A (0:01)

A Mochi moment from Sadie, who writes, I'm not crying, you're crying. This is what I said during my first appointment with my physician at Mochi because I didn't have to convince him I needed a glp one. He understood and I felt supported, not judged. I came for the weight loss and stayed for the empathy. Thanks, Sadie. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com Sadie is a Mochi member, compensated for her story.

B (0:30)

Pam Bondi and Donald Trump's well worn stratagem of attacking federal judges they don't like and they don't like their rulings has hit a major roadblock because the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, Jeff Sutton, has exonerated Chief Judge Jeb Boasberg of the D.C. district Court. Donald Trump doesn't like him because he wants to hold the Trump administration, Department of justice, and Kristi Noem ultimately in contempt. He's made a series of rulings that shows that the Trump administration has been openly defiant and contumacious of his decisions. And they don't like it. So they immediately ran and filed some ridiculous manufactured ethics charge, claiming that four days before Jeb Boasberg was even assigned the case, which we call JGG, about 200 Venezuelan men who Donald Trump tried to make disappear in the middle of the night without due process over federal court orders by Jeb Boasberg. He didn't even get the case until March of 20. On March 11, he was at a judicial conference hosted by Chief Justice John Roberts, a friend of his, and he said that he had a fear of open defiance. This is Jeb Boasberg. Open defiance. And that the Trump administration would not comply with court orders. That was March of last year. Boy was his crystal ball, right? But the Trump administration didn't like that because within days he found that the Trump administration was an open defiance of his orders. They said, aha, look, he was at a judicial conference. He said it out loud. He prejudged the case. He was always going to find us to be in contempt. No, you're in contempt because you are openly defying the defiant, defying the case law and the orders of federal judges. We just had a federal, a chief judge in all of the Minnesota federal courts, Judge Schultz say out loud, in an order that in the month of January 2026 alone, one month, that ICE had violated orders of those courts 96 times in one month, more, the judge speculated, than some agencies or departments of the government have ever violated in their entire history. So they didn't like that. They ran, they filed an ethics charge in front of the chief judge of the D.C. circuit Court, Judge Srivanasan, who sent it to the 6th Circuit to avoid a conflict. And even though the ruling apparently came out on December 19, the media, we are just getting it now. I'm Michael Popo. I'll break it down for you right here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal af. While you're here, hit the free subscribe button here. But come over to Legal F YouTube channel and help do the exact same thing. Continue to build our, our pro democracy independent network there as well. All right, let's talk about what happened March 11 judicial conference hosted by the chief justice. Now, as a, as a bit of a background, Boseberg is middle of the road Republican. He was nominated by Obama, but also nominated by Bush. He's friends with John Roberts, who put him on the spy court. He was the roommate in law school with Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. He's a well liked judge, a judge's judge. They just don't like the fact that he's trying to hold the Trump administration accountable. He pulled everybody into a hearing on March 15, and he issued orders to stop planes from going in the middle of the night any longer to El Salvador C cop prison without due process. He was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court who said habeas corpus is the right thing to do to bring these people in on due process wherever they reside. I mean, they quibbled about his procedure, but not about the underlying substance. He then started criminal contempt proceedings after these planes continued to fly. Well, what happened to those 200 men? They were eventually horse traded through the Trump administration with El Salvador back to Venezuela before Donald Trump took over the oil fields of Venezuela, hoping that they would get out from under federal jurisdiction. But no, the American Civil Liberties Union, who represents those men, is still representing them. And Jeb Boasberg is still involved with the case. We've got a filing that'll be coming out late today by the, by the Department of Justice. There's a hearing a week from today about due process that the Trump administration will have to provide these 137 men who are now spread out among Venezuela and other third countries. So all of this came to a mix because the Trump administration got off by these rulings. And so in July, several months after March, they filed a judicial complaint alleging that he had violated these canons of ethics because he made this statement allegedly at the judicial conference and because he's ruling against them. So the judge Sutton, in his memorandum, in order which I have up on, on legal AF substack, he says to me, summarize it, then I'll read. I'll read parts of it. The judge says, you're coming to me with two complaints. This is made by Chad Meisell, who was the then chief of staff for Pam Bondi, now out of the government back in Florida, where the chief of staff for her in Florida when she was the attorney general there. Two complaints. One, that Jeb Boasberg, at a judicial conference hosted by the Chief Justice Roberts on March 11 made a comment about his fear that the Trump administration would openly defy federal court orders. How's he doing with that prediction? Don't I start every hot take with another federal court order has been contumaciously violated, willfully violated by the Trump administration. Oh, they said, oh, ho, you can't make that statement. That's prejudging. That's engaging all of the judges in these issues. And it's far afield from what you should be discussing at a judicial conference. And the chief judge of the 6th Circuit, where it got sent to resolve, said, no, first of all, you didn't give me the piece of paper. The exhibit that you say represents that statement that he made. I know the Federalist Society has reported on it. I know that the Fox News has reported on it, but where's the evidence you need to carry the burden of evidence. So the judge says, even if you gave me that piece of paper, which you did not, even if that statement was made, it is not so far afield from the tradition of the conference that a judge can't make that ruling, especially given the Trump administration. So for that X, no, no ethics charge. The second one, he said, you're really complaining about his rulings. Okay, I'm not a court. I'm an ethics panel, if you will, and I'm dismissing your complaint. He said, if you got a problem with his rulings in this case, some of which have been upheld, some of which have been reversed by various appellate court judges, and you don't think he's following the law, okay, then argue that it's misconduct, file a motion for recusal or disqualification and let it work its way up the court system. If it gets recused and removed, the chief judge in that circuit, Judge Srivanasan can reassign it to another judge or use that as the basis for an appeal. But you've come to the. You're barking up the wrong tree. You've come to the wrong court. And so. And I don't see anything based on the rulings that have been made that would make me change my mind. Complaint for ethics dismissed.