Judge Hannah Dugan arrested by FBI for allegedly helping undocumented immigrant 'evade arrest

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

lol it doesn’t change anything. This was always going to be a sham prosecution from the start, designed for show and intimidation. It won’t fly. Here’s more legal analysis as to why it’s extremely weak: 

https://www.dynamisllp.com/knowledge/arrest-judge-dugan-strategies-and-defenses

I advise you to read this one extremely carefully, particularly how the ICE agent screwed up trying to make the arrest and ignoring due process rules (seems to be a pattern, doesn’t it?) That way when she is easily acquitted you won’t be too disappointed. 

I hope you're just as prepared for when she's indicted...oh never mind. 

I mean, when she's convicted too. 

[Strike 5,276]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

According to whom? ICE? Not according to what I’m reading, and what I’ve linked. 

Well, he's still in federal custody and no one is trying to get him out of it.  That's pretty strong evidence that it was all legit.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,006]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Reading, much less understanding, is not a requirement of sheep.

They spaz out searching the internet for headlines and post as fast as they can. It’s so obvious and hilarious.  Gutterboy tried to act like he knew who built the nordstream pipeline off the top of his head today.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They spaz out searching the internet for headlines and post as fast as they can. It’s so obvious and hilarious.  Gutterboy tried to act like he knew who built the nordstream pipeline off the top of his head today.

Click-bait headlines is all they need to know "the truth".  No need to go any further.  

[jerryskids 6,597]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Nope.  Not at all. Here is Andrew McCarthy of National Review, a strong conservative and NOT a fan of Hannah Dugan, nonetheless offering up a defense of her actions: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/04/as-a-trump-doj-should-know-judge-dugan-has-a-defense/amp/

That article opens by saying her behavior was egregious.  Then says lawyers can do lawyer things to defend it.

Quote

There isn’t any doubt that Hannah Dugan, the progressive judge who sits on a Wisconsin state court in Milwaukee, tried to help an illegal alien evade arrest. Her conduct was egregious. That doesn’t make it indefensible. No one should know that better than Trump supporters.

I'm left to conclude yet again that you don't read your own links.

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Well, he's still in federal custody and no one is trying to get him out of it.  That's pretty strong evidence that it was all legit.

Wrong again, the ACLI is actively trying to get him out of federal custody. Whether they succeed is another matter. But that has no bearing on ICE’s illegal interference in a state courtroom. Do you believe in federalism? That’s the basis of McCarthy’s argument. Like you he is a fan of mass deportation and has no love for liberal judges like Dugan. Even so he’s got a problem with ICE interrupting her court proceedings to make an arrest. Because federalism. Do you have a problem with this? 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That article opens by saying her behavior was egregious.  Then says lawyers can do lawyer things to defend it.

I'm left to conclude yet again that you don't read your own links.

I read the whole thing. And your imtepretation is off. It’s not “lawyer things”, it’s federalism. But let’s get back to your initial question which is whether or not I support breaking the law in this instance. I do not. In certain instances I do. But in this case I don’t believe she broke the law. 

[Strike 5,276]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Wrong again, the ACLI is actively trying to get him out of federal custody. Whether they succeed is another matter. But that has no bearing on ICE’s illegal interference in a state courtroom. Do you believe in federalism? That’s the basis of McCarthy’s argument. Like you he is a fan of mass deportation and has no love for liberal judges like Dugan. Even so he’s got a problem with ICE interrupting her court proceedings to make an arrest. Because federalism. Do you have a problem with this? 

ICE never entered the courtroom.  Nor did they interrupt her court proceedings.  They were waiting patiently outside.  Not sure WTF you're talking about.  Nothing they did was illegal or improper. 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

And “egregious” is not the same as illegal. Dugan’s actions were egregious to McCarthy (not to me.) Nonetheless he disapproves of her indictment and predicts she’ll be acquitted. Which is why I linked him. I could just as easily have linked articles by the ACLU, or Andrew Weissman, or dozens of liberal attorneys predicting the same, but if I had done that, most of you here would have ignored it and accused me of bias. I don’t think you can ignore McCarthy. 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

ICE never entered the courtroom.  Nor did they interrupt her court proceedings.  They were waiting patiently outside.  Not sure WTF you're talking about.  Nothing they did was illegal or improper. 

I said they interfered with her courtroom. I never said they entered it. They interfered by waiting outside preparing to arrest him, because that puts a damper on proceedings inside the courtroom. This is why the federalism argument is brought up. This is why so many jurists think it was both illegal and improper, despite your assurance otherwise. 

[supermike80 1,825]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

ICE never entered the courtroom.  Nor did they interrupt her court proceedings.  They were waiting patiently outside.  Not sure WTF you're talking about.  Nothing they did was illegal or improper. 

Right. Not sure where the interrupting court proceedings came from.  

I guess sitting outside is interfering.   Jesus whats next.   

Its comical 

[Strike 5,276]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I said they interfered with her courtroom. I never said they entered it. They interfered by waiting outside preparing to arrest him, because that puts a damper on proceedings inside the courtroom. This is why the federalism argument is brought up. This is why so many jurists think it was both illegal and improper, despite your assurance otherwise. 

They didn't interfere.  In no reasonable world is standing around outside a room "interfering" with anything happening in that room. 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

Anyhow we’ll see. I’m pretty sure she’ll be acquitted (and should be) but juries are unpredictable. It will likely be months before this comes to trial. The important thing is that judges need to continue to be brave and not allow this incident or other threats by the MAGA crowd to intimidate them. 

[Strike 5,276]

2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Right. Not sure where the interrupting court proceedings came from.  

I guess sitting outside is interfering.   Jesus whats next.   

Its comical 

It's Tim.  What do you expect?  He makes up whatever argument allows him to justify an unreasonable opinion.  As I've said since day one, he forms an opinion and then develops the "evidence" to support that opinion, as opposed to the way most rational people form an opinion which is by processing data and facts and logically forming an opinion.  He does it BACKWARDS.

[supermike80 1,825]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

It's Tim.  What do you expect?  He makes up whatever argument allows him to justify an unreasonable opinion.  As I've said since day one, he forms an opinion and then develops the "evidence" to support that opinion, as opposed to the way most rational people form an opinion which is by processing data and facts and logically forming an opinion.  He does it BACKWARDS.

It makes no sense whatsoever

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

They didn't interfere.  In no reasonable world is standing around outside a room "interfering" with anything happening in that room. 

Well you’re just wrong on this. Here is the ACLU on this exact issue: 

ICE arrests in courthouses gravely impact the willingness of immigrant communities to come forward as victims or witnesses of crimes and seek out help or due process they have a right to. 

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-of-wisconsin-and-aclu-react-to-fbi-arrest-of-milwaukee-judge

Simply put if we allow ICE to go into a courthouse to make an arrest, even if they don’t enter the courtroom, that will cause people fearful of deportation to refuse to testify or go to court. THAT’S the interference. 

[supermike80 1,825]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Well you’re just wrong on this. Here is the ACLU on this exact issue: 

ICE arrests in courthouses gravely impact the willingness of immigrant communities to come forward as victims or witnesses of crimes and seek out help or due process they have a right to. 

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-of-wisconsin-and-aclu-react-to-fbi-arrest-of-milwaukee-judge

Simply put if we allow ICE to go into a courthouse to make an arrest, even if they don’t enter the courtroom, that will cause people fearful of deportation to refuse to testify or go to court. THAT’S the interference. 

But he did come forward.   So whats your point?  This doesnt make any sense

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

It's Tim.  What do you expect?  He makes up whatever argument allows him to justify an unreasonable opinion.  As I've said since day one, he forms an opinion and then develops the "evidence" to support that opinion, as opposed to the way most rational people form an opinion which is by processing data and facts and logically forming an opinion.  He does it BACKWARDS.

I didn’t make up any of these arguments. I wish I had. But I‘m no legal expert. I just happen to read the arguments of other people that I find compelling. But part of that is that unlike most of you guys I don’t start with a hard on for deporting undocumented people. Your obsession with that colors your rational judgment IMO. 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

But he did come forward.   So whats your point?  This doesnt make any sense

It doesn’t matter that he came forward. (Though would he have done so if he knew he’d be arrested?) The point is that others won’t. 
It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to a lot of legal experts. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

3 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

But he did come forward.   So whats your point?  This doesnt make any sense

The ACLU says so, so it must be true! You know who else says that's true? Criminals!

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The ACLU says so, so it must be true! 

You know, not in every case,  but I think as a general rule this is a wise conclusion by you. Certainly they’re far more right now than they’ve been in years, due to the continuing assault on our civil liberties by the Trump Administration. And they’re having a lot of legal success fighting back. I try to give them money every month or so and I have to say I’m quite satisfied with my investment these days. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,006]

26 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You know, not in every case,  but I think as a general rule this is a wise conclusion by you. Certainly they’re far more right now than they’ve been in years, due to the continuing assault on our civil liberties by the Trump Administration. And they’re having a lot of legal success fighting back. I try to give them money every month or so and I have to say I’m quite satisfied with my investment these days. 

You live in a fantasy world where you’re a player in some epic struggle. It’s funny. Clown. 

[Strike 5,276]

42 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well you’re just wrong on this. Here is the ACLU on this exact issue: 

ICE arrests in courthouses gravely impact the willingness of immigrant communities to come forward as victims or witnesses of crimes and seek out help or due process they have a right to. 

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-of-wisconsin-and-aclu-react-to-fbi-arrest-of-milwaukee-judge

Simply put if we allow ICE to go into a courthouse to make an arrest, even if they don’t enter the courtroom, that will cause people fearful of deportation to refuse to testify or go to court. THAT’S the interference. 

I don't really care if people who are breaking the law are unwilling to come forward.  That doesn't mean ICE is interfering with anything.  Again, they did nothing illegal or improper.

[jerryskids 6,597]

41 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It doesn’t matter that he came forward. (Though would he have done so if he knew he’d be arrested?) The point is that others won’t. 
It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to a lot of legal experts. 

I would think there is established legal precedent on this 

[nobody 2,581]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Please read the letter I posted from over a hundred respected jurists and legal scholars demanding an end to this sham. It spells it out much better than I could. 
 

 

You haven't learned yet?  Whenever they have dozens and 100s of "experts" sign off on something, that's a dead giveaway, they're full of shìt.

It's like Einstein said when 100 physics "experts" tried to shìt on his theory of relativity (paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact wording) "Why so many?  If I was wrong, it would only take one."

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

47 minutes ago, nobody said:

You haven't learned yet?  Whenever they have dozens and 100s of "experts" sign off on something, that's a dead giveaway, they're full of shìt.

It's like Einstein said when 100 physics "experts" tried to shìt on his theory of relativity (paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact wording) "Why so many?  If I was wrong, it would only take one."

This is a really dumb analogy. I mean terrible. 

[nobody 2,581]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is a really dumb analogy. I mean terrible. 

You'll need 100 people to cosign on this before I think it is valid.

[Ron_Artest 1,126]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is a really dumb analogy. I mean terrible. 

This is the damage that COVID has done to the masses.  The distrust in experts will have wide ranging impacts for decades.

For years we had generally smart people like Nobody that trusted the experts.  They listened to their doctors, listened to their lawyers, even the researchers and scientists and after just a few months of isolation and being brainwashed by social media, they distrust everything.  Quite the shame.

100s of scholars explaining the legalities this issue, and a dummy like nobody chooses to believe an 80 year old demented sociopath.

Truly a shame.

[iam90sbaby 2,503]

As long as she gets due process we’re all good right?

[supermike80 1,825]

8 hours ago, Strike said:

I don't really care if people who are breaking the law are unwilling to come forward.  That doesn't mean ICE is interfering with anything.  Again, they did nothing illegal or improper.

Right...timmys argument was that ICE interfered with this case.  When I said that's not true, based on his assertion that it keeps people from coming to court, he changed it to....well it can maybe possibly affect other cases.  So his argument in this one is bunk.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Right...timmys argument was that ICE interfered with this case.  When I said that's not true, based on his assertion that it keeps people from coming to court, he changed it to....well it can maybe possibly affect other cases.  So his argument in this one is bunk.

Like every leftists, whenever you expose their pretzel logic they just move the goalposts and argue another made up point based on the same pretzel logic.

[Reality 3,118]

Lol, what a read. 

Tim is a cartoon character.

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Right...timmys argument was that ICE interfered with this case.  When I said that's not true, based on his assertion that it keeps people from coming to court, he changed it to....well it can maybe possibly affect other cases.  So his argument in this one is bunk.

No that was not my argument, I wrote that ICE interfered with her courtroom. I didn’t change my argument. 

[supermike80 1,825]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

No that was not my argument, I wrote that ICE interfered with her courtroom. I didn’t change my argument. 

Yeah.   And I think it was shown that they didn't.  Not sure why you aren't seeing that but OK.  You do you

[Strike 5,276]

4 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah.   And I think it was shown that they didn't.  Not sure why you aren't seeing that but OK.  You do you

Which is why it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with Tim.  Logic and data don't apply to his mindset. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No that was not my argument, I wrote that ICE interfered with her courtroom. I didn’t change my argument. 

I don't know why you keep saying that and pushing that lie.  They did not interfere with her courtroom at all.  Ever.

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

12 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah.   And I think it was shown that they didn't.  Not sure why you aren't seeing that but OK.  You do you

No it wasn’t shown that. While they didn’t enter the courtroom and they didn’t interfere with this specific case, their presence outside affects all judicial proceedings. Why is this so hard to understand? 

[The Real timschochet 6,534]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I don't know why you keep saying that and pushing that lie.  They did not interfere with her courtroom at all.  Ever.

Let me offer you a hypothetical. An undocumented immigrant witnesses a child being sexually molested. He goes to the police and turns in the culprit. Now the pedophile is on trial and this undocumented immigrant is the only witness to the crime. But the witness sees this incident (the Hannah Dugan case) in the news. Now he is afraid to testify. Since he was the only witness the case is thrown out and the pedophile freed to commit more crimes. 
 

This is exactly what the ACLU was warning about. It’s what Hannah Dugan recognized and why she should not be prosecuted. Now do you get it? If you still don’t there’s really nothing else I can offer. ICE shouldn’t be outside the courtroom or inside. They shouldn’t be anywhere near it, period. 

[Ron_Artest 1,126]

We don't want illegals scared to show up in court for fear of being deported, whether it is for crimes they are charged with or as witnesses to other crimes.

That is why this has not been a practice up until recently.

[Fnord 2,065]

11 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

And “egregious” is not the same as illegal. Dugan’s actions were egregious to McCarthy (not to me.) Nonetheless he disapproves of her indictment and predicts she’ll be acquitted. Which is why I linked him. I could just as easily have linked articles by the ACLU, or Andrew Weissman, or dozens of liberal attorneys predicting the same, but if I had done that, most of you here would have ignored it and accused me of bias. I don’t think you can ignore McCarthy. 

SIGH. Tim, even in your Pollyannish world, I find it hard to believe that you still think there is ANYTHING that MAGA cannot ignore as it suits them.