No tapes, no video clips, no whistleblowers or secret letters have come to light. But the idea that judges, some federal and some state – almost all of them with leanings or other ties to the Democratic Party – are working together to subvert President Donald Trump and the will of American voters certainly passes the eye test.
So said Wyoming Republican Harriet Hageman, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Washington Watch Friday. Evidence of collusion isn’t readily available, but the conclusion is easily drawn, the lawmaker told show host Jody Hice.
“There’s absolutely a political component to it. These judges have made the decision that they are going to defy whatever agenda Donald Trump is attempting to pursue. They are blocking the will of the American public, and they are essentially acting as the gatekeeper, regardless of the legality of the decisions that he is making,” Hageman said.
This issue with judges is not new. It peaked with Trump’s battle with James Boasberg, who first ruled that Trump was violating due process for illegal immigrants with alleged ties to violent gangs, then ordered deportations of those individuals be stopped for at least 14 days.
Boasberg gave a verbal order that one flight be turned around in mid-air. It was ignored.
Judges put beliefs into action
Almost 30 federal judges had ruled against Trump in some fashion when Newsweek presented a detailed list in late March. It’s a number that’s grown as the story has become more bizarre, the judges more brazen as some have moved from interpreters of law to its active and willing violators.
Two such judges were arrested last week. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hanna Dugan, twice elected in Wisconsin, has been charged with concealing an individual to prevent an arrest and with obstructing a U.S. agency. Both are felonies and carry a maximum of six years in prison and a $350,000 fine.
In spite of Dugan’s alleged involvement, federal agents were able to chase down Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, facing three misdemeanor counts of battery, not far from the courthouse.
“The judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public,” FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on social media. “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject – an illegal alien – to [initially] evade arrest.”
Also, now former New Mexico judge Joel Cano resigned after he and his wife Nancy were found to be housing a Venezuelan national, Christhian Ortega-Lopez, with alleged ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, inside their home. Both of the Canos were arrested on charges of evidence tampering.
“Some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not," Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Fox News. "We’re sending a very strong message. If you are harboring a fugitive, we don't care who you are. If you are helping hide one, if you are giving a TDA member guns, anyone who is illegally in this country, we will come after you and we will prosecute you.”
Attorneys representing illegals – or anyone with an axe to grind against Trump – know where to take their cases, according to Hageman.
“Clearly the plaintiffs in these cases are judicial shopping. They are forum shopping, which in and of itself is inappropriate to do, but what you have is a situation where they're going to judges who they know. It doesn't even matter what the issue is: they're going to get an injunction because they are all in on it,” Hageman argued.
A clear effort exists to block Trump's attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens as well as attempts to strengthen election integrity, she added. “They are going to attempt to block and prevent him from carrying out the agenda that the American public voted for in November of last year.”
'Hey, this isn’t that bad'
Once the threat of deportation is removed for illegals, the next step in Democrats’ plan is to convince voters that this is good for America.
The brutal murder last year of nursing student Laken Riley in Athens, Georgia, gained national attention and led to legislation mandating federal detention of illegals arrested for burglary or theft and allowing states to file lawsuits against the federal government for failing to enforce immigration laws.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in February announced the arrests of 171 illegals with pending charges or convictions for murder, homicide or assault against children. Yet Judge William Orrick, of California’s Northern District, ruled last week that Trump’s executive orders threatening funding sanctuary cities are unconstitutional.
The judge said Trump's orders – titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion" and "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" – also violate the Fifth Amendment "to the extent they are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process." Trump’s directives "also violate the Tenth Amendment because they impose coercive condition intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law," Orrick wrote.
San Francisco city attorney David Chu argued in favor of sanctuary cities last week.
“There are hundreds of cities around the country, hundreds of police chiefs that support sanctuary policies, which are about building trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. When you have that trust, immigrant victims and witnesses of crime will lead to working with police officers to make sure that criminals are arrested, that folks are put in jail, and our communities are safer,” Chu said.
Democrats: Keep illegals here at all costs
Hageman called Chu’s comments “stunning.” The primary victims of criminal illegal immigrants come from within that same immigrant community, she explained.
“What you have with these sanctuary cities and these leaders is they're saying, ‘we're going to victimize you yet again, because we're going to make dang sure that we are not removing the criminals among you, because there's a risk that they might be deported, and we're not going to allow that to happen,’” Hageman said.
