"... giving President Donald Trump’s administration a rare win in its prosecutions of public officials who have challenged his agenda.
The jury found Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of a felony, obstructing an official proceeding, but acquitted her of a misdemeanor, concealing a person from arrest. The verdict came after six hours of deliberations and Dugan could be sentenced to up to five years in prison.... Dugan... will no longer be able to continue as a judge because Wisconsin’s constitution bars people convicted of felonies from holding public office.... Many on the right said Dugan’s conduct was part of a 'deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws.... Some have sought to make this case about a larger political battle,' [said Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.] 'While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'"
It might seem odd that the judge was convicted of the felony but acquitted on the misdemeanor, but the misdemeanor required showing the act of hiding the person.
From the prosecutor's closing argument: "'She was a frustrated and angry judge who was fed up, who decided to corruptly take matters into her own hands."
Posts
94 comments:
Will she get a sternly worded letter?
A slap on her wrist? A pat on the poo-poo?
“While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'"
WTH? Keep your opinions to yourself, WaPo.
Hawaiian judge will vacate since the wrong verdict was reached…
Dugan should serve jail time. Send her to Alderson in WV; the Martha Stewart pen.
I remember the constant comments that "no one is above the law." I anticipate that there will be numerous statements on the verdict from the left, but that one will not be one of them.
giving President Donald Trump’s administration a rare win
It's just a rare win, so it doesn't really count. Boo, Trump!
in its prosecutions of public officials who have challenged his agenda.
Also known as "breaking the law", but it's OK to break laws that Trump wrote. Again, boo, Trump...!
…best case scenario is a weak outcome where the verdict sticks, she leaves via golden parachute but unable to enter Canada because felon and remembered as an isolated incident, rather than exposing the entire leftie system that motivated and empowered her to do what she did…
Some have sought to make this case about a larger political battle
Pleaseplease don’t investigate the larger battle…
Keep your chins up Hannah. Everything is going to be alright.
What BS is this:
"Many on the right said Dugan’s conduct was part of a 'deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws."
The Judges actions were intentional. She didn't neglect to help law enforcement. She helped a criminal evade justice.
If I'd have been on the jury I probably would have voted the same way. She obstructed the ICE apprehension and facilitated his escape but it was all done in plain sight.
And now she's a *convicted felon*, the absolute worst thing you can be (per the TDS-addled among us.)
"No one is above the law."
I heard that somewhere. Seems to apply.
Didn't our resident dullard predict a not guilty verdict?
Or what Unknown said.
Breezy--that wasn't the WaPo--that was the prosecutor. His strategy was to focus the jury on what actually happened, rather than "sending a message." Imagine that.
"Dave Begley said...
Dugan should serve jail time."
I would settle for loss of her judge job and disbarment.
’…will no longer be able to continue as a judge…’
Whoopsie!!
I really smiled at the other judge's testimony in which she wanted desperately to make clear she had no idea what Duggan was doing when she asked the witness judge to accompany her into the hallway and "keep your robe on so we look authoratative." She was shocked a judge would act so contemptuously of the law.
She must not know many rabid democrats.
"Shipwreckedcrew" explained on Twitter that the judge granted a lenient instruction for the misdemeanor count but then reconsidered as to the felony.
Don't be surprised when she's let off with a suspended sentence, not when a workaround is found to keep her on the bench.
boatbuilder, thanks for the correction. I rescind my indignation at WaPo.
“ ... giving President Donald Trump’s administration a rare win in its prosecutions of public officials who have challenged his agenda.”
Throwing in the word “rare” is called framing bias in critical thinking. This is when a writer selects words that subtly shape how readers interpret events. Other errors that apply are editorializing, which involves Inserting opinion or spin into what should be straight reporting, and semantic slanting among a long list of others.
When I was teaching critical thinking we used the first hour of each class analyzing a random article from the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
We could spend a week on this one.
As if that were their only transgression!
I’d just like to point out just what a seriously fat and unattractive hag she is.
And it definitely is "about a larger ideological battle" because prominent democrats like Newsom and Prickskirt keep telling their communities they have a duty to resist federal law enforcement, exactly what this judge did and will pay for by losing her job.
But fear not some lefty law group can still employ her as a paralegal just make her landing soft and painless. That's what they do for their fellow travelers. If she wasn't so unattractive MSMEOW would be offering her a job.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judges' salaries are set by the state, with figures around $164,487 as of early 2023, increasing to roughly $174,000-$175,000 for some judges in 2024/2025 as the state judicial pay scales updated.
Ouch
"Rare" indeed, Jersey. So rare only every damned SCOTUS opinion and most appeal court orders have sided with them. So fucking rare that the "national guard can't deploy to DC" case was decided favorably for Trump in the same 24 hour period.
He'll win another case before COB today and yet they will run the same psy-op in reporting that.
You know what was really "rare"? Mentions of Epstein from 1/2021 to 1/2025. Never heard his name in the news. It never crossed any democrat's lips. Nobody wanted to know nothing.
Dave Begley said...
Dugan should serve jail time. Send her to Alderson in WV; the Martha Stewart pen.
Dugan is a traitor.
She helped a foreign invader attack our country.
I'm assuming she doesn't have anything else on her record since she was a judge. That being said she better not merely get probation. I don't think she needs the full 5 years, but she should spend some time in prison for this crime, especially because she was a judge.
What BS is this:
"Many on the right said Dugan’s conduct was part of a 'deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws."
It is absolutely true on its own as a statement. Probably the truest thing they have said for a while.
There is a traitorous deep state and there should be thousands of executions of these people.
She was a frustrated and angry judge who was fed up, who decided to corruptly take matters into her own hands.
What does a judge have to be frustrated and angry about?
In the justice system, the judge seems to have the most authority, with little risk.
I am hoping that other states judges and judicial staff learn from this court case. What Judge Dugan did was an egregious, egotistical criminal act and she was found guilty. Her attorneys claim this battle is not over, split decision by the jury, etc. If Judge Dugan is smart and humbled, she will leave with dignity and grace. But we know she won’t. I look forward to her further humiliations.
Crazy how these judges think they are Kings and Queens who can do anything they want. Boasberg is still acting like the Emperor of DC and all must bow down to him. Of course, it all goes back to Congress - who wont do anything unless someone bribes them.
Congress should start asserting their Article I power over district courts. Defund the worse ones. Shift the load to ones not in DC and Hawaii.
UW Madison holding a job for her?
@ga6, they’ll offer her the Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom endowed chair in Wisconsin Law.
Many on the right said Dugan’s conduct was part of a 'deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws....
Two things about this.
1. What do "many on the left" think she was doing?
2. What a self-fulfilling prophecy - as soon as someone notices the deep state and the lax enforcement of laws - Matt Taibbi, for example - they are magically "on the right."
The defendant is certainly not evil …
The Washington Post lies yet again.
Enjoy your minor victory while you can Republicans, because you know damn well that activist federal appeals courts are going to void that conviction, or failing that, the next Dem POTUS will pardon her. Why cant you R's be that ruthlessly direct about pressing your partisan advantage in places where it exists? That is why you win these little skirmishes but lose the war.
I am the law! — Judge Dugan
Give her the Ethel Rosenberg Chair.
The great feminization of the bench. A male judge would never dream of doing such a thing. A real male, anyway.
Deep State: The Seventh Circuit is not activist. She'll appeal and may draw a good panel, but overturning a jury finding like this one is near impossible. Pardon means nothing years from now. Dugan is 66 years old and is done as a judge. She should retreat in shame, though may ride the outrage wave a bit while ICE is still up for its 2 minutes of hate from the left. A dumpy leftist woman convicted folk hero - she's the perfect avatar for them.
The last time I can remember the R's doing an obvious in-your-face move is when Scalia died and McConnell refused to hold any hearings for Obama's nominee Merrick Garland. The republican senate got a lot of bad noise from the usual sources at the time, but looking at it over in the long run it was a pretty good move, wasn't it?
Don’t shed a tear for this convicted felon. She will likely land a $500k/yr gig from some lefty think tank or a talking head spot on CNN. Demmies know how to take care of each other.
"“While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'" WTH? Keep your opinions to yourself, WaPo."
The quote is from the U.S. Attorney, the prosecution!
"She was a frustrated and angry judge who was fed up, who decided to corruptly take matters into her own hands."
Her goals were pure but her methods were lacking. Shorter version: She got caught.
Meanwhile in CO - every democratic politician in power, and media hack on TV, actively and illegally work to obstruct the Federal Government from doing their jobs.
Good oh.
I thought there would be nullification, but the jurors did well...
The federal jury pool for EDWI is drawn from a much larger area, including red counties, and red suburbs of blue counties. More difficult to pack the jury with lefties. CC, JSM
Big Mike said...
The defendant is certainly not evil …
The Washington Post lies yet again.
You aren't necessarily evil if you are a traitor. Evil is relative to the point of view of the person making the judgement.
The judge is a hero to the foreign invaders and is on their side.
If you want to have a country you have to execute people like that.
Ann Althouse said...
"“While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'" WTH? Keep your opinions to yourself, WaPo."
The quote is from the U.S. Attorney, the prosecution!
Shocked that people who are part of a system view other people in that system as "not evil."
Most of our justice system is deeply corrupt.
I saw an estimate of 12-16 months in jail.
I would settle for removal and disbarment. I believe the judge in the Massachusetts case was exonerated kept her job.
"The quote is from the U.S. Attorney, the prosecution!"
I saw that as well and wondered if perhaps the attorney was a Biden holdover, but according to the internet he was appointed by Pam Bondi. I assume he said that because that is what the facts of the case led him to conclude is the most plausible narrative. Another possible explanation is that he used a narrative like that in argument to emotionally persuade a probably left-leaning jury that the defendant did in fact do a wrongful act and crime but it is understandable why she did it. An otherwise normal person who during a period of heightened emotions made a bad decision is a more plausible and emotionally palatable story than some inherently corrupt and evil; scheming judge who is always looking for an opportunity to abuse the system to support her political ideology.
"Joe Bar said...
I saw an estimate of 12-16 months in jail."
I would be fine with this. I guess I would also settle for merely removal and disbarment in that I wouldn't do anything if that the outcome, but I would be extremely disappointed and feel like justice hadn't been done.
donald said...
I’d just like to point out just what a seriously fat and unattractive hag she is.
Donald, Donald, Donald. Must you only focus on the outside? She is also a small and ugly woman - on the inside as well.
So the system worked, in this case. Even so, you people (sorry, Iman 😵) can't miss an opportunity to catastrophize about how awful everything is.
lax:
adjective
Lacking in rigor, strictness, or firmness. synonym: negligent.
I don't know how you defend behavior as negligence and then also call that behavior traitorous, but you are welcome to explain how you square that argument.
I agree with Jersey Fled. I see a word casually entered into a sentence that frames a bias. A notion that the mentality was just negligence rather than the intention to collaborate in providing aid for the purpose of evading arrest. I call BS on that notion.
"What does a judge have to be frustrated and angry about?"
They want to be kings. Or at least Dukes. And yet they find themselves in a benighted shithole of a country where they are supposed to regard the rest of us as their equals. It burns!
Howard seems to have summed up the situation pretty well today. Some people prefer to be angry all the time.
I'm sure our Governor Evers will pardon her at some point although he shouldn't.
OK, so this lefty judge obstructed law enforcement openly and brazenly. How many other lefty judges obstruct law enforcement less openly? How many prefer their own politics over basic professionalism?
Old and slow: I think you might appreciate this biohack that I used to significantly reduce my propensity to respond with anger. Hypoxic training. It takes a couple months of very painful and fear confronting the boundaries of carbon dioxide sensitivity until finally your body gets used to it. It stimulates the heck out of the vagus nerve and forces you to be calm to the point where it becomes a habit.
Perhaps the more interesting question here is why the fuck she took it upon herself to interfere with the enforcement of the immigration laws. It really is quite remarkable, that a large fraction of Americans have somehow concluded that it is either in their personal interest, or perhaps a moral duty, to help criminal lowlifes evade the law, simply because they are here illegally. The guy was a wife-beater, and the judge had every reason to know it. Presumably, her judicial temperament would have allowed her to watch in relative equanimity, as he was convicted of beating the woman, or as he was acquitted. It's not a judge's place to be judgmental. Right? But she just couldn't make herself sit by passively while the worthless POS was arrested and deported. She had to do something about that gross injustice! What the fuck was wrong with this woman? TDS?
There does seem to be an element of territoriality. She seems to have been enraged to have what she regarded as her sovereign domain invaded by men she regarded as agents of her political enemies. I guess that's it. It's hard to believe that she would have tried to stop local Sheriff's Deputies from arresting the POS for additional charges. She would have regarded them as allies.
That happened in Boston too. The judge has gotten away with it so far. At most she got a reprimand from a judicial oversight commission. What she discussed in a long sidebar with the defendant's lawyer wasn't made public, so they could claim that she only told the illegal to take the back stairs to the jail to avoid reporters, rather than to sneak out of the courthouse and entirely escape ICE. A trial is still possible.
"Dan said...
I'm sure our Governor Evers will pardon her at some point although he shouldn't."
The conviction was in Federal court, so no Gubernatorial pardon is possible.
Some have sought to make this case about a larger political battle,' [said Interim U.S. Attorney Brad Schimel for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.] 'While this case is serious for all involved it is ultimately about a single — a single bad day — in a public courthouse. The defendant is certainly not evil, nor is she a martyr for some greater cause.'"
Wrong, she is a corrupt and evil piece of shit.
She is a judge, she is sworn to uphold the law, and instead she decided that SHE was the law, and she'd do whatever she damn well pleased.
She needs her life completely and utterly destroyed for this evil act.
She had a criminal in her courtroom, who beat up two people. She screwed over his victims, who were in her court that day for justice, in order to push her worthless personal political beliefs, and try to protect that criminal for his legal punishments.
I doubt she'll go to jail for this, but she should.
Good job, members of the jury
Ethel. Rosenberg. Chair.
Iman: I got your joke, if no one else did. Well played! CC, JSM
I assume she will appeal.
My curiosity in this case centers on who is paying for the defense.
"A woman was torn off her bike and raped by a Rwandan migrant in the Belgian city of Kortrijk yesterday. After the rape, he tried to murder the woman but passersby could luckily save her in time."
If Judge Duggan had been there, she could have helped him murder the Belgian woman.
So much winning. Not "rare" at all. The Left gaslights
"91% of convicted rapists in Spain’s Catalonia region are migrants. Maybe she's just hoping to get laid. These guys would rape a snake.
Apart from the predictable garbage takes and weasel words from defamatory publication Washington Post, examine closely the comment section- there is nothing legally astute or relevant to the case. Just blind, frothing, violent leftist rage.
Be sure to copy paste a link to this article whenever resident trolls Inga and Ward gaslight us that political violence and disdain for the law is the purview of the Right...
Are Trump's wins against public officials rare? I don't think so.
Althouse's 09:36AM citation proves my point. This fucktsrd of a ADA undid all of his moral and legal work with one stupid move. Losers gotta lose. Might as will be a FJB Dem holdover.
Public life is a matter of pressure and counter pressure. Dugan probably saw all the video from the ICE facility in Chicago (Broadview) and just thought this kind of stuff was normal. Now people know that there are consequences for acting out, and this is a healthy thing for others to know.
Brad Schimel is apparently an interim US Attorney. Perhaps he made his commentary on the case more measured so that he might appear more palatable to Democrats so he could be confirmed as permanent US Attorney.
Something needs to be done about reining in judges. But what? The Constitution is crystal clear on one thing: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office., yet absolutely opaque on another: How shall good behavior be determined?
Good behavior isn't simply not being convicted of a crime. And oddly, no other position in government calls for good behavior. There's an old question dating back to at least Roman times: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? or- Who watches the watchers? So- who judges the judgers? Apparently- no one. The Constitution is crystal clear- they shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and then silent on what constitutes good behavior and who shall judges. I'm going to state this as obvious- impeachment is not the solution. Too cumbersome. And almost impossible to implement. In 250 years we've removed a whopping 8 people from office following impeachment, and curiously, all 8 were judges. Since there are a lot more judges then there are any other officials, we must have a remarkable number of well behaved judges.
We don't. We can see that from reading the news every day.
Since the Constitution is silent, that means that Congress can pass legislation on judicial removal. First way- conviction of a felony or misdemeanor in Federal or state court shall bring automatic dismissal from the bench. Even if it's for a DUI or kiting a check. A judge, breaking the law, GONE!. After that, it gets more complicated. What do you do with judge that is releasing criminals on a regular basis who go on to commit further crimes? Not a crime, but definitely not good behavior. Not nearly enough for impeachment. How about one who gets drunk every night? Or who openly cheats on their spouse? Or- is mentally ill like a male who thinks he's a female (or vice versa) and dresses accordingly? Who has standing to complain they're not on "good behavior"? Judges cover multiple states and congressional districts. How about- "Any governor, or 2 senators, or 5 representatives may refer a judge to Congress for determination if they are on good behavior. The Speaker shall appoint 12 Representatives to investigate the complaint, and within a month they shall vote whether to refer the matter to the full House. The house shall hear from the complainant and any witnesses called by the complainant, and from the judge and any witnesses the judge shall call, and vote. A majority vote will result in immediate dismissal from the bench. No other penalties shall apply."
After writing the previous comment about how we read all the time about misbehaving judges, I did a quick lookup. Didn't realize just how bad the problem is.
From Reuters in 2020: "Special Report: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench"
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/special-report-thousands-of-us-judges-who-broke-laws-oaths-remained-on-the-b-idUSKBN2411VQ/
Praise be, I was worried about the risk of jury nullification in an open-and-shut case.
@Gospace: I think you are confused. Federal judges have life tenure, but this wasn’t a federal judge, but rather a state court judge. The life tenure that federal judges get means that the federal bench is generally of a much higher quality than the state courts, and cases of malfeasance on the bench are pretty rare for federal judges. On the other hand, it’s a lot easier to get rid of bad state court judges.
Hope this helps.
@Gospace: Also, alcoholism is definitely grounds for impeachment of a federal judge, since the beginning. In 1803, John Pickering, the judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; he was convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.
Wow
The prosecutor was concerned about the prospect of jury nullification and/or a hung jury due to jurors on a political crusade. Hence "...nor is she a martyr for some greater cause."
He focused the jury on what they were supposed to focus on--which made it an open-and-shut case. He did his job. If he'd tried to characterize the judge as "evil" any Democrats on the jury would have reacted by seeing the prosecution as "political," and would have voted accordingly.
Unless you are defending Democrats or prosecuting Republicans in Washington, DC, trying cases is not easy.
"What does a judge have to be frustrated and angry about?"
TDS and not getting laid since the 80's.
Regardless of who said it, it most certainly is part of a "''deep state' mentality that had led to lax enforcement of immigration laws". It 's a damned epidemic in this country and western Europe, and a prosecutor should have no problem saying so, but he probably fears how it might effect his future cases before someone like Dugan. His need to say this is further proof of the problem.
"A former judge who masturbated with a penis pump during trials was sentenced to four years in prison.
The Oklahoma Judge spent 23 years on the bench and was allegedly caught using the device under his robe.
Donald Thompson was forced to retire in 2004 and was later sentenced in 2006.
Aged 59 at the time, Thompson was convicted of four felony counts of indecent exposure in his Creek County courtroom and was also ordered to pay a $40,000 fine. "
Jeffrey Toobin is still being highly paid for legal analysis on CNN, I guess because biased leftist lawyers are so hard to find.
In a just world she would do her time because examples must be made. Why? Lest the rest of the judges start to believe they're gods.
“Something needs to be done about reining in judges. But what? The Constitution is crystal clear on one thing: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office., yet absolutely opaque on another: How shall good behavior be determined?”
That applies to Article III judges. They can be removed by Impeachment and conviction by Congress. This was done for Alcee Lamar Hastings, a federal district judge, nominated by Carter, impeached and removed in 1989, for bribery, who returned to power in 1993 in Congress (where bribery is apparently not illegal) as a Democrat. Article II judges can be removed for no cause by the President.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.