• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Milwaukee County Judge Dugan indicted, grand jury meets Tuesday (1 Viewer)

Post #195


Post #212


Far too many of us - of all political persuasions - simply do not want to see much the less acknowledge the similarities.

Indeed. But it is usually best to save one’s energy debating people who actually sincerely believe what they are saying, even if they are wrong, rather than someone who does not believe in the truth of anything they are saying to you.
 
Arrest before indictment is common.
Not for a sitting judge.

Trump didn’t get arrested before indictment. Why is that? He ended up convicted of 34 felonies.

The answer is simple, they arrested her to send a message. They don’t care about the merits of the case, they just want to intimidate.
 
I’m not laughing

I am.

and it’s sad that you think I’m trying to persuade you.

No. It's hilarious that you're trying to persuade me that everything that doesn't meet your approval is just like Nazi Germany.

I’m well aware how desperate folks are to deny the reality, but maybe you should blame your leaders who act like Nazis for these cognitively painful comparisons rather than shooting me, the messenger.

How exactly can something be "cognitively painful?" "Cognitive" doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
Which is the point.

And other judges will see this, too, and they'll 'get it'. As will other mayors, sheriffs, chiefs of police, members of congress, and ordinary activists. Even if there's ultimately no conviction, criminal defenses in federal cases can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who has that kind of cash laying around?
What are they getting exactly. That breaking the law and helping illegal immigrants evade arrest will come with consequences. The horror.

Judges need to be above the law right?
 
Fascism uses a pattern of intimidation to coerce everyone into compliance through the innate human desire for self-preservation.

The best Nazis were the ones who denied the intimidation, who gaslit those who were sounding alarms until it was too late.

Then why aren't you scared for your life? You're being pretty bold by publicly posting all this anti-fascist stuff when there's a supposed fascist president rounding up people to slaughter right now. Please tell me that you at least have protected your true identity!
 
Not for a sitting judge.

Trump didn’t get arrested before indictment. Why is that? He ended up convicted of 34 felonies.

The answer is simple, they arrested her to send a message. They don’t care about the merits of the case, they just want to intimidate
.
Post #227


And send that message to all judges who don't play nice, who don't cooperate fully with trump and his minions, now and in the future: trump can and will retaliate.
 
Lots of words, still no verification of your claims about laws that the judge is supposed to have violated - and the ways in which she broke the laws.

I am not surprised.

Good luck.

Lots of avoidance. Still no verification in any of your posts that you've done your basic research on the topic rather than expecting everyone else to do the intellectual work for you.

I am not surprised.

giphy.gif
 
Lots of avoidance. Still no verification in any of your posts that you've done your basic research on the topic rather than expecting everyone else to do the intellectual work for you.

I am not surprised.

giphy.gif
No corroboration of claims.

But a cutesy graphic.

Says a lot about @Hello My Son.
 
I am.

No. It's hilarious that you're trying to persuade me that everything that doesn't meet your approval is just like Nazi Germany.
I don’t care about persuasion, about manipulation. I seek to inform. I do not hold myself responsible for what you choose to deny.
How exactly can something be "cognitively painful?" "Cognitive" doesn't mean what you think it means.
I see that the Nazi comparisons make you very uncomfortable. They should, they make me very uncomfortable. But instead of denying the reality, instead of serving Trump, I choose to face my discomfort.
Then why aren't you scared for your life? You're being pretty bold by publicly posting all this anti-fascist stuff when there's a supposed fascist president rounding up people to slaughter right now. Please tell me that you at least have protected your true identity!
I’m, of course, flattered that you are so concerned.
 
Indeed. But it is usually best to save one’s energy debating people who actually sincerely believe what they are saying, even if they are wrong, rather than someone who does not believe in the truth of anything they are saying to you.

Agreed. Nobody who's screaming that everything is like Nazi Germany doesn't actually believe that, of course.

Because if one was actually under that kind of threat, they would have to be pretty unintelligent to criticize the authoritarian fascists so publicly.

We all know this, of course.
 
No corroboration of claims.

But a cutesy graphic.

Says a lot about @Hello My Son.

My claim was that specific crimes exist by name, and then then I corroborated this claim with links to reputable websites confirming that the crimes I named are indeed crimes.

It's really fascinating how this is so difficult for anyone to understand. My post was pretty straightforward, after all.
 
My claim was that specific crimes exist by name, and then then I corroborated this claim with links to reputable websites confirming that the crimes I named are indeed crimes.

It's really fascinating how this is so difficult for anyone to understand. My post was pretty straightforward, after all.
Post #237


As I've said, I don't do your work. That means I don't read your links in search of proof re the laws that the judge is supposed to have broken - and the specific actions you think she's taken that violated those laws you're referring to.

But, hey, you've posted cutesy graphics instead of actually corroborating your claims. Perhaps, in your milieu, that's sufficient. I'm happy for you.
 
Last edited:
She's resisting this country becoming a police state. The sooner that you and everyone else can see that, the better. I don't give a drop of flea piss of the charges against her are technically valid.
Thank you for making it clear that so many of those calls from the far left that no one was above the law to be the completely bs I minute they were.
 
I don’t care about persuasion, about manipulation. I seek to inform. I do not hold myself responsible for what you choose to deny.

So you don't ever believe yourself to be incorrect about anything. Very telling. Very telling indeed...

I see that the Nazi comparisons make you very uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable with stomach cramps from endless laughter!

They should, they make me very uncomfortable.

Show me on the dolls where they make you uncomfortable....

giphy.gif



But instead of denying the reality, instead of serving Trump, I choose to face my discomfort.

I’m, of course, flattered that you are so concerned.

So you know you're not actually under any threat. Got it.

Hysterical hyperbole fail. Nice try, though!
 
Not for a sitting judge.
Why should a sitting judge be given special treatment?
Trump didn’t get arrested before indictment. Why is that? He ended up convicted of 34 felonies.
Traitor Trump’s charges were based on years of fraudulent state tax filings that took nearly 5 years of investigations before the DA moved forward to charge.

Before then, there was no premise to arrest him on, entirely unlike in Dugan’s case where alleged illegal actions all took place over just a couple of hours, and in front of numerous witnesses.

If you know my posting history, you know that I’m about as far from being a Traitor Trump supporter as they come.

My take on Dugan is based on being as objective as possible and applying unbiased critical thinking.
The answer is simple, they arrested her to send a message. They don’t care about the merits of the case, they just want to intimidate.
The arrest/charges can be both warranted and a public display by Traitor Trump’s MAGAt AG.
 
The group of undocumented immigrants are absolutely being scapegoated.
No. If they are illegally here deporting them is what should happen.
Trump full-throated blames them for all kinds of things. His poor, gullible supporters are too scared chickenshit to see how they’re being completely manipulated.
Blames them? For what?
 
from the BBC article:

"...no-one could now challenge the Nazis legally - making opposition very dangerous..."

Yes, we can still challenge actions taken by trump and his minions, but our access to legal representation that can take on the Federal Government is being limited via trump and bondi's attacks on BigLaw firms.
 
Post #237



As I've said, I don't do your work. That means I don't read your links in search of proof re the laws that the judge is supposed to have broken - and the specific actions you think she's taken that violated those laws you're referring to.

I wasn't asking you to click my links and read them. I linked the names of laws that exist because you said you needed evidence that such laws exist. You were never asked to click the links and read them in detail. All that was necessary was the names of the laws themselves, which was included in my post.

But, hey, you've posted cutesy graphics instead of actually corroborating your claims. Perhaps, in your world, that's sufficient. I'm happy for you.

Try to keep up--this too is not complicated:

Concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings are indeed crimes.

In this quote you can see that I named crimes.

Your word isn't good enough.

Your word for what is law, your word for the facts about what the judge did, aren't good enough.

In this quote you said my word alone is not enough for proving such laws exist.

Lol, those are the exact crimes that the judge is charged with committing. It isn't my word. They're literal crimes.

How do you not know this if you've done even the most basic amount of research on this topic?

Federal Crime of Concealing Person from Arrest – 18 U.S.C. § 1071
Obstruction Of Pending Proceeding -- 18 U.S.C. 1505

So I linked here to those specific laws that match the name of what laws I had previously cited in my original post above. I provided links so you could see that it was not based on my word alone and that the laws I cited do indeed exist. Remember when you said, "Your word for what is law....[isn't] good enough".....?

Yeah, so I showed you that it wasn't just my word. The laws are there, with links to a reputable source. They are indeed laws. Point proven.
 
from the BBC article:

"...no-one could now challenge the Nazis legally - making opposition very dangerous..."

Yes, we can still challenge actions taken by trump and his minions, but our access to legal representation that can take on the Federal Government is being limited via trump and bondi's attacks on BigLaw firms.

The last time I checked, 9 BigLaw firms had succumbed to trump and bondi's assaults and, perhaps, have effectively taken themselves out of the challenge-trump's-administration pool. Five, including Perkins Coie (for those of us not in the legal field, I recently discovered that Coie is pronounced, coo-ee), are fighting back via law suits.
 
The last time I checked, 9 BigLaw firms had succumbed to trump and bondi's assaults and, perhaps, have effectively taken themselves out of the challenge-trump's-administration pool. Five, including Perkins Coie (for those of us not in the legal field, I recently discovered that Coie is pronounced, coo-ee), are fighting back via law suits.

It's remarkable that there are lawsuits in spite of the fact that we live in a fascist dictatorship where challenging the ruler isn't allowed! How are they getting away with that?!
 
So you don't ever believe yourself to be incorrect about anything. Very telling. Very telling indeed...
That’s not what I said, that’s not even what I implied.

I explained that intimidating judges to come down hard on an “undesirable” target group, a scapegoat, is something that Nazis and Trump have in common. I cited multiple sources on that.

You didn’t have ANY fact or argument to dispute that. You just tried to dismiss it. You failed to challenge my view in literally any meaningful way.
Uncomfortable with stomach cramps from endless laughter!

Show me on the dolls where they make you uncomfortable....

giphy.gif



So you know you're not actually under any threat. Got it.

Hysterical hyperbole fail. Nice try, though!
That’s also not what I said.
 
The last time I checked, 9 BigLaw firms had succumbed to trump and bondi's assaults and, perhaps, have effectively taken themselves out of the challenge-trump's-administration pool. Five, including Perkins Coie (for those of us not in the legal field, I recently discovered that Coie is pronounced, coo-ee), are fighting back via law suits.
WilmerHale is one of the 5 BigLaw firms that is fighting back against trump's thuggery.


From their first day of law school, lawyers are trained to anticipate problems and prepare in advance. For the Washington law firm WilmerHale, the problem before it was not hard to spot. President Donald Trump had pursued one venerable D.C. firm, Covington & Burling, with an executive order that revoked security clearances for lawyers representing the former special counsel Jack Smith. A second executive order, against Perkins Coie, went even further, restricting the firm’s lawyers from entering government buildings and threatening the government contracts of its clients. The dual goal of these orders was clear: to punish law firms that had dared to cross Trump and to intimidate others that might stand up to him. WilmerHale was an obvious next target. It had strong ties to the Democratic Party (it represented the Kamala Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee during the 2024 election); did extensive pro-bono work, much on behalf of liberal causes; and, perhaps of most intense interest to the President, has harbored attorneys whom Trump perceives as enemies, including the former special counsel (and lifelong Republican) Robert Mueller.

The firm’s next move was equally obvious: hire Paul Clement, the leading conservative advocate before the Supreme Court, to represent it. Seth Waxman, a WilmerHale partner who served as Solicitor General under Bill Clinton, called Clement, who was Solicitor General under George W. Bush, to see if he would take the case. Clement, who runs a firm of just fifteen lawyers, could have demurred. Instead, he plunged in. The representation became public on March 28th, the day after Trump issued an executive order targeting WilmerHale, when Clement and his colleagues filed suit on the firm’s behalf. Within hours, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, nominated to the bench by George W. Bush, blocked most of the order from taking effect, saying that the firm’s “very survival is at stake.” On Wednesday, Leon heard oral arguments on WilmerHale’s request to enjoin the order permanently. “The signal this sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out. We’re watching. If you’re litigating against the government . . . your behavior can be punished,’ ” Clement told Leon, in a courtroom jammed with spectators. “And there’s just no way to practice law under those circumstances.” Leon appeared inclined to agree, as did his colleague Judge Beryl Howell, who earlier in the day had heard a parallel challenge brought by Perkins Coie.

In going up against Trump, Clement’s conservative bona fides are unsurpassed: he appeared on Trump’s own official shortlist for a Supreme Court vacancy during the President’s first term. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Clement clerked for the federal appeals-court judge Laurence Silberman, the intellectual godfather to generations of conservative lawyers, and then for Justice Antonin Scalia. After a stint in private practice, Clement took a somewhat unusual career detour, becoming chief counsel to the Missouri Republican senator John Ashcroft on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That turned out to be felicitous: when Ashcroft became the U.S. Attorney General, in 2001, he brought Clement along. Four years later, Ashcroft tapped him to become Solicitor General; Clement, then thirty-eight, was the youngest person to hold that position in more than fifty years. Since then, Clement has become, as New York magazine put it in 2012, “the go-to lawyer for some of the Republican Party’s most significant, and polarizing, legal causes.” The causes that Clement has embraced are so polarizing, in fact, that he had to leave partnerships at two major law firms—positions in which he earned millions of dollars annually—when they said he was no longer permitted to represent his controversial clients....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom