LEAST SHOCKING THING EVER: It appears the full DC appellate court is prepared to restart Judge Jeb Boasberg's outlandish criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration related to his "oral command" in March 2025 to return planes out of US airspace carrying Venezuelan illegals tied to Tren de Aragua. I just listened to most of the en banc hearing from earlier this week. Although two separate panels of the appellate court have already determined Boasberg that did not have the authority to conduct a mini trial--not only did he want in-court testimony from two DOJ officials including a so-called "whistleblower" but he plans to allow the attorneys representing the illegals to cross-examine the officials--the full court took up the matter again on Tuesday. The appellate court is led by an Obama appointee; the configuration of the court is 7 Democratic appointees, three Trump appointees, and one GW Bush appointee (who often sides with Democrats.) The Dem judges badgered the DOJ prosecutor handling the case for nearly 2 hours. They insist, without any supporting case law, that Boasberg can conduct a deep investigation into Trump officials--including former DHS Sec. Kristy Noem--to determine the culprit of the alleged criminal "contempt." The prosecutor had to repeat over and over that the judicial branch does not possess prosecutorial power--that Boasberg can make a referral to DOJ based on the information already provided. But Boasberg wants a circus, not a legit factfinding inquiry. Further, Boasberg has all the information he needs. Noem even submitted a sworn declaration about the matter, but Boasberg (and some of the appellate judges) are not satisfied. While plenty of absurd things were said during the oral arguments, this really stood out. Here is Judge Cornelia Pillard--who should have RECUSED herself since her husband, David Cole, is the former chief legal counsel for the ACLU, which is the other party in this case--making the Trump administration's refusal to follow Boasberg's "oral command" to return two planes out of US airspace at the time look like a Constitutional crisis. Pillard: "If Article III judges' orders are optional with the United States as a litigant, and they can disregard orders with impunity, that’s actually a diminution of authority of Article III courts. Really at bottom, what this case is about, is whether article III courts are at the mercy of the executive…if the executive branch can determine ‘we don’t want to be stopped by a court, if we are, we will ignore it, and do our best to keep our noses clean, but if the court thinks there’s a problem, we in the end will be in charge of whether that problem is tracked down." Of course, that's not what happened. Further, Boasberg's follow up written order did not include his statement to return planes. And SCOTUS vacated his initial restraining order in the matter after determining he did not have jurisdiction. More here: open.substack.com/pub/juliek…