impeachment committees by Schiff/Nadler and the J6 committee of Thompson (legislative), and as amicus to the FISA court (judicial). That’s why she is “untouchable.”

Mary McCord’s husband, Sheldon Snook, worked in the office of Chief Justice Roberts. Mary McCord is partnered with Norm Eisen. Norm Eisen hosted John Roberts in Europe and travelled with Justice Roberts as friends.

There is no apple. It’s all worms.