Deadly shoot-out between off-duty cop and male who pistol-whipped him caught on police dashcam video



Milwaukee Police on Monday released dashcam video showing a deadly shoot-out between an off-duty officer and a male who pistol-whipped him just prior to the shoot-out.

Police said the officer was involved in a minor car accident in the 4800 block of West Mill Road while on his way to work just before 8:30 a.m. Thursday.

Police said video of the incident was released to the public 'in the interest of transparency.'

Both drivers pulled over and exited their cars, police said, adding that as they were assessing the accident, the other driver approached the off-duty officer, pulled a gun, and struck the off-duty officer in the face with it.

Image source: Milwaukee Police dashcam video screenshot

The off-duty officer drew his department-issued firearm, police said, adding that they exchanged gunfire, and the 26-year-old male who struck the off-duty officer was shot and pronounced dead at the scene.

While no one else was struck by gunfire, police said the off-duty officer was taken to a hospital for treatment of injuries as a result of the incident.

Police said the off-duty officer is a 40-year-old male with over 21 years of service and was placed on administrative duty, as is routine in officer-involved shooting investigations.

Police said the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team is investigating the incident, and the West Allis Police Department is the leading agency.

Police said video of the incident was released to the public "in the interest of transparency," after regulations requiring police to give next of kin a chance to view relevant video within 48 hours of the incident and regulations requiring police to release relevant video within 15 days of a critical incident were met.

RELATED: Gunman firing rifle while walking along snowy Milwaukee street shoots cop; 2nd officer returns fire, killing suspect

What's more, WISN-TV reported that the family of Elijah Wilks — the fatally shot male — wanted the video released early and called the shooting justified, as they believe the clip shows everything that occurred.

WISN added that the release of the video came after grainy surveillance video was posted on social media over the weekend.

Attorney B'Ivory LaMarr, who represents the family, told the station that "Elijah pulls out a firearm with his right hand, and ... he's essentially swinging it in the direction of the off-duty officer. One time. It's almost like a punch is what actually transpired."

Last Thursday, a neighbor said police pulled a 10mm bullet from his living room wall, WISN noted, adding that video indicates Wilks was facing that direction. Milwaukee police noted to the station that they don't have 10mm service weapons.

"What this family has done is made the difficult decision, while they're grieving, to put aside their privacy, put aside their grieving, to allow again the opportunity for accountability to actually exist where the public can see what they saw," LaMarr added to WISN. "And just try to move past the situation and heal this city."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Minneapolis Schools Declare Capitalism a ‘Pillar of White Supremacy’ in Required Ethnic Studies Classes

One might assume that enrolling in a Hmong studies class would entail learning about the Southeast Asian people’s culture and history. But in Minneapolis, high schoolers are instead taught lessons demonizing capitalism—a system absent in communist China, where many Hmong live—as a pillar of white supremacy alongside slavery and genocide, according to course materials obtained by Defending Education.

The post Minneapolis Schools Declare Capitalism a ‘Pillar of White Supremacy’ in Required Ethnic Studies Classes appeared first on .

WI Republican Linked To Explicit Trans Account Was A Trump-Dissing RINO Who Pushed Leftist Election Rules

Whitefish Bay businessman Bill Berrien -- who also had a past dalliance with the disastrously kinky election method known as ranked-choice voting -- has dropped out of the Badger State governor’s race.

The past is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there



Recently, my wife and I spent a night in Milwaukee. I was there for work, and she came along just for the fun of it. We left the kids with our parents and had 30 peaceful hours all to ourselves.

When you are in the thick of raising young kids, getting away for just one night feels like a hard reset or some kind of meditative retreat that leaves you clear in both mind and spirit. It was a good trip, it was a fun trip, it was a reflective trip.

We sat outside on the roof at Benelux in the Third Ward imagining life if we never left. If we never had kids. If we never changed. If we just ... stayed.

We lived in Milwaukee for a few years before we had kids. We rented a big loft with concrete floors and high ceilings. It was just one big, barren, concrete room. The only walls were the ones separating the bathroom from the rest of the place. It was up on the eighth floor; we had a great view of downtown.

We used old shipping pallets to divide the room. We didn’t have any money back then. We still don’t, but we have more than we did. When we moved to Milwaukee, we didn’t have jobs. I convinced the landlord to rent us the apartment without proof of income or proof of employment. I don’t know if it was possible because things were just really different before, because she was just really nice, or because I was just really convincing. It was probably a mix of all three.

Cart blanche

A few weeks after we moved, we found a shopping cart abandoned by a bus stop. We took it home and used it every week at the grocery store. We would push it to store empty, buy our groceries, and then push it, now completely full, back to the apartment again, stowing it next to the front door until next week’s trip. It was efficient and worked well, and I am sure we looked absolutely absurd.

We had a great time there. Those few years in the concrete loft before we had kids gave us a lot of great memories and a great start to our lives together. But going back and visiting was odd. We hadn’t been back since we left years ago, and finding ourselves in the same places completely unchanged as people who have very much changed felt somehow wrong.

Don't look back

It felt like some strange corruption of memories or maybe like we were somewhere we weren’t supposed to be. Almost like someone might come up to us and ask, “What are you doing here?” It felt like we were taking a detour down some road that’s been blocked off and just looking around for a bit before getting back on the highway again. It was strange and surreal.

RELATED: A nearly perfect dinner in Door County, Wisconsin

Tamer Soliman via iStock/Getty Images

Maybe it’s because life only goes one way. We can’t go back in time. We can’t change the past. We can’t revisit who we were. Maybe in some way, going back to where we lived before feels like attempting to do something we cannot do. It’s like building a replica of some old world city here in the new one. It’s just not right. It’s not as it should be. We can’t go back, and why would we want to anyway?

The path not taken

Well, I don’t want to go back and live life as it was. Walking around there, just us two, talking about how we were then and how we are now, all we could really say was that while we loved being there when we were there and that those memories are ones we treasure still, we are glad we are no longer there. I don’t just mean physically there, either. I mean mentally, spiritually, and situationally there. We very much like where we are now and wouldn’t change it for anything.

We sat outside on the roof at Benelux in the Third Ward imagining life if we never left. If we never had kids. If we never changed. If we just ... stayed. We could have very easily done all that. That kind of life could have happened to us if we let it. The years would have passed at the same rate, we would be the same age, but we wouldn’t be the same. And we both sat there together, slightly nostalgic for who we were — and grateful for who we are today.

Part of the plan

I think that’s how we are supposed to feel. All of it. We’re supposed to love those memories of youth, but we’re also supposed to cringe a little bit at our past feelings or opinions. We’re supposed to not quite respect our past selves. We’re supposed to laugh at how naive we were. It means we’ve grown and that’s a good thing. And we’re supposed to feel kind of weird going back to where we once lived. We’re supposed to feel a little out of step there in that foreign world of the past. We are no longer who we were, that’s the truth, and that’s OK.

The next morning, we left on the ferry to take us back. Watching Milwaukee disappear into the distance as we headed east across Lake Michigan, we were glad we had a day away, thankful for the lives we lived years ago, and happy we were going home to who we are today

EXCLUSIVE: School Choice Produces Better Outcomes With Less Taxpayer Money In Wisconsin, Report Finds

'Education policy should be grounded in giving parents options'

Democrats crown judges while crying about kings



“In America, we don’t do kings.” That was the message of the leftist protesters who swarmed the streets nationwide on June 14 in opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.

“Trump must go now!” they chanted, waving signs that likened the president to a dictator and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to his “Gestapo.” Their complaint was alleged despotism. But if Democrats really opposed authoritarianism, they wouldn’t be celebrating its emergence in the courts.

There are no kings in the United States — just a bunch of black-robed activists who seem to have forgotten the difference between ‘Your Honor’ and ‘Your Majesty.’

When U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani brazenly overstepped her authority on July 7 to block Congress from stripping Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding through the budget reconciliation bill — a clear usurpation of the legislative branch’s power of the purse — the response from the left wasn't outrage. It was praise.

"Good," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote on X. “Democrats will never stop fighting this backdoor abortion ban from the Republicans.”

— (@)

Schumer’s apparent admission that Medicaid funds abortions aside, his comments also belie his party's disingenuous indignation over supposed federal overreach.

Judges above the law

That selective outrage was on full display in April amid the arrest of a Wisconsin judge for allegedly escorting Eduardo Flores-Ruiz — an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported — out the back jury door of her courtroom to help him evade federal immigration authorities.

The ICE agents in question had a valid administrative warrant for Flores-Ruiz’s arrest, yet leftists railed against efforts to hold Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan to account for her alleged obstruction.

"By arresting a sitting judge over routine courthouse management, the Trump regime has signaled its eagerness to weaponize federal power against members of the judiciary who do not align with its political agenda,” writer Mitchell Sobieski fumed in a Milwaukee Independent op-ed.

If impeding federal law enforcement now qualifies as "routine courthouse management," that's a big problem.

Meanwhile, Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson, a Democrat, complained that the Trump administration was “scaring people” by enforcing federal immigration law.

“They’re scaring people in this community; they’re scaring people in immigrant communities all across the United States,” Johnson told reporters.

Never mind the law-abiding U.S. citizens who remain scared that their daughters, sisters, or mothers could be the next Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, or Rachel Morin — all victims of murderers in the country illegally.

Apparently, their fears are irrelevant.

As for Dugan, her claim that “judicial immunity” precludes her from being prosecuted for alleged obstruction of justice is as monarchical as it gets.

Judges are but one facet of the American justice system, and as Democrats loved reminding us all 15 minutes ago: “No one is above the law.”

Democrats love activist judges

Of course, Democrats’ lack of interest in reining in the judiciary is nothing new. After all, the Democratic Party has long relied on activist judges to impose its will on the American public.

With Roe v. Wade in 1973, liberals leveraged a sympathetic U.S. Supreme Court to force nearly a half-century of unregulated abortion onto a country that was — and still is — deeply divided on the procedure.

In 2015, leftists used the same playbook to mandate same-sex marriage nationwide via Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the age of Trump, however, judicial activism has become an even more flagrant problem.

Last year, then-candidate Trump was frequently forced to split his time between the campaign trail and the courtroom as he fended off contrived criminal indictments and lawsuits, nearly all of which were conveniently presided over by liberal judges.

RELATED: Rogue anti-Trump judges obliterated by SCOTUS’ landmark ruling

Liudmila Chernetska via iStock/Getty Images

At the same time, radical judges in Colorado and Illinois, along with Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, attempted to strip voters of their right to decide the presidential election by removing Trump’s name from the ballot.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to quash that authoritarian plot. Unfortunately for the justices, it's a move they've had to repeat several times since the president’s inauguration in January.

In a line of cases challenging Trump’s policy pursuits, rogue district court judges have issued sweeping injunctions blocking him from implementing his agenda nationwide in cases without a class certification — a practice that the Supreme Court has lately admonished as “likely” judicial overreach.

Still, lower-court judges are finding other ways to overstep their authority. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, for example, appears to have decided that his court, not the nation's high court, reigns supreme in the land.

Monarchy reaches the highest court

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted Murphy’s nationwide block on third-country deportations in June, Murphy continued to insist that the Trump administration allow six illegal immigrant defendants to challenge their removal before deporting them to a third-party country.

That move even rankled liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who had initially sided with Murphy.

“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” Kagan wrote, concurring with the majority that the deportations could proceed.

Yet not even the top court is immune to political activism, it seems.

In her dissent from the court's ruling against blanket injunctions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, described the majority’s decision as “profoundly dangerous.” In her view, containing temporary judicial relief to those requesting it somehow grants the president “unchecked, arbitrary power” and “undermines our constitutional system.”

Jackson’s words were acrimonious enough that Justice Amy Coney Barrett included a stinging rebuke in the court’s ruling.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.”

An imperial judiciary, indeed!

No, there are no kings in the United States — just a bunch of black-robed activists who seem to have forgotten the difference between “Your Honor” and “Your Majesty.”

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Magistrate: Trial Should Go On For WI Judge Accused Of Helping Illegal Alien Flee

U.S. Magistrate Nancy Joseph found Judge Hannah Dugan’s arguments to dismiss her federal criminal case 'unconvincing.'

Federal judge just dealt some bad news to Wisconsin judge who allegedly helped illegal alien evade ICE



Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in May on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.

Dugan — who has been characterized by Democratic lawmakers both as a courtroom hero and as a victim of the Trump administration — is desperate to avoid going to trial for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Dugan, whose actions on April 18 were largely caught on courthouse cameras, evidently figured the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. United States condemned by Democrats last summer was her ticket out of trouble.

'This, however, is not a civil case.'

Citing the court's determination that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts," lawyers for the Milwaukee judge claimed in a May 14 motion to dismiss the case that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts." Dugan's lawyers suggested further that her prosecution violates the limits of federal power under the 10th Amendment.

A federal judge suggested otherwise this week.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph recommended on Monday that Dugan's motion to dismiss be denied and torpedoed the Milwaukee judge's arguments for dismissal one by one.

RELATED: Courthouse footage spells trouble for Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

"It is well-established and undisputed that judges have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts," wrote Joseph. "This, however, is not a civil case. And review of the case law does not show an extension of this established doctrine to the criminal context."

'Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts.'

"Does judicial immunity shield Dugan from prosecution because the indictment alleges she violated federal criminal law while performing judicial duties? The answer is no," wrote Joseph.

The federal judge underscored that there is "no firmly established absolute judicial immunity barring criminal prosecution of judges for judicial acts."

Joseph also made mince meat out of Dugan's attempt to use Trump to avoid criminal prosecution for alleged improper conduct within her courtroom.

— (@)

"While Dugan asserts that Trump simply extended to the president the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts," wrote Joseph.

"And in Fitzgerald, while the Supreme Court looked to the historical jurisprudence regarding civil judicial immunity, the Court was clear that the grant of absolute immunity for civil damages for 'outer perimeter' acts of the president was due to the 'special nature of the president's constitutional office and functions,'" added Joseph.

Joseph further recommended that the court declines Dugan's invitation to dismiss the indictment on the canon of constitutional avoidance.

RELATED: Trump fighting 'unconstitutional power grab' by Obama judge who reopened the floodgates

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

While the U.S. magistrate judge made abundantly clear that Dugan's motion to dismiss has no legs to stand on, the decision rests with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman.

As Blaze News previously reported, Adelman is a Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge and a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat."

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge in April by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, was originally scheduled to go to trial later this month, but Adelman took the trial date off the calendar last month pending the outcome of her motion to dismiss.

"We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it," Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic said in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. "This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

This conservative fix — without protections — could help Democrats rig elections



Conservatives across the country are building momentum to clean up elections. Donald Trump’s proposals call for paper ballots, voter ID, and in-person voting on Election Day only. These reforms would mark a major improvement over the chaotic 2020 election — when Joe Biden somehow received more votes than any presidential candidate in history.

But tightening election procedures also risks reviving an old Democratic trick: voter suppression.

The inability to print a ballot is ultimately no different than a refusal to provide a ballot to a voter. It is voter suppression.

In an ideal system, voting would happen exclusively on paper ballots and in person. No mail-ins. No drop boxes. ID required.

However, to counter suppression efforts in Republican precincts, polls should remain open for several days — perhaps even a full week. Extending in-person voting would allow voters to push back against the tactics designed to keep them home.

I am well aware of how voter suppression works because I have the scars to prove it. When I started voting in Travis County (Austin), Texas, in the 1980s, ballot suppression in Republican precincts was an established protocol by the Democrats who ran the county. The strategy was two-pronged:

Insufficient voting booths: Conservative precincts were provided very few voting booths, causing extremely long lines. I watched many people drive up, look at the line, then drive away. Many other would-be voters already in line would finally give up and forgo voting. While my precinct had four or five booths, I’d later watch the evening news show Democratic precincts outfitted with dozens.

Ballot shortages: It was a predictable occurrence that Republican precincts would run out of ballots before the polls closed due to “unexpectedly” high turnout. Those in line could either wait for hours until someone showed up with “provisional” ballots, or they could give up. Most people would not wait in line until 10 p.m. just to cast a vote.

Not enough ballots

I was in the habit of voting first thing in the morning on Election Day to ensure I got a ballot. Even though the wait was long due to the bottleneck caused by so few voting booths, I would at least get my vote in. But the ballot I cast also resulted in a missing ballot for someone else trying to vote later in the day, as Democratic officials who ran the county made sure that there were fewer ballots than voters in my precinct.

The county elections administrator always had an excuse for the ballot shortages in Republican precincts. She’d cite a local statute that required her to allocate ballots based on average county turnout. Since Republican precincts had higher voter turnout than the county as a whole, shortages were guaranteed — by design.

When early voting finally came about several years later, I was thrilled. I was tired of battling my own county officials just to cast a Republican vote.

Decades later, these tactics are still in use.

The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election, for example, drew national attention because the outcome could affect midterm Congressional redistricting, which could then swing control of the U.S. House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat.

On Election Day in Milwaukee, 69 of its 180 precincts reported ballot shortages, and nine precincts ran out of ballots completely. Milwaukee’s top election official offered a familiar excuse: Ballots were printed based on past turnout. But voter participation surged to 50%, far above normal for a spring election. It was “unexpected.”

Some conservatives pushing for same-day voting likely haven’t considered that those in charge of ballot preparation might simply not provide enough.

Ballot printing — or lack thereof

Another method of voter suppression involves ballot printing. If the printer “breaks,” there’s no ballot to cast. This tactic has benefited Democrats in recent elections, such as in Phoenix, Arizona’s Maricopa County, and Texas’ Harris County.

In the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election, Republican Kari Lake narrowly lost by 17,000 votes out of 2.5 million counted ballots. Long lines due to printer problems caused many Arizonans to give up and leave before voting. Moreover, thousands of ballots that were printed could not be read by ballot-counting machines.

RELATED: Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite

cosmaa via iStock/Getty Images

Similarly, in the 2022 gubernatorial election in Texas, printer problems prevented many voters in Republican precincts around Houston from being able to obtain a ballot. As reported by the Houston Chronicle, a few days after the election, “More than a dozen voting locations in Harris County ran out of the paper used to print ballots in voting machines Tuesday, county officials confirmed. Some sites, poll workers and voters said, had no ballots on hand for one to two hours.”

“From our standpoint, it seems there was an attempt to make sure there were not enough ballots at Republican polls,” the chairman of the Harris County GOP told the Chronicle. The inability to print a ballot is ultimately no different than a refusal to provide a ballot to a voter. It is voter suppression.

Ample ballots, ample booths

If we are going to use all-paper ballots, states need to mandate that each precinct open on Election Day with enough printed ballots for every registered voter. Any unused ballots must be destroyed after polls close to protect election integrity.

There also must be enough voting booths to ensure that long lines don’t become a voting deterrent.

Personally, I’d prefer that in-person, paper ballot voting be allowed over several days to ensure that Democrats cannot engage in Election Day voter suppression tactics. One suppressed Republican ballot carries the same weight as one fraudulent Democratic vote stuffed in a ballot box.

Courthouse footage spells trouble for Wisconsin judge accused of helping illegal alien evade ICE



Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury last week on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of the law.

Dugan, relieved of her duties as a judge last month by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, could land up to six years in prison if convicted for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an illegal alien from Mexico charged with three misdemeanor counts of battery, get away from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Judging from the courthouse footage recently obtained from Milwaukee County by WISN-TV through an open records request, her defense has its work cut out.

The federal indictment alleges that Dugan committed multiple "affirmative acts" to assist Flores-Ruiz evade arrest following his pre-trial April 18 appearance in her courtroom, including:

  • confronting members of an ICE task force and "falsely telling them they needed a judicial warrant to effectuate the arrest of E.F.R.";
  • directing all members of the task force to leave the public hallway outside her courtroom and to go to the chief judge's office;
  • addressing the illegal alien's criminal case off the record while ICE agents were waiting in the chief judge's office;
  • "directing E.F.R. and his counsel to exit Courtroom 615 through a non-public jury door"; and
  • advising Flores-Ruiz's lawyer that the illegal alien could appear by Zoom for his next court date.

The original FBI charging document goes into far more detail, drawing on witness testimony and other inputs.

The footage appears to corroborate a number of the allegations made in both documents.

— (@)

In the footage, Dugan can be seen confronting federal agents in the hallway outside her courtroom, then directing them away to speak to the chief judge.

The FBI charging document notes that after learning of the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Dugan and another judge approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.

The document notes further that Dugan, who was "visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor," told the deportation officer to leave the courthouse. After the officer indicated he had an administrative warrant, Dugan allegedly suggested that he instead needed a judicial warrant.

The judge then allegedly ordered the deportation officer and other federal agents to report to the chief judge's office.

'Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again.'

Seizing upon the distraction, the Mexican national and his attorney can be seen in the video sneaking out of Dugan's courtroom through a jury door not open to the public.

Additional footage obtained by WISN shows Flores-Ruiz take off running upon exiting the building while federal agents gave chase.

RELATED: Dems condemn Trump admin over arrest of judge who allegedly helped illegal alien escape: 'A red line'

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

Despite Dugan's alleged efforts, law enforcement was ultimately able to capture Flores-Ruiz. The illegal alien reportedly remains in federal custody.

The Department of Homeland Security previously told Blaze News, "Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected ICE agents away from this criminal illegal alien to obstruct the arrest and try to help him evade arrest. Thankfully, our FBI partners chased down this illegal alien, arrested him and removed him from American communities."

Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment in federal court on May 15.

After seeing the footage, Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany (Wisc.) stated, "Hannah Dugan should be barred from ever serving as a judge again. A judge who puts criminal illegal aliens above victims has no place in our courts."

RELATED: Tom Homan to Glenn Beck: Tim Walz 'disgusting' for comparing ICE to 'Gestapo' — Eric Swalwell not 'above the law'

Last week, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that "the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset."

'These plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity.'

Her attorneys cited the Supreme Court's July 1, 2024, ruling in Trump v. United States, where a 6-3 majority determined that the president "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."

Dugan's attorneys noted that even if "Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution."

While she had no luck with her motion to dismiss, Dugan landed an anti-Trump judge with an apparent ax to grind.

Blaze News previously reported that Lynn Adelman, the Clinton-appointed U.S. district judge presiding over Dugan's case, is a former Democratic state senator with a history of attacking President Donald Trump, claiming, for instance, that the president makes no effort "to enact policies beneficial to the general public" and behaves like an "autocrat."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!