In this partisan commentary, the host (Speaker A) attacks two federal judges—James Boasberg and Patricia Milley—by alleging that their participation in a privately funded Rodel Institute judicial fellowship reveals a deep‑seated Democratic bias that undermines the Trump administration. The speaker cites a Just the News report that Boasberg attended a July 2024 conference framed as a “democratic strategist session” for judges, noting the lack of transparency about any remuneration and pointing to the institute’s funding from foundations that support anti‑Trump groups. He lists a roster of board members and faculty advisors who are outspoken Trump critics, suggesting that Boasberg’s exposure to this environment explains his alleged obstruction of Trump’s efforts to combat gang violence. The commentary then pivots to Judge Patricia Milley (also referred to as Melaye), accusing her of overstepping Article III authority by treating district judges as policy‑makers and likening her decisions to the treatment of Nazis under the Alien Enemies Act. The host argues that the courts are “paralyzed” and that the president’s war powers are being misread by the judiciary. Throughout, the tone is aggressively persuasive, employing rhetorical questions, name‑dropping, and emotive language to portray these judges as part of a “deep state” that threatens constitutional order and public safety.
Chapters
This Judge James Boasberg, and by the way, we'll play this other judge as well, um, attended a, a conference that was basically a Democratic, uh, strategist or strategy session, uh, for judges, if you will. So this, this, this session, uh, this session was called a private, uh, it was called a privately funded seminar disclosure report. The document disclosed that, that Boasberg was in attendance, but it doesn't offer details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel or what the re— uh, re— I think they meant renumeration was, uh, reports this according to Just the News. The outlet was alerted to the conference and to Boasberg's attendance by, uh, by a retired Democrat-appointed judge who was concerned the July 2024 conference's focus on judges' role in a democracy was too close to a political party's theme for comfort. So another Democrat judge, apparently not a leftist at least, said, I, I don't, I don't know if this guy Boasberg should be at a conference like this. Overseen by the Administration Office of the U.S. Courts, the ethical rules governing federal judges require that a private entity who quote, issues an invitation to a federal judge to attend an educational program as a speaker, panelist, or attendee, and offers to pay for, uh, offers to pay for or reimburse that judge in excess of $480, must disclose financial and, uh, programmatic information. Uh, the rules do not require a specific accounting for each judge or even how much was paid to judges at all. I wonder why that is. It is possible that his quote-unquote payment was merely reimbursement for expenses, but Boasberg did not respond to requests for comments from Just the News— by Just the News. The entire arrangement, they say, reeks of the same swamp politics that Trump has been fighting since day one. Is it any surprise that after rubbing elbows with fellow liberals at this partisan powwow, Judge Boasberg decided to obstruct Trump's efforts to remove dangerous gang members from our streets? This is exactly why Americans have lost faith in our judicial system. Unelected judges attending partisan conferences. Again, PJ Media. Been making decisions based on partisan biases, not constitutionality. The conference was part of the Rodale Institute's Judicial Fellowship, okay? And each attending judge, including Boasberg, was a first-year fellow, this according to the institute's website. So wow, first-year fellow. So he was really interested with these judges, I guess, securing democracy, or the judges in a democracy and State of Democracy? First-year fellow, first time attending, almost as if he wanted to be ready just in case. I, I don't, I'm just, I, I don't know, I'm just, just saying. Wow. All right, so again, Boasberg was their first-year fellow according to the institute's website. Notably, Rodell receives funding from the same foundations that frequently bankroll anti-Trump organizations. You don't say.
Oh wow.
Programs and publications as well. Additionally, the institute's faculty advisors, 20 in total, are overwhelmingly outspoken Trump critics or those who have opposed his policies. No, no, no, but Boasberg, he's fair. I mean, he's on the bench. He's fair, right? The Rodel Institute's board of directors is stacked with Trump critics, including Ian Solomon, co-founders Bill and Don Budinger, have deep ties to Democratic organizations and candidates, with Dunn opposing Arizona's immigration enforcement efforts and backing Democrat, uh, Democratic Senate candidates. Former Montana Governor Steve Bullock was under consideration for Kamala Harris's cabinet, while former Arizona legislator Heather Carter abandoned the GOP and endorsed Democrats like Katie Hobbs. Then you got Jamie Woodson co-chaired a report lamenting political disinformation in 2016. And then you got former, uh, former Washington AG Rob McKenna has openly attacked Trump, calling him a demagogue and dismissing his legal arguments as flimsy. Man, I'm not sure that you could go to a conference with those people and come out thinking highly of Trump. But that's what Boasberg did, this judge that is supposed to be fair. Mr. McConnell, how much time do we have left in this block? Because I want— okay, I want you guys to hear another judge just so you understand what we're up against, because this is their last line of defense. You understand that, right? Well, The deep state as well, like the caller mentioned. He's absolutely right. But this is one of their last lines of defense. Let me see if I can find— okay, here's Judge Patricia Melaye. She's not by any stretch of the imagination biased at all. Cut number 19, please, Mr. McConnell.
There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act than has happened here. If the government says We don't have to give process for that. Then y'all could have picked me up on Saturday and thrown me on a plane thinking I'm a member of Trans-Iraq War and given me no chance to protest it. If your argument is we didn't have to do that, it's an intrusion on the president's war powers, the courts are paralyzed to do anything. Then that's a misreading of precedent. It's a misreading of the text of the Alien Enemies Act. And that can't be an unlawful intrusion on the president's powers. You just can't. The president has to comply with the Constitution and laws like everybody else.
And maybe, maybe, maybe you should too, because you're a district judge. And you don't have the authority. You don't have the moral authority. And it's really asinine to compare this to the treatment of Nazis. They get better treatment than gangsters that are coming into the United States and murdering Americans. Oh, there was, there was, uh, there were at least 5 that weren't gang members. I don't know if that's official or not. There was one that's a gang member, but gay, and he's terrified to be there. Well, he's in a great place if he's, you know, I mean, You're in a great place. Um, this judge is a joke, and people like this make up much of our federal bench. People that have no desire to protect the Constitution whatsoever. I'd like to know where— I'd like to know where in Article 3 of the Constitution it gives lower courts, a district judge, the ability to set policy as if she's the president of the United States. I wonder if Patricia Milley can find that in the Constitution. It's a very— Article 3 is a very small read. It's a very short read. I didn't see that in there.
