At least she can't do more damage in her courtroom unless she avoids being convicted.

i guess the WI Supreme Court are now MAGA members since they sided with the Trump FBI and DOJ.   

For those here who said Trump was just attacking judges he disagreed with, the state supreme court is not under the jurisdiction of the federal justice system.  There must be some truth to the alleged crimes she committed, not just a difference of ideologies.

Wisconsin high court suspends Milwaukee judge
accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a judge accused of helping a
man evade immigration authorities, saying Tuesday that it is in the public
interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges.

The FBI took Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan into custody
Friday morning at the county courthouse. She has been charged with
concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest and obstructing
or impeding a proceeding.

In its two-page order, the court said it was acting to protect public confidence
in Wisconsin courts during the criminal proceedings against Dugan. The order
noted that the court was acting on its own initiative and was not responding
to a request from anyone. Liberal justices control the court 4-3.

“It is ordered ... that Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah C. Dugan is
temporarily prohibited from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the
state of Wisconsin, effective the date of this order and until further order of the
court,” the justices wrote.

https://apnews.com/article/milwaukee-judge-arrested-supreme-court-suspended-49f25ea7702d3211719f926f8cfc90b7

Judge Dugan has been indicted by a federal grand jury.

 

Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge
Hannah Dugan in immigration case

A federal grand jury on Tuesday indicted a Wisconsin judge accused of
helping a man evade immigration authorities, allowing the case against
her to continue.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin confirmed the indictment to CBS News.

The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan escalated a
clash between President Trump's administration and local authorities over
the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused
the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to
chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.

Prosecutors charged Dugan in April via a complaint with concealing an
individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice
system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing
a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide
whether to issue charges.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-judge-federal-grand-jury-hannah-dugan-immigration/

Dugan's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges filed against her on the grounds that the judge was acting in an official capacity and has immunity.

Her official act was intended to deny ICE access to an illegal immigrant appearing in her courtroom, but the lawyers argued "that her conduct on the day in question amounted to directing people’s movement in and around her courtroom."

 

As if we needed another reason to despise lawyers. 

if this is the best defense they can muster, she's toast!   

Looking at the facts of the case there may be some plausible deniability so I don't think this will be a slam dunk case but seems like enough to charge her. Curious to see how this turns out.

Smart of ICE to have plain clothes guys stationed in the hall and court room to see what she did after they went to find the head judge after she told them to leave though

Looking at the facts of the case there may be some plausible deniability so I don't think this will be a slam dunk case but seems like enough to charge her. Curious to see how this turns out.

Smart of ICE to have plain clothes guys stationed in the hall and court room to see what she did after they went to find the head judge after she told them to leave though

Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it.  She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there).  The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.

As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings."  it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.

A foot chase followed inside the courthouse.  The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance.  Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.

The DEA agents alerted the other federal agents, and one of them,
DEA Agent A, got onto the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and his attorney.
The FBI agents “scrambled to locate” Flores-Ruiz, which ultimately
resulted in Flores-Ruiz fleeing, a “foot chase” for the “entire length of
the courthouse,” and Flores-Ruiz’s apprehension and arrest—all of
which took place while the ICE agent and the CBP agent were still
speaking by phone with the chief judge.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems

Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers."  However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest.  Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position. 

I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.

Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it.  She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there).  The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.

As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings."  it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.

A foot chase followed inside the courthouse.  The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance.  Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems

Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers."  However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest.  Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position. 

I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.

So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.

So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.

I found several videos posted from Wisconsin courtroom security cameras.  I will assume those cameras are in all the courtrooms to document the proceedings as well as to be used as evidence if anyone acts up.

If Dugan's courtroom was being recorded, she has very little chance of disputing the facts as they occurred.  All she can do is argue immunity (fat chance) and intention.  bypassing the prosector entirely just before letting the defendant go out a private door while she thinks the agents are tied up talking to the other judge to me indicates intent.

If Dugan's courtroom was being recorded, she has very little chance of disputing the facts as they occurred. 

She will argue like how EEF does. Goal post moving, whataboutism, bringing up other irrelevant issues, etc...

So EEF"s whataboutism was wrong again.

You still don't understand what that word means. 

You still don't understand what that word means. 

You keep using that image for others to stop thread-jacking ==>   

I don't think you have the slightest clue what that actually means. 

If you do know, then you're a self-centered hypocrite.

Once the agents in the hall were asked to talk to the chief judge (I'll let mac school you on the word you used), Dugan went back to court and "pushed" the lawyers and clerk to get to the Flores-Ruiz case -- a behavior characterized as trying to expedite it.  She then motioned for just the defense attorney to talk to her at the bench, as Flores-Ruiz sat in the jury box (that's not done, as only jurors are allowed in there).  The prosecutor said he thought they were discussing a new trial date.

As soon as the judge and defense lawyer stopped talking together, "she escorted or directed Flores-Ruiz to exit through a nonpublic jury door and continued with other proceedings."  it wasn't until later the prosecutor and clerk realized the judge never called the Flores-Ruiz case officially, even though she pretended she'd worked out a postponement date -- all without including or notifying the prosecutor.

A foot chase followed inside the courthouse.  The non-public exit Flores-Ruiz took from the courtroom lead to the public hallway further down from the courtroom entrance.  Agents saw the attorney and defendant briskly walking past the elevators closer to the courtroom and continued to a different bank of elevators that were closer to the courthouse exit.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-judge-dugan-case-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems

Few cases are a slam-dunk because "lawyers."  However, to spin the judge's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct federal immigration officers trying to make an arrest is dishonest.  Maybe she takes a plea deal to avoid prison, or maybe she doesn't care because she's an activist judge who abused her position. 

I bet she acted this way during the Biden years, too, but figured she could get a pardon if anyone in the federal gov't actually did their job and charged her with any crimes.

I recommend this podcast which had a good in depth discussion about this case including the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/the-arrest-of-judge-hannah-dugan/

A prosecution of the judge needs to prove mens rea and that is where the prosecution will have the most difficulty. The judge put Flores-Ruiz into the jury room and that jury room has a door to the public hallway which Flores-Ruiz used to try escape. If the prosecution can prove the judge gave some sort of direction on how to escape then it is a solid case, but without that she can claim she was absent minded, forgot there was another exit in the room, and he escaped of his own decision. If you think this is a spin then you don't understand how criminal cases work. 

I recommend this podcast which had a good in depth discussion about this case including the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/the-arrest-of-judge-hannah-dugan/

A prosecution of the judge needs to prove mens rea and that is where the prosecution will have the most difficulty. The judge put Flores-Ruiz into the jury room and that jury room has a door to the public hallway which Flores-Ruiz used to try escape. If the prosecution can prove the judge gave some sort of direction on how to escape then it is a solid case, but without that she can claim she was absent minded, forgot there was another exit in the room, and he escaped of his own decision. If you think this is a spin then you don't understand how criminal cases work.

Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape.  She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that.  She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants.  The agents told her that's what they had.

Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag.  Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.

Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance.  I don't see any question as to her intentions.

You still don't understand what that word means. 

You just posted 2 things you don't understand.  This is funny.

Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape.  She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that.  She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants.  The agents told her that's what they had.

Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag.  Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.

Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance.  I don't see any question as to her intentions.

I never looked into this at all. But it seems like you got more info to back up your statements.  And EEF keeps trying to move goal post so he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong again.

I never looked into this at all. But it seems like you got more info to back up your statements.  And EEF keeps trying to move goal post so he doesn't have to admit that he was wrong again.

If nothing else, why, after talking to the agents, would she bring only the defense attorney to the bench to talk and not the prosecutor?  Why did she not formally call the case, but still felt the need to talk to the attorney before sending them both to the jury room?

She had full "mens rea".  If not, she would have not pretended to be the defendant's lawyer and advocate.  The man was already represented by counsel, so there was no reason for the judge to interfere with the agents who, by the way, were courteous enough to wait until the judge could have completed the man's case before taking him into custody.

If not for the fact the agents saw the man AND HIS LAWYER fast-walking to escape the building, he would have made it.  Luckily there were enough agents to have the place covered even while some were being distracted.

Does anyone think the lawyer will cover for the judge and risk losing his license to practice?  if the judge instructed them what to do, i think we'll be given a first-hand account of that conversation.  Conversations between judges and lawyers of record are not considered privileged.

You just posted 2 things you don't understand.  This is funny.

So I rebutted you by accident? Not that hard I guess

Her words to the agents before having them distracted by the chief judge sink any excuses that she didn't intend to help him escape.  She erroneously asked if the agents had a judicial warrant, in which case she seemed to be willing to abide by that.  She knows immigration agents use administrative warrants.  The agents told her that's what they had.

Putting him in the jury room was also a red flag.  Nobody goes in there except the jurors and court officers.

Her entire demeaner when confronting the agents was one of defiance.  I don't see any question as to her intentions.

I very much suspect she knew exactly what she was doing but the prosecution needs to but the prosecution still needs to make their case that this was her intent. The evidence against her is circumstantial so the prosecutors need a way of overcoming a plausible deniability defense. If I was the prosecutor I would try to anticipate what claim she might put forth and have a way of countering it. I think one likely defense would be for the judge to claim she put him in the jury room to wait until the matter was figured out but that she forgot the jury room has another exit.

Most cases don't go to trial so normally a plea deal would be likely however given the fact she is a judge, and thinks she has some moral high ground here, maybe she will fight it? If it does go to trial then we can see if my defense prediction comes true.

I very much suspect she knew exactly what she was doing but the prosecution needs to but the prosecution still needs to make their case that this was her intent. The evidence against her is circumstantial so the prosecutors need a way of overcoming a plausible deniability defense. If I was the prosecutor I would try to anticipate what claim she might put forth and have a way of countering it. I think one likely defense would be for the judge to claim she put him in the jury room to wait until the matter was figured out but that she forgot the jury room has another exit.

Most cases don't go to trial so normally a plea deal would be likely however given the fact she is a judge, and thinks she has some moral high ground here, maybe she will fight it? If it does go to trial then we can see if my defense prediction comes true.

Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial."  We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.

I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids.   

If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial.  That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.

So I rebutted you by accident? Not that hard I guess

Not by accident. More like you're unaware.