EXPOSED: MASSIVE Conflict of Interest Uncovered Involving Judge Boasberg & His Own Daughter | JP
The plot thickens…
Independent journalist Laura Loomer has just uncovered a gigantic conflict of interest involving the rogue judge who tried to stop President Trump from deporting a flight of hundreds of illegal gang members.
Apparently, Judge James Boasberg’s daughter Katherine is a radical leftist who works for an organization called Partners for Justice.
The far-left organization, which receives over 3-quarters of its funding from taxpayers in the form of grants, advocates against “mass incarceration” of dangerous criminals and deporting violent illegal aliens.
It that’s not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.
Because of this, Loomer argues that Judge James Boasberg has no choice but to recuse himself from the case.
Laura Loomer broke down all the details on X:
EXCLUSIVE
I have exclusively uncovered… pic.twitter.com/KDMXBVP7mI
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 18, 2025
Full text of Loomer’s explosive post here:
EXCLUSIVE
Chief Judge Boasberg Blocked the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang member’s without disclosing the fact that his daughter works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice.
I have exclusively uncovered a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST involving Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg recently made the decision to prevent the deportation of criminal illegal alien gang members on planes out of the country.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXPOSED
The Judge has a daughter named Katherine Boasberg, who works for a 501(c)(3) organization called Partners for Justice as a “capacity building associate”. In her position, she helps coordinate and administer grant activities, ensuring compliance, and supporting the delivery of capacity-building programs to strengthen nonprofit infrastructure.
Katherine Boasberg also has pronouns in her bio. She goes by SHE/HER, proving her affiliation with the Left.
The Judge’s daughter focuses on criminal defense and advocacy as an employee of Partners For Justice.
Partners for Justice is an organization that derives 76% of its funding from GOVERNMENT GRANTS!
From the Partners For Justice website:
“Our Impact:
“Supporting those in need, transforming the system. Partners for Justice is transforming public defenders into a robust network of dynamic, people-centered service centers to reduce incarceration, increase equity, and positively impact the lives of those harmed by cycles of incarceration, poor health, and poverty. Since 2018 they have connected thousands of people with stabilizing services and eliminated an estimated 5,000 years of jail and prison time, compared to maximum exposure.”
Partners for Justice strongly opposes mass deportations and legislation targeting members of criminal gangs, and has been a vocal critic of the Laken Riley Act.
In a screenshot below, Emily Galvin-Almanza, the founder of “Partners for Justice” tweeted an article about Judge Boasberg blocking @realDonaldTrump’s deportations of Venezuelan gang bangers. She employs the Judge’s daughter.
Such a close familial relationship brings into question how the judge may render decisions and how his decisions may impact the professional career of his daughter, who’s employment is based upon defending criminal illegal aliens, gang members, and opposing mass deportations.
It seems that Judge Boasberg has a clear conflict of interest & is obligated to recuse himself from this case, as outlined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which specifies the circumstances under which a judge must disqualify themselves from a proceeding.
The disqualification clause states the following:
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
The judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:
Known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
The mass deportation of criminal illegal aliens and gang members could lead to a substantial reduction in urban crime rates, potentially decreasing the caseload for Partners for Justice, while also reducing gang-related incidents that may, in turn, diminish funding opportunities for Partners For Justice from U.S. government grants and private foundations.
Judge Boasberg MUST RECUSE HIMSELF!
Given his daughter’s employment at a group that advocates for criminal illegal Aliens & is funded by US Government grants, Judge Boasberg should not be granted any sensitive information about deportation flights. His family is a national security threat.
See receipts below
Less than 12 hours after Loomer’s original post, Kathering Boasberg took down her social media accounts:
BREAKING: Less than 12 hours after I exposed Judge James Boasberg’s conflict of interest with his daughter Katharine Boasberg, who works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” @PFJ_USA that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice,
Katharine Boasberg has… https://t.co/b0E0bW7t4C pic.twitter.com/1BMjQAvLjh— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 18, 2025
Full text:
BREAKING: Less than 12 hours after I exposed Judge James Boasberg’s conflict of interest with his daughter Katharine Boasberg, who works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” @PFJ_USA that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice, Katharine Boasberg has DELETED her
page and her Instagram account. I have exclusively uncovered a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST involving Judge James Boasberg, the Chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg recently made the decision to prevent the deportation of criminal illegal alien gang members on planes out of the country. This is enough for President Trump’s legal team to push for a MOTION FOR RECUSAL for Judge Boasberg.
In her post arguing for Judge Boasberg’s recusal, Loomer was referring to the clear Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which outlines the rules judges must follow to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure fairness of law.
If a judge does not excuse themselves from a case in order to avoid impropriety and avoid political activity, then they could face severe consequences, ranging from impeachment to fines to imprisonment.
ChatGPT explained this in detail:
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges outlines ethical standards for federal judges. The following canons and rules are most relevant to the allegations:
1. Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities
Rule 2.11(A): Disqualification
A judge must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when:“The judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
Analysis:
A daughter is a first-degree relative, clearly within the third degree of relationship. If Katherine Boasberg’s employment and the financial health of Partners for Justice (which opposes deportations and benefits from government grants tied to criminal alien caseloads) could be substantially affected by the judge’s rulings on deportation cases, this creates a clear conflict of interest.Potential Violation:
Failing to disclose or recuse himself from deportation cases involving criminal illegal aliens could violate this rule, as his impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his daughter’s financial and professional stake in the outcome.Appearance of Impropriety:
Even if no direct financial benefit accrues to the judge, the public perception of bias—given his daughter’s role at an organization benefiting from his rulings—could violate Canon 2’s requirement to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
2. Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently
Rule 3.1(C): Disqualification
Similar to Rule 2.11(A), this rule reinforces that a judge must disqualify themselves in situations where impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to a family member’s interest.Rule 3.2: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
While not directly applicable, this rule prohibits bias or prejudice in judicial duties.
Potential Violation:
If the judge’s rulings favor outcomes that benefit his daughter’s employer (e.g., blocking deportations), it could be seen as biased, even if unintentional. By not recusing himself and potentially favoring outcomes that indirectly benefit Partners for Justice, the judge could be seen as failing to perform his duties impartially.
3. Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity
While less directly applicable, this canon prohibits judges from engaging in activities that could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.
Potential Violation:
If the judge’s rulings are perceived as advancing a political agenda (e.g., opposing Trump’s immigration policies to benefit his daughter’s organization), this could indirectly violate Canon 5. The political nature of immigration and deportation policies, combined with the judge’s family ties to an advocacy group, could create an appearance of political bias, violating the spirit of this canon.
Analysis of Possible Violations
Failure to Disclose and Recuse (Rule 2.11(A) and Rule 3.1(C)):
The most significant violation would be failing to disclose his daughter’s employment and financial interest in Partners for Justice and not recusing himself from deportation cases. The Code explicitly requires disqualification when a family member’s interest could be substantially affected by the outcome.Appearance of Impropriety (Canon 2):
The public perception of bias, given his daughter’s role at an organization that benefits from his rulings, could undermine confidence in the judiciary.Potential Bias or Lack of Impartiality (Rule 3.2):
If his rulings consistently favor outcomes that benefit Partners for Justice, this could suggest bias, even if unintentional.
Possible Fines and Penalties
Judicial Discipline by the Judicial Conference or Circuit Judicial Councils
The Judicial Conference of the United States, through its Committee on Codes of Conduct, can investigate complaints against judges for ethical violations.
Possible Outcomes:
Private or Public Censure: A formal reprimand, which may or may not be publicized.
Referral for Impeachment: In severe cases, the Judicial Conference can recommend impeachment to Congress if a judge’s conduct constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” (e.g., corruption or gross ethical breaches).
While there are no direct fines associated with these actions, reputational damage and career consequences (e.g., removal from sensitive cases) can occur.Impeachment by Congress
Under Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, federal judges can be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Consequences:
If Judge Boasberg’s actions are deemed corrupt (e.g., intentionally ruling to benefit his daughter’s employer), Congress could pursue impeachment, leading to removal from office. No fines are associated with impeachment, but loss of judicial position and pension benefits could follow.Civil or Criminal Liability (Rare)
If the conflict of interest is proven to involve personal financial gain or criminal misconduct (e.g., bribery or fraud), the judge could face criminal charges under federal law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 208 for conflicts of interest involving government officials).
Penalties Could Include:
Fines up to $50,000 or more, depending on the statute.
Imprisonment for up to 5 years or more, depending on the severity.
However, such criminal charges against a federal judge are rare and would require substantial evidence of intentional misconduct beyond an ethical lapse.Professional Sanctions
The judge could face suspension or removal from judicial assignments, particularly high-profile cases like those involving immigration or national security. Loss of prestige, public trust, and potential voluntary resignation are also possible consequences, though not formalized penalties.
Articles of impeachment have already been filed against Judge James Boasberg.
Full details on that here:
JUST IN: Articles of Impeachment Officially Filed Against Rogue Judge James Boasberg
You can bet that, if Judge Boasberg does not recuse himself from the case, then this conflict of interest will come back to haunt him.
FAFO.