Posted originally on CTH on March 19, 2025 | Sundance

When you understand how Washington DC Judges view their role and responsibility, then you understand the scale of opposition that President Trump is facing. The false media framework of our “government” only makes the issues worse.  So, here’s an explanation of Boasberg v Trump.

In 2016 the DOJ-NSD headed by Mary McCord filed a FISA application seeking a Title-1 search (full and unlimited) surveillance warrant against the leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump.  The method to gain the surveillance authority was to use CIA informant Carter Page who had met with the Trump campaign and call Page an “agent of a foreign power.”

The FISA Court knowingly and with specific intent approved the Title-1 surveillance warrant which was filed using false evidence (Clinesmith) and sketchy supporting documents (Steele Dossier), no Woods File was attached.

At the time of the application, Mary McCord was acting head of the DOJ National Security Division.  McCord was responsible for filing the warrant application.  The DOJ-NSD had no inspector general oversight.  The targeting of candidate Donald Trump was entirely for political purposes and intents.

After President Trump won the 2016 election, he gave DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz authority to conduct oversight over the DOJ-NSD.  IG Horowitz started investigating the FISA application.  This is where things get interesting.

The FISA Court (FISC) was exposed by their willful blindness in allowing the Title-1 targeting of Donald Trump.

Justice John Roberts is in charge of the FISC.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts then appointed Judge James Boasberg to the position of presiding judge over the FISA Court (FISC).

Judge Boasberg then selected Mary McCord to be an amicus or advisor to the court as Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.

Boasberg put the person who was in charge of submitting the false FISA application in a position to filter the results of the Horowitz investigation of that same FISA application.

In essence, think of this as protecting the Judicial Branch.  Justice Roberts appointed Boasberg to defend the FISC from scrutiny. Boasberg then moves Mary McCord into position to defend the FISC from scrutiny (McCord also protects herself).

At the time, Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook was working within Justice Robert’s office.

That’s how John Roberts, James Boasberg and Mary McCord all connect.  All the motives and intents go back to that original Title-1 FISA application.

Remember, this was a huge scandal all by itself.  The FISA Court permitted a full-throated surveillance warrant against the leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump.  The Judicial Branch was intentionally influencing the 2016 election.  These are not stupid people; they were not duped, conned or fooled, they knew exactly what they were doing.

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).

This is the same Judge Boasberg gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation. This is the same judge who, on his vacation, went to sit in the DC courtroom to observe defendant President Trump who was forced to appear in DC court.  This is the same 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).

♦ Now we go back to the John Durham investigation, because Bill Barr had to ask Presiding Judge Boasberg for guidance and direction as the Durham team looked at the FISA application (Title-1 surveillance warrant) against the backdrop of the Obama government targeting Donald Trump.

This is June of 2020, Bill Barr (who was running another cover-up angle) asked Judge Boasberg for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application. Barr asked for legal guidance to assist John Durham in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.

The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application. [source]

I. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands. FISC gives legal opinion

II. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation. The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.

III. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD). FISC gives opinion and advice.

IV. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight. FISC gives opinion and guidance.

V. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs. FISC gives opinion and guidance.

Now, keep in mind, with hindsight we know the DOJ (Bill Barr) was essentially walking a fine line between uncovering information and trying to protect the DOJ as an institution.  John Durham was never approved to investigate the government side of the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense.

At the same time, Judge Boasberg is trying to protect the FISC from their culpability and also protect the FISA Court as an institution.  Everyone has an agenda here, and none of them are good.

That leads to Boasberg outlining a cautious approach toward distribution and/or sunlight on what took place. On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly; a nice way to cover the issue.

Judge Boasberg does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct. Rather his response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. It seemed a little weird at the time, now notsomuch.

Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production. Boasberg says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all. However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page alone.

I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy. In this segment Judge Boasberg is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”.  The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.

In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA securities (minimization requirements) were not violated.

Overall, Judge Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects Bill Barr requested. However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ was told to observe.  Those qualifiers were intended to protect the interests of both Main Justice and the FISA Court from sunlight upon their prior conduct in 2016.

SUMMARY – Judge Boasberg has been demonstrably political in all his determinations going all the way back to his position on the FISC when the FISA application was approved.  Boasberg was then moved into position to protect the FISC from the outcome of their Title-1 search warrant approval.

Boasberg then used his position as Presiding FISC judge to protect the apparatus, while using his position as DC Circuit Court Judge to diminish, obfuscate and cloud the severe ramifications from all of the DC effort, including his rulings on the Kevin Clinesmith (FBI Agent) and Ray Epps (FBI Source) cases.

Judge Boasberg sits at the epicenter of a thoroughly corrupt and compromised DC court system.

I like this approach recommended by Hokkada:

…”It’s important to remind people that the inferior courts do not work for or report to the Supreme Court. CONGRESS creates the inferior courts and as such, Congress can eliminate courts, add courts, and control funding of the courts. Congress also can impeach. And a key element of impeachment is the hearings process.

A hearings process that subpoenas Federal district court judges to testify before Congress would cast a lot of sunlight on the corrupt Judicial-Lawfare-Complex. Could the end result be impeachment? Certainly.

But it could also lead to something better in the long run: descope of the Federal court system which has grown bloated, corrupt, and arrogant because it answers to nobody.

They’re the 3rd branch of government for a reason – they are not elected by anyone, and therefore hold the least amount of power when it comes to governance. SCOTUS doesn’t even control their own budget. They can’t levy taxes. They can’t declare war. They can’t decide what constitutes citizenship.

The answer to all of this is sunlight. Simply compel Biasberg to testify in open public hearings about his role in Lawfare and his interpretation of the Federal district court’s ability to direct the actions of the Commander in Chief, issue “nationwide injunctions” and so forth. Then let’s get into his direct role in Lawfare.

Roberts wants to pretend impeachment of Biasberg is about a “political disagreement”. But it is not. This is a judicial coup d’etat we are witnessing. And the only way to stop it is to descope the judiciary and limit its ability to issue injunctions.

If crimes are discovered, such as aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, the judges should be removed. Judges can “obstruct justice” too. They are not Jesus in black robes. They are every bit as tempted by corruption – perhaps more so because they are deemed infallible by the Chief Justice – as any politician.”…