Comments on: Collusion between judges and Jack Smith?

By: William T

William T — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:21:17 +0000

The judges will assert (as will Smith) that these meetings were to coordinate the workflow of the anticipated cases, not the substance of the litigation. Meetings like this are not unusual in complicated conspiracy or RICO cases in which a number of individuals are expected to be indicted and tried in a single district. These are not ex parte because there is no case yet against represented individuals before the judge. What is unusual is the bias displayed by both the judges involved, and I sense there was probably much said that is not recorded in the meeting summary.

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:51:41 +0000

Wendy K:

I was imprecise in my language. They are immune in a political sense; not a legal sense. Not job ramifications for this.

By: Barry Meislin

Barry Meislin — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:45:46 +0000

Related? (That is, if good news can be related…Though one might ask why an acknowledgment of TRUTH should specifically be considered “good news”…?)

We just won Missouri v. Biden.

As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election….

https://instapundit.com/785093/

By: Wendy K Laubach

Wendy K Laubach — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 03:18:45 +0000

Judges aren’t immune from being disqualified by ex parte communications.

By: DougH

DougH — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:48:31 +0000

Box 4

By: agimarc

agimarc — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:43:35 +0000

In which current DC Circuit judges do their level best to emulate Judge Sirica conspiring with DC federal prosecutors and House democrats to impeach, try and convict Nixon in Watergate. Some things never change. Cheers –

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:09:23 +0000

Watt:

Nothing will happen. These judges are immune and protected.

By: Watt

Watt — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 22:36:35 +0000

It’s hard to tell exactly what this is. An ex parte communication *during* a specific case? A planning meeting to address strategy going forward (before any case had been initiated)? Something else?

Either way, it sounds very improper. To the extent that any relevant case is ongoing, one option is a motion to disqualify the judge – if one of the named judges is presiding over the case. Another option for all the above permutations is to proceed under the following law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-16

By: Cornhead

Cornhead — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 22:34:58 +0000

It is against the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to have a substantive conversation with a judge without opposing counsel present. It’s a prohibited ex parte contact. The judges know that. Unless I’m missing something (and I don’t think I am), both Jack Smith and the judges should be sanctioned.

If you see a judge at a conference or a football game, different deal.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 22:17:16 +0000

Here is Bill Shipley’s explanation, he has other elaboration in his X feed

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2036485109625520238