I do agree, chances are her career is indeed….over.I think the same of this indictment that I thought of all of Trump's indictments.
They all worked for me, he got his day in court on some of them, and lost, bigly.
Time will tell if the Judge loses her case. Either way, her career is over.
How so? She injected herself into the federal case - on behalf of a defendant in her courtroom. She didn't just advocate for her courtroom or even the defendant - but actively helped him evade a lawful federal arrest. That's stepping WAY over the line.The administration's handling of the judge has a classic Fascist angle to it. They all try to destroy the independence of the juducuary. For obvious reasons.
Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.Who, exactly, were his victims?
I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.That was a non-issue in this case. No one even suggested he would go there, or even be deported before facing trial for his current crimes.
The flip side of advocating for this person is that he was a defendant in her court. She's supposed to be a neutral judge of the facts in that case - not an advocate for the defendant. He literally had his attorney with him, who's there to protect his rights. She could have let the attorney know, and told him to let her staff know if he needed anything from HER court, then proceeded with the hearing as scheduled.
And not following the law is what this case is about. And is why she was charged.I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.
That's silly.
The goal is to arrest him after he's been screened, in a controlled environment. Again, they were bending over backward to NOT interfere with Dugan's hearing - which arresting him would have done. And again, they were following the draft policy (being used by the courthouse as an interim process) - which includes not arresting until after the hearing is complete.
I'm not in the group you referenced, but do you support federal judges' rulings that the President and his administration are breaking the law, or do you feel that precedent is somehow different?It’s wild that there are people who think judges can legally break the law because they don’t like this president. Do you really want that precedent to be set?
Yet the constant accusation of Nazi belies that assertion of yours.No, not "everything I don't like."
Rather tribal.Just you guys.
Your first assertion is in conflict with observed posts.I understand it's hard to wrap your head around the fact that you're the bad guys, but it's ok. You'll figure that out soon enough.
Keep making baseless Nazi accusations and you'll see more of them.I'm sure you have some more memes to comfort you in the meantime.
No, it doesn't. You're probably thinking of this: "law enforcement routinely executes warrants and makes arrests in the public areas of buildings such as the Milwaukee County Courthouse". The phrase "buildings such as" are what I would describe as weasel words in this context. Meant to imply that the action of the sentence applies specifically to the courthouse without saying any such thing. If this conduct was commonplace at the courthouse, they could simply say that. The fact that the chief judge was still in the process of developing policy on the subject further indicates that it has not been a common occurrence for long.I did fully read and comprehend your post, including the last paragraph.
The reason I asked you to read the charging document is because it refutes significant elements that you got wrong, and I thought you’d be interested in knowing.
The legality of ICE's actions does not mean they are without harm to the state court system.Milwaukee County is not a “sanctuary county”, and does not have any local laws/ordinances, like in established sanctuary locations, to protect illegal migrants from arrest inside courthouses, so the FBI, DEA, and ICE agents in the courthouse that day had every right to be there to arrest Ruiz.
Also of significance, the Chief Judge explicitly stated that the various law enforcement agents were permitted to wait for and make arrests in public spaces throughout the courthouse.
If the information contained in the sworn affidavit is true/accurate; it very much does look like Dugan deliberately interfered with the proper lawful arrest of Ruiz.
It’s wild that there are people who think judges can legally break the law because they don’t like this president. Do you really want that precedent to be set?
Only a judiciary which obstructs the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law is independent?The administration's handling of the judge has a classic Fascist angle to it. They all try to destroy the independence of the juducuary. For obvious reasons.
Here is the definition of rendition in this context.Her concern was he would face rendition to El Salvador's prisons. That's why I mentioned she should have taken it up with federal courts if that was her primary concern instead of taking matters into her own hands. I'm fine with deportation that follows the legal process. The renditions are what need to stop, and those are primarily occurring under the Alien Enemies Act.
A judge deliberately breaks the law to aid a twice deported illegal alien with a long criminal history in an attempt to evade ICE agents executing an arrest warrant. She just presided over a motion hearing and berated ICE agents in the hallway outside her courtroom but somehow didn't know the defendant was in danger of deportation to Mexico? Nonsense.Reading up on this, it seems Eduardo Flores-Ruiz faced expedited deportation to Mexico, so her concerns were unfounded. It's unfortunate she made such a mistake with no real reason for her fears.
Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally. I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.Here is the definition of rendition in this context.
"the practice of sending a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly to be interrogated in a country with less rigorous regulations for the humane treatment of prisoners."
Legal deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are not renditions.
The sovereign government of El Salvador gave Abrego Garcia treatment consistent with the other citizen gang members.
A judge deliberately breaks the law to aid a twice deported illegal alien with a long criminal history in an attempt to evade ICE agents executing an arrest warrant. She just presided over a motion hearing and berated ICE agents in the hallway outside her courtroom but somehow didn't know the defendant was in danger of deportation to Mexico? Nonsense.
Yes or no, if the defendant was being deported to El Salvador could the judge make up her own law?
The above statement is confused. Illegal immigrants aren't 'renditioned', they are deported.Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally.
I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.
Your second argument creates a strawman. You can read my previous posts for the answer.
Your argument overlooks the distinction between deportation through due process and rendition under executive authority.The above statement is confused. Illegal immigrants aren't 'renditioned', they are deported.
Illegal immigrants can be deported without criminal charges, should their immigration hearing result in that ruling.
I further believe its true that Illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges.
Words have meaning, kindly explain within the context of the definition presented how these deportations are actually renditions. Garcia wasn't secretly deported. Deportation is an administrative matter handled by immigration courts not a criminal matter. Additional criminal charges aren't neccessary to deport illegal aliens.Abrego Garcia is only one case in hundreds where illegal immigrants were renditioned without being charged criminally. I argue its rendition under the guise of the Alien Enemies Act because that law does not fit the circumstances, and the deportations did not fit the President’s Proclamation used to invoke the act.
A question is not a strawman. You refuse to answer because it would strip away the excuses for the judge's illegal act.Your second argument creates a strawman. You can read my previous posts for the answer.
Do you really think defending dehumanization rhetoric by lying is a good thing to do?Still it are you talking about the Haitians in Ohio
No scapegoated is when you accuse someone of a crime they didn't commit.
I think it's you thinking this dehumanized them.
Now you’re both pretending that Trump doesn’t even complain about undocumented immigrants. Do you think you can gaslight everyone? Nobody believes this shit.You are confusing enforcing immigration law and obstructing its enforcement with 'attack an outgroup scapegoat'.
That you appear to view the world in terms of 'outgroup' and 'ingroup' already demonstrates identify politics thinking.
If you frame your world view by identify politics thinking, that's all you'll ever see.
Who, then? Explain a little please, if this understanding is so obvious.Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.
You’re making excuses for dictator Trump to control the entire country all by himself.Only a judiciary which obstructs the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which isn't held accountable to federal law is independent?
Only a judiciary which supports and enforces laws which you agree with is independent?
Good God do you post some rubbish sometimes.
Your argument seems to ignore that Flores-Ruiz has had illegal immigration the due process, per 'notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013'.Your argument overlooks the distinction between deportation through due process and rendition under executive authority.
Deportation follows a formal immigration hearing where a judge rules on legal grounds for removal. Rendition, on the other hand, bypasses judicial review, removing individuals based on executive discretion rather than legal proceedings.
The Alien Enemies Act is being used beyond its intended scope to justify removals that do not align with standard deportation procedures, making them functionally indistinguishable from extrajudicial transfers rather than lawful expulsions.
You're correct that illegal immigrants can be deported even if they have criminal charges but the concern here is whether those removals are legally justified or if they circumvent due process entirely. The difference matters.
That's silly.
The goal is to arrest him after he's been screened, in a controlled environment. Again, they were bending over backward to NOT interfere with Dugan's hearing - which arresting him would have done. And again, they were following the draft policy (being used by the courthouse as an interim process) - which includes not arresting until after the hearing is complete.
Try to obtain at least a cursory understanding of the case.
None of what I was saying was about Flores-Ruiz's specific case. I was speaking to the judge's overreaction.Your argument seems to ignore that Flores-Ruiz has had illegal immigration the due process, per 'notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013'.
Flores-Ruiz lived in the United States and was issued a notice and order of expedited removal by United States Border Patrol Agents on January 16, 2013. He was arrested and deported to Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry shortly after.What to know about Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the man who appeared in judge Hannah Dugan's Milwaukee courtroom
Why Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan's courtroom, where he's from and answers to other questions.www.jsonline.com
The due process that you seem to believe wasn't executed stems back to how this expedited removal order was arrived at back in 2013. He's been living in the US illegally for over 10 years.
I mentioned criminal charges because hundreds of immigrants were renditioned guised by the Alien Enemies Act without showing they were covered by the President’s Proclamation of being in Tren de Aragua. A criminal hearing or trial would be the best way to procure such evidence.Words have meaning, kindly explain within the context of the definition presented how these deportations are actually renditions. Garcia wasn't secretly deported. Deportation is an administrative matter handled by immigration courts not a criminal matter. Additional criminal charges aren't neccessary to deport illegal aliens.
A question is not a strawman. You refuse to answer because it would strip away the excuses for the judge's illegal act.
I agree with your suggestion, and if she wanted to make sure everything went smoothly beyond that, she had the option to ask federal judges to follow-up. I understand her trepidation after hundreds of illegal immigrants were renditioned to the El Salvador prisons despite having no criminal record or proven gang ties, but she still should have followed the law.
I do agree, chances are her career is indeed….over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?