Anonymous wrote:The judge was literally arrested in her own courthouse. This has been a fever dream of Kesh Patel's that is now realized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a judge distracted prison officials after a trial to allow a rapist to escape, would this be all right? Why or why not?

This judge exceeded the scope of her authority to abet a defendant's escape from justice. The fact that judges are traditionally not tried for such behavior doesn't change that her behavior is still unlawful. Plain and simple.

+100
These people just don't get it. You cannot break the law, even if you are a judge.

You don’t get it. Kash Patel Needs to be arrested and sent to gitmo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a judge immune from an obstruction charge if there’s an articulable case to be made they were obstructing?

Or immune from ANY law, for that matter, by virtue of being a judge?

Could a judge be arrested for DUI? Or assault? Or tax evasion?

If yes, then aren’t those also authoritarianism, too?


Democrats are getting too far out over their skis here on this stuff.

Yes, they quickly toss their "Nobody is above the law!" signs as soon as it's a Lib who gets caught.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a judge distracted prison officials after a trial to allow a rapist to escape, would this be all right? Why or why not?

This judge exceeded the scope of her authority to abet a defendant's escape from justice. The fact that judges are traditionally not tried for such behavior doesn't change that her behavior is still unlawful. Plain and simple.

+100
These people just don't get it. You cannot break the law, even if you are a judge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a judge distracted prison officials after a trial to allow a rapist to escape, would this be all right? Why or why not?

This judge exceeded the scope of her authority to abet a defendant's escape from justice. The fact that judges are traditionally not tried for such behavior doesn't change that her behavior is still unlawful. Plain and simple.

+100
These people just don't get it. You cannot break the law, even if you are a judge.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/04/25/fbi-investigating-allegations-that-milwaukee-judge-helped-an-immigrant-avoid-ice-arrest-dugan/83250128007/


This is the authoritarianism in plain view. If you were not concerned before, you should be now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a judge immune from an obstruction charge if there’s an articulable case to be made they were obstructing?

Or immune from ANY law, for that matter, by virtue of being a judge?

Could a judge be arrested for DUI? Or assault? Or tax evasion?

If yes, then aren’t those also authoritarianism, too?


Democrats are getting too far out over their skis here on this stuff.

Ok, so you are not getting it. She was arrested for adjudicating a case. Not hiding someone in her basement.

Oh, I “GET” exactly what happened here. A sitting judge assisted a person subject to compliance with a lawful order and helped that person evade custody.

If you or I did such a thing for a person subject to an order from the judge, this same judge would lock us up for it.

This is what I meant about getting too far out over our skis. Stuff like this is HORRIBLE for making claims of authoritarianism, because as soon as you look into it beyond a headline, it falls apart. Then Dems look like the boy who cried wolf.

DP. No. ICE did not have an arrest warrant from a judge. They just had an administrative warrant similar to a subpoena. They can wait outside like everyone else, and the judge does not have to allow them entry.

Arresting immigrants at courthouses is bad policy, as most everyone already knows. Trump doesn't care about policy because he doesn't think long term, when something goes wrong he blames someone else and quits/declares bankruptcy/sure. That's not working well for him in negotiating peace or in these taritf "negotiations" and it won't go well for him here.

To everyone else reading this who is NOT an officer of the court, it comes off as a judge holding the front door shut while allowing a criminal to escape custody out the back door. Because that’s exactly what it is.

This is exactly the stuff Dems shouldn’t be citing, because it’s a sham. People see right through it, and it gives credibility to R’s when they levy accusations against Dems that Dems support illegal immigration.

Why give them useful weapons to use against us?

Anonymous wrote:A State judge has been arrested by the Federal government.

This has the potential to turn into a very big deal. A defining moment of this bonkers presidency.

Anonymous wrote:If a judge distracted prison officials after a trial to allow a rapist to escape, would this be all right? Why or why not?

This judge exceeded the scope of her authority to abet a defendant's escape from justice. The fact that judges are traditionally not tried for such behavior doesn't change that her behavior is still unlawful. Plain and simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is a judge immune from an obstruction charge if there’s an articulable case to be made they were obstructing?

Or immune from ANY law, for that matter, by virtue of being a judge?

Could a judge be arrested for DUI? Or assault? Or tax evasion?

If yes, then aren’t those also authoritarianism, too?


Democrats are getting too far out over their skis here on this stuff.

Ok, so you are not getting it. She was arrested for adjudicating a case. Not hiding someone in her basement.

Oh, I “GET” exactly what happened here. A sitting judge assisted a person subject to compliance with a lawful order and helped that person evade custody.

If you or I did such a thing for a person subject to an order from the judge, this same judge would lock us up for it.

This is what I meant about getting too far out over our skis. Stuff like this is HORRIBLE for making claims of authoritarianism, because as soon as you look into it beyond a headline, it falls apart. Then Dems look like the boy who cried wolf.

DP. No. ICE did not have an arrest warrant from a judge. They just had an administrative warrant similar to a subpoena. They can wait outside like everyone else, and the judge does not have to allow them entry.

Arresting immigrants at courthouses is bad policy, as most everyone already knows. Trump doesn't care about policy because he doesn't think long term, when something goes wrong he blames someone else and quits/declares bankruptcy/sure. That's not working well for him in negotiating peace or in these taritf "negotiations" and it won't go well for him here.

Anonymous wrote:Is a judge immune from an obstruction charge if there’s an articulable case to be made they were obstructing?

Or immune from ANY law, for that matter, by virtue of being a judge?

Could a judge be arrested for DUI? Or assault? Or tax evasion?

If yes, then aren’t those also authoritarianism, too?


Democrats are getting too far out over their skis here on this stuff.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are upset about this because they would like to obstruct immigration enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:Is a judge immune from an obstruction charge if there’s an articulable case to be made they were obstructing?

Or immune from ANY law, for that matter, by virtue of being a judge?

Could a judge be arrested for DUI? Or assault? Or tax evasion?

If yes, then aren’t those also authoritarianism, too?


Democrats are getting too far out over their skis here on this stuff.