Speaker 1: Can a judge get arrested for upholding the law? Well,
Speaker 1: you know what, they can, and they have been in Milwaukee.
Speaker 1: And to fill this in, John Roda Bush is going
Speaker 1: to give us the story.
Speaker 2: Well, uh, The summary from the article says, in a
Speaker 2: criminal complaints.
Speaker 3: My fault because this is so you know, you're good
Speaker 3: for your intro. And then I'm just gonna I mean,
Speaker 3: in a second, I'm gonna.
Speaker 1: Start three again. So they have a cute you need
Speaker 1: to do that.
Speaker 3: I'm the one editing it.
Speaker 1: You don't need, okay, because because I was told to
Speaker 1: do that back in the day. That was something that
Speaker 1: I was told to do.
Speaker 3: So yeah, okay, yeah, I didn't mean to sound as snappy.
Speaker 1: That everybody's got there. Everybody's got their process, man, and
Speaker 1: I just you know, that was the process. And if
Speaker 1: you want to change it, that's cool with me.
Speaker 2: That's yeah.
Speaker 3: I guess I can just toss it up. Now, I'll
Speaker 3: toss this up and then whenever you're ready, John, you
Speaker 3: can start talking and I will cut it. I'm going
Speaker 3: to make a note of the time anyway, Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. The summary from the article in a criminal
Speaker 2: complaint the US Justice Department said Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee
Speaker 2: County Circuit judge, hindered the immigration agents who showed up
Speaker 2: to arrest a man without a judicial warrant outside her
Speaker 2: courtroom on April eighteenth, and that she tried to help
Speaker 2: him evade arrest by allowing him to exit through a
Speaker 2: jewelry door. Agents arrested the man, Eduardo Flores Ruis, outside
Speaker 2: the courthouse after he left with his lawyer. Interestingly, she
Speaker 2: was within her authority to not allow compliance with a
Speaker 2: non judicial warrant, which are invalid under the constitution. So
Speaker 2: was she just doing her job to protect somebody's rights?
Speaker 2: And what is happening to our institutions? Let's discuss this, Kelly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it is something worthy of discussion. There
Speaker 1: is this is you know, puts a lot of things
Speaker 1: into question. Jason, let's go to you. Does this case
Speaker 1: remind you of anything else? Yeah?
Speaker 4: Man, Like my partner as a clinician, you know, and
Speaker 4: they work with homicidal suicidal populations, do intensive outpatient and
Speaker 4: patient stuff, and a lot of the patients they see
Speaker 4: are part of the LGBTQ community. Now, what my partner's
Speaker 4: brought up is, you know, we're here, We're here in Texas.
Speaker 4: What my partner's brought up is, you know, all this
Speaker 4: crap going on right now with Paxton and Abbott and
Speaker 4: all the you know lawsuits against them by p FLAG
Speaker 4: for gender affirming care and supposed to give up information
Speaker 4: and not treat people. And my partner made a good
Speaker 4: point is that how can they ask me to not
Speaker 4: treat people whenever I took an oath to do no harm?
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So, if we take this judge and it seems like
Speaker 4: this judge actually takes their job serious as opposed to
Speaker 4: being incentivized by capital gains or by you know, motives
Speaker 4: or political prowess or YadA YadA, seems like the judges
Speaker 4: you know, actually wants to do their job properly and
Speaker 4: follow law. I think this judge is completely in their
Speaker 4: right to just follow law. It makes no statement on
Speaker 4: their political affiliation. It makes no statement on if they
Speaker 4: even thought that guy was a decent per. That guy
Speaker 4: could have been a piece of garbage human being. That's
Speaker 4: not the argument. The argument is are we following the
Speaker 4: law and are we doing and applying it across the
Speaker 4: board and following it or are we violating it whenever
Speaker 4: we see it? When it seems fitter we deem it
Speaker 4: to be. Hey, it's just yet convenient. So I backed
Speaker 4: the judge's decision to follow the law and do the
Speaker 4: thing that she took an oath to do. I think
Speaker 4: anything otherwise would be morally corrupt and honorable, yeah, and dishonorable,
Speaker 4: and would be spitting in the face of the loose
Speaker 4: foundation that we have to uphold justice and freedom and
Speaker 4: liberties and our interesting nation. So that's kind of how
Speaker 4: I feel about it, man.
Speaker 1: I think this judge really showed integrity, and I've alla
Speaker 1: he said that if I ever win the lottery, the
Speaker 1: first thing I'm going to buy is a judge, and
Speaker 1: this is the kind of judge I want to buy one.
Speaker 2: That's good. Like the never mind, John, you can't.
Speaker 4: Say that I made sure. This is difficult to talk about,
Speaker 4: you know, because of the amount of because it does
Speaker 4: stem from political sided just campaigns right now, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: The narrative is what they're trying to do with.
Speaker 4: This related to a specific group.
Speaker 1: ELI, what kind of legal team that does the judge
Speaker 1: have backing your up in this case?
Speaker 3: That was kind of like the first thing I went
Speaker 3: to because I was like, my thought was like can
Speaker 3: you imagine being the prosecutor that has to try to
Speaker 3: convict somebody who is like, like the defendant is.
Speaker 2: A judge, is a judge for a lawyer?
Speaker 3: Right? Of course, she she's fully completely capable of whatever herself,
Speaker 3: but she decided to enlist some help, so she leading
Speaker 3: the team. This isn't the entirety of it, but she
Speaker 3: has former US Attorney Stephen Biscopic and former US Solicitor
Speaker 3: General Paul Clement. I'm not familiar with their careers at all,
Speaker 3: except that Judge Dugan got her law degree in nineteen
Speaker 3: eighty seven and was actually the president of the Milwaukee
Speaker 3: Bar Association for a year starting in nineteen ninety nine. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and then so Biscupic has been practicing law since eighty nine,
Speaker 3: and Clement got his Juris Doctor from Harvard in nineteen
Speaker 3: ninety two. The prosecution team, on the other hand, I
Speaker 3: had the name of it, and I don't remember. I
Speaker 3: didn't write it down. I thought I did. I apologize.
Speaker 3: But the prosecutor that is leading the prosecution got his
Speaker 3: law degree in twenty nineteen, so this, of course, he
Speaker 3: has six years of experience. That's more like I'm not
Speaker 3: disparaging his legal experience or knowledge, because I've of course
Speaker 3: been no place to do that. But he's going up
Speaker 3: against Appeal Team six here, and they just doesn't seem
Speaker 3: like now there's there is some more weight and a
Speaker 3: little bit more like experience on the prosecution team as well.
Speaker 3: Like I just didn't write those names down, unfortunately, I
Speaker 3: was focused on Judge Dougan. But I'm kind of I'm
Speaker 3: really actually interested like it, in so far as one
Speaker 3: can be interested in court cases. I'm kind of interested
Speaker 3: in seeing how this goes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I am too this, Yeah, I definitely want to
Speaker 1: keep I hope we'd follow up on this in the future.
Speaker 1: On the on the show, John, what was Dugan's main
Speaker 1: reason for standing in the way of the federal agents?
Speaker 1: And you think number one it was legal and two moral.
Speaker 2: Well, the main reason was that they did not have
Speaker 2: a warrant signed by a magistrate or judge listing specifically
Speaker 2: who they have to You know, on a warrant, you
Speaker 2: have to have the name of the person you're going
Speaker 2: to arrest. If you're looking for anything in their house
Speaker 2: or something that has to be listed specifically what you're
Speaker 2: there to get. You can't do anything other than what's
Speaker 2: on the warrant. But these warrants are just warrants that
Speaker 2: Homeland Security made up, their imaginary they made them up,
Speaker 2: and they're just pieces of paper that they can show
Speaker 2: somebody saying, I have a warrant for your arrest. But
Speaker 2: it's not because it's not signed by judge about this,
Speaker 2: it's not done by a magistral warrant. It's just it's
Speaker 2: not an official warrant. It's and and so you know this.
Speaker 4: Is I just want to break into this.
Speaker 1: I just want to break in for one moment. Do
Speaker 1: you know when the last time they use these these
Speaker 1: non judicial warrants to round people up?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, that would be the Japanese Internment.
Speaker 1: War, Yes, the Japanese Internment the World War Two. This
Speaker 1: is exactly what we're doing. One of the greatest embarrassments
Speaker 1: in human history, and we're repeating it. So I'm just
Speaker 1: sorry to cut you off, John, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I was going to bring that up anyway
Speaker 2: later on, but yeah, yeah, well, I'm glad. I just
Speaker 2: wanted to say that, you know, these these pseudo warrants
Speaker 2: are totally invalid. You can't use them. They can pretend
Speaker 2: to use them, and they're allowed to lie. All law
Speaker 2: enforcement officials are allowed to lie, to con you into
Speaker 2: things that you don't know that you don't want to do,
Speaker 2: you know. So, like they'll sit you down and interrogate
Speaker 2: you for sixteen hours. They can't do that if you
Speaker 2: want to leave, you say, you know, am I under arrest.
Speaker 2: If you're under arrest, they have to give you food
Speaker 2: and water, you know, like that. If they don't have
Speaker 2: enough to arrest you, they can't keep you, you know.
Speaker 2: So it's like all these constitutional things have to go.
Speaker 2: But it didn't matter. In the Japanese FDR, the president
Speaker 2: at the time signed an executive order to round up
Speaker 2: all the Japanese citizens these are citizens of the United
Speaker 2: States and put them in internment camps. They didn't even
Speaker 2: get a chance to settle their affairs. Some of them
Speaker 2: were really lucky. They had a neighbor, a white neighbor
Speaker 2: or something, who would run their farm for them while
Speaker 2: they're interred for the however long they were going to
Speaker 2: be interred, and they kept their farms. But people had
Speaker 2: mortgages and houses they were foreclosed on. They they lost
Speaker 2: their house, They lost everything they owned that was in it.
Speaker 2: Everything was gone, and they did that because the narratives said,
Speaker 2: Japanese people are evil, so we got to get them
Speaker 2: so they won't be spies for the Empire of Japan.
Speaker 2: These were US citizens. They probably the US government than
Speaker 2: the American citizens. Do you know other exeriances do. But
Speaker 2: that's and that happened the whole war. They were they
Speaker 2: were stuck there. They couldn't make any money, they couldn't
Speaker 2: run their businesses, they couldn't they couldn't do anything. Some
Speaker 2: of them were really lucky if they were well connected,
Speaker 2: somebody covered for them while they were gone. Most of
Speaker 2: those doing far between they had one. Yeah, but that's
Speaker 2: the same sort of thing they're doing now. And that's
Speaker 2: a mistake.
Speaker 1: This is what I mean. This was something that we
Speaker 1: that we know was unlawful. The courts ruled that was
Speaker 1: unlawful afterwards, and we are now doing the same exact
Speaker 1: same thing, and and and just just like back then,
Speaker 1: there aren't a lot of people well back then, nobody
Speaker 1: was standing up. But today there aren't a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are standing up to say something because because
Speaker 1: because in the current climate, I think people are afraid
Speaker 1: to say something in support of somebody like this judge
Speaker 1: lest they find themselves in an El Salvador in prison
Speaker 1: for the next ten years.
Speaker 2: Well take me, I'm good, I protest. I'm sorry. I'm
Speaker 2: not gonna let this.
Speaker 1: I don't know that much to lose, man, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know Thoms let alone ten years, so I'm not
Speaker 1: going to suffer too much.
Speaker 4: But luckily to be overquick for you man.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, probably me too.
Speaker 1: That reality is reality, it is.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So anyway, so you know, I am involved in doing
Speaker 2: some protesting. So that's and I can't tell anybody else
Speaker 2: to do they you use your own conscience. But yeah,
Speaker 2: I swore an oath to the Constitution myself, so I
Speaker 2: take that seriously, even if they don't.
Speaker 1: Eli, do you think I was putting policy over people
Speaker 1: in this case?
Speaker 3: Yeah, obviously. And is that so it's it's because of
Speaker 3: the directives they've received, right, And it's far from the
Speaker 3: worst example, but it is. It is just another example
Speaker 3: of them doing that exact thing. I think it's pretty
Speaker 3: clear that the focus the interest of these directives is
Speaker 3: that we demonstrate that they are working, not that they work.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter whether they are like effective and achieving.
Speaker 3: What is actually like a coherent and valid and productive
Speaker 3: immigration policy. It matters that X number of people get deported,
Speaker 3: because if X number of people get deported, then wow,
Speaker 3: this new immigration plan did so much to affect illegal immigration,
Speaker 3: whether that's really the case or not. So what actually
Speaker 3: does concern me though about this particular case is that
Speaker 3: even if, like we said before, even if the judge
Speaker 3: and her and her team are her defense team are
Speaker 3: perfectly capable of defending her, if if the prosecution is
Speaker 3: not able to prove beyond a doubt that there was
Speaker 3: that she broke any actual law, rather than or Ron Swanson,
Speaker 3: like I have a permit, you know, written on a
Speaker 3: piece of paper in a public park, like then that
Speaker 3: may not necessarily matter, like it should absolutely, but like
Speaker 3: I have concerns about like what's going to be decided anyway?
Speaker 3: Will she just be made an example of? And uh,
Speaker 3: I think that that's that's the scary part that we
Speaker 3: need to know that we need to watch for, not
Speaker 3: whether or not she is successful in her case, but
Speaker 3: whether she should have been.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that's one thing, but also you know, whatever,
Speaker 2: she didn't break any laws. There's no law that says
Speaker 2: you have to cooperate with an ice agent, you know.
Speaker 2: So it's like and she had a reason to chew
Speaker 2: them away, right.
Speaker 3: I'm sure she has like as far as making like
Speaker 3: legally sound decisions, she has more information to integrate than
Speaker 3: than I do, of course.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But that's what I'm saying is that the whole
Speaker 2: idea that this is a sound bite, right, This is
Speaker 2: just a message to the judicial system saying you're at
Speaker 2: risk too. This is totalitarian, authoritarian usurption of the judicial branch.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 2: And there was somebody said recently that there have been
Speaker 2: administrative threats made even to the Supreme Court. So it's like,
Speaker 2: at this point we are in a major constitutional crisis,
Speaker 2: and that's what they wanted to engineer.
Speaker 1: That's, you know, strangely enough, John, in my notes for
Speaker 1: this segment, I wrote that what I thought was the
Speaker 1: biggest red flag in this whole story, And I don't
Speaker 1: know if anybody else noticed it, but it was the
Speaker 1: actual actual constitution bending statement to show you that the
Speaker 1: leader of the Justice Department currently is either incredibly evil
Speaker 1: or just plane fucking stupid. And what she said was
Speaker 1: no one, least of all a judge should obstruct law
Speaker 1: enforcement operations. Now, if a law a law enforcement operation
Speaker 1: isn't legal. That's exactly what a judge's job is. That
Speaker 1: is literally the judgment.
Speaker 4: That's what they do. They go to a judge just
Speaker 4: sign it all, you know, They go to a judge
Speaker 4: assigned the order for a warrant. They never know. Their
Speaker 4: job is to either allow or obstruct and inhibit. That
Speaker 4: is what the judge for.
Speaker 1: And this is the leader of the Justice Department saying
Speaker 1: judges stay out of my way.
Speaker 4: Fucking fuck man. Now, this is fascism. That's all this is.
Speaker 4: And I've never and I don't ever use that word
Speaker 4: because I feel like people use it in a really
Speaker 4: hyperbolic way. And I don't want to sound just like
Speaker 4: some looney fascist nazi blah blah blah. No, but that
Speaker 4: is fascism. That's having laws on the books and just
Speaker 4: be like, eh, eh, I said it. That's a that's silly,
Speaker 4: that's silly. How aren't we past that? You know, it's
Speaker 4: like fucking.
Speaker 2: We really have to give to these people, right, So,
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, come on, that's just ridiculous.
Speaker 3: It's it's the point where you stop pretending that public
Speaker 3: servants are public servants. Is basically like that's I think
Speaker 3: I think it's yeah, where it becomes fascism.
Speaker 4: I don't understand it because it's like I've been screaming
Speaker 4: about this shit on stage with fucking punk rock and
Speaker 4: oil bands for for fucking twenty five years. Man, It's
Speaker 4: like we've we've been talking about it going on. I
Speaker 4: think I think punk rock more or less started because
Speaker 4: of fucking Reagan. You know what I'm saying, It's it's
Speaker 4: all American, like hardcore is like was like a response
Speaker 4: to that shit, man, I mean, and all we're seeing
Speaker 4: is like very similar policies from you know, the early
Speaker 4: like late seventies, early eighties that even the same terminology,
Speaker 4: the same catchphrases, things like that being proliferated now but
Speaker 4: to an extreme that is so blatant and in your
Speaker 4: face and so obvious. But yet people are just drinking
Speaker 4: it up like mother's milk. Man, It's fucking insane. It
Speaker 4: blows my mind to watch this happening. I feel like
Speaker 4: I'm in a twilight zone or something. I don't know
Speaker 4: what's happening.
Speaker 3: Well, Like and like what Pam Bondi said about the
Speaker 3: you know, not obstructing law enforcement operations like that reminds
Speaker 3: me of I was actually thinking about it earlier today,
Speaker 3: Like unrelated to this episode, people view police as synonymous
Speaker 3: with like legally correct right and the same way that
Speaker 3: God is synonymous with morally good in most Christian views.
Speaker 3: So for that reason, not only is it acceptable for
Speaker 3: God to take your life, but it is morally good
Speaker 3: for God to take your life because God doing it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it is moreally virtuous. So when you have a group
Speaker 3: of people that you define as legal, like as synonymous
Speaker 3: with legal, uh good. Already they are synonymous with the law.
Speaker 3: Nothing they do can be wrong. So they have more
Speaker 3: of a right to defend themselves than I do. They
Speaker 3: have a more of a right to kill me than
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 4: I think, Yeah, I'm sorry, sorry, I'm sorry. You may
Speaker 4: think of something, please finish.
Speaker 3: That's right. But yeah, it's basically just that it's it's
Speaker 3: you have this group of people and it's not super
Speaker 3: difficult to like be qualified to be a police officer,
Speaker 3: Like are there are some physical demands? Yes, I'm not thinking,
Speaker 3: but like like I went through Marine Corps boot camp,
Speaker 3: Like if I can make it through Marine Corps boot
Speaker 3: camp at that's like the way that I looked when
Speaker 3: I went in. There's no reason that anybody can't you know,
Speaker 3: make it. Sorry that's hyperbolic, but like fit people can
Speaker 3: make it through the police academy and and it's it's
Speaker 3: not like it's you need know the huge qualification. So
Speaker 3: when you have this, this group of people that the
Speaker 3: majority of the population is a subset or it is
Speaker 3: a subset of the majority of the population, then you
Speaker 3: just have person after person after person that like just
Speaker 3: has more rights than me and can defend themselves and
Speaker 3: has more of a right to live because if they
Speaker 3: kill me, then all they just have to say that
Speaker 3: they felt they were in danger or that I was
Speaker 3: a danger to someone, and they're going to be believed.
Speaker 3: I agree with you.
Speaker 4: I think it's pathetic, especially especially as somebody who you
Speaker 4: know has currently has professional well lined up until the
Speaker 4: car drops, but professional fighting has been doing that shit
Speaker 4: for twenty years. It's insane to me that these guys
Speaker 4: who are supposed to serve and protect like can barely
Speaker 4: get in and out of their cruiser. And that's not
Speaker 4: shaming anybody for body size or weight or struggles or anything,
Speaker 4: but like you, as a marine, you have prerequisites. You
Speaker 4: have to do certain things in order to be trusted
Speaker 4: to do certain things. If you're driving around all day
Speaker 4: with a gun on your fucking hip and a taser
Speaker 4: and the right to just an immunity and to kill
Speaker 4: fucking people, but you can't, like you can't do ten push.
Speaker 3: Ups, you don't have like you don't know how to actually.
Speaker 4: Hand to hand. We have guys coming to the gym.
Speaker 4: I was offered a position training HPD here in town
Speaker 4: by sergeant one of the hiring officers. It didn't work out,
Speaker 4: but it was. It was there because the concern that
Speaker 4: they're having these recruits. My bud, good friend of mine,
Speaker 4: who as a sergeant in the HBD, said, these guys
Speaker 4: are coming out they've never been in a fistfight in
Speaker 4: their lives. They've never been in a violent altercation. They're
Speaker 4: coming out of community college now months later, they have
Speaker 4: a gun. They've never been in a violent confrontation in
Speaker 4: their lives. They're coming from like upper middle class families.
Speaker 4: They just probably didn't do very well in school, and
Speaker 4: they're gonna do cop stuff or whatever, and it's it's
Speaker 4: just kind of the thing they're doing. And then they
Speaker 4: show up and they get a gun. They can shoot
Speaker 4: somebody fucking insane, but they don't even do hand hand combat.
Speaker 4: I got twenty years of jiu jitsu, you know, I
Speaker 4: don't need to carry a fucking gun.
Speaker 1: And everybody thinks they handle themselves with that gun. And
Speaker 1: it's a scary person. That is one thing that I
Speaker 1: have absolutely freaked out when I've experienced that. How many
Speaker 1: people think that, oh, they're highly trained guys. It was like,
Speaker 1: you know what, the military is highly trained guys, and
Speaker 1: twenty guys in a battlefield can keep their head. Yeah,
Speaker 1: about five percent, one is twenty.
Speaker 4: It's crazy, Kelly. If there's one thing I know, I
Speaker 4: grew up in very violent environment. We've all talked about it.
Speaker 4: I was getting into fist fights every day. I mean,
Speaker 4: I grew up in gang stuff. I know violence. I
Speaker 4: know public violence, I know group violence, I know riots.
Speaker 4: I feel very comfortable in a violence situation. Most people freeze.
Speaker 4: Plus I do professional violence. I love it. It's fun.
Speaker 4: I'm really good at it. But I recognize that ninety
Speaker 4: nine point nine to nine percent of people don't want
Speaker 4: to do violence. And when you have somebody who can't
Speaker 4: even handle themselves in violence with their bare hands, the
Speaker 4: first thing they're gonna do is kill somebody, and they're
Speaker 4: going to harm somebody, and they're gonna just they're gonna
Speaker 4: shoot a poor African American kid in the back, or
Speaker 4: it's gonna be somebody who's in it because they're going
Speaker 4: to tackle an Asian man and break his skull. You
Speaker 4: know what I'm saying, old Asian man and braver. You
Speaker 4: know all the things we've been seeing lately in the
Speaker 4: past two months, just fucking murdering people and getting away
Speaker 4: with it because they're they're given this, like they're primed
Speaker 4: by by churches to say, all authority is put in
Speaker 4: the place a fucking by God. And since this cop
Speaker 4: is your quote authority, him shooting your fucking neighbor was
Speaker 4: the best thing and God wanted it. That's the assumption,
Speaker 4: and that's the insinuation, and that's what you're forced to
Speaker 4: fucking suck down. And I think it's bullshit. You're just
Speaker 4: scared fucking people hiding behind a corrupt structure. Good point.
Speaker 1: And you know what, speaking of authority, I'm going to
Speaker 1: give everybody the authority to check out more nonprofits