As pointed out here, several times, that's not an issue. The exception potentially being that she concealed that she adjourned her own case from the prosecution, victims, and witnesses.
She had no choice...if he was arrested by the feds how can he be prosecuted?
Incorrect. She went in the hallway and berated the agents, not even asking for the warrant itself. Nothing was asked from her, and they were going out of their way to avoid interfering in her court. Her domestic battery case had nothing to do with the federal warrant.
Excellent example. Big difference from Dugan case, but still an excellent example.
ROFLOL. Again, you keep bringing up Trump. I'm focused on the case of former Judge Dugan.
She was in the courthouse in her judge attire, correct....going into the hallway doesn't mean she is no longer acting as a judge...she is inside the courthouse within hours of the court being open for session.
Case in point.
She had no choice but to commit crimes and tank her own case? Really?
no, it isn't an appeal to emotions...demanding a warrant, being a judge subject to immunity are facts, not emotional arguments...demanding a warrant is not obstruction of justice..its a Constitutional right.
demanding a warrant is committing a crime?
Yes, you keep proving my point. Good luck to you.
You aren't following the conversation. Bringing up things like the AEA, Trump, deportations to El Salvador, and 'government overreach' in this case is an appeal to emotions. These have zero relevance to this case.
Please read the charging document. 1) she didn't demand a warrant, and 2) that wasn't the issue here.
No, it isn't...they are facts that are relevant to this case.
We shall see. A court will decide.
yeah and you will be big mad if they determine she is immune.We shall see. A court will decide.
Thanks. I didn't realize your point was that anything said about the legal ramifications related to the President's actions and his administration would be construed as a direct attack on Trump due to emotion/partisanship, and you would immediately jump to that being the only reason it could be brought up. It's unfortunate that discussions of legal consequences are immediately rejected as political attacks, rather than being assessed objectively for what they actually represent.
Big made? Nah….I won’t big bad,….and I won’t “be made” either. I am open to allowing the courts to do their thing. I assume you are as well?
Again, former judge Dugan didn't demand a warrant. She asked if they had one, then the type, and created a scene about it.
Not really, but I'm sure the agents would have shown it to her if she asked to see it. She wasn't the subject of the warrant. Nothing was being asked of her. Agents had already cleared it with courthouse staff, and were waiting to arrest him after the hearing. She's not a party to the warrant.
you may want to read my post again...clearly you did not read it correctly...I said big mad. not made
How is adhering to the Refugee Act of 1980 and three ratified treaties on refugees - even while deporting the unworthy - going out of one’s way “to make sure they weren’t stopped?” I just checked, and removals (apprehensions and deportations) under Biden were more in any president’s single term since George W Bush, according to the Migration Policy Institute, BBC, and NYTimes.
because they didn't have a legal warrant...a warrant must be signed by a judge....theirs was not.
It’s all good Clara. We both want the court to do the right thing…correct?
They showed a paper that is administrative and not a legal warrant.
Again - that has zero to do with this case. Why would a court allow something politically charged and irrelevant to compromise a case in their courtroom?
I would agree the subject is politically charged, but political tension doesn’t automatically negate legal relevance. Courts routinely assess the broader legal framework in cases where executive authority, precedent, and judicial discretion intersect.