Activist liberal judges have been one of President Donald Trump's worst nightmares since taking office, but after the arrest of activist judge Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, the tides seem to be turning.
According to Breitbart, one experienced former DOJ official Gene Rossi commented on the situation, saying that it appears that Judge Dugan was willfully attempting to hide a defendant from being arrested and deported.
The former DOJ official, who worked at the Justice Department from 1989-2016, said that it appears she was intentional in hiding the defendant but added that he wouldn't paper the case.
Rossie added that it was wrong that "she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi held nothing back during a CNN interview, providing his insight on the current situation with the judge.
"What you have here is a Judge who’s just incredibly angry that DEA agents, ICE agents, Custom[s] and Border Protection deportation officers are hovering around like bees for a man that they’re trying to arrest. It’s anger on steroids," Rossi said.
He added, "That prosecutor had this case on his docket. He had the victims there in the audience. For the victims, and I’m a big victim advocate, this was a big deal. And the thing that really bothers me about the Judge, and I think this is a big mess, is that she adjourned the case without telling the prosecutor and without telling the victims."
Rossi said he didn't believe there's enough there to convict her.
"And, whether there’s probable cause or beyond a reasonable doubt could convict her, that, to me, shows that she was willfully trying to hide that defendant from being arrested. And that bothers me a lot.”
Rossi explained that the lack of evidence to get a conviction would have deterred him from taking the case further.
Breitbart noted:
Rossi further stated that Dugan adjourning the case “points towards her trying to conceal and obstruct the arrest of this individual…whether I, as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, would have papered this case, probably not.
He also drew on his vast experience with illegal immigration cases.
"I did a ton of illegal immigration cases, a thousand. I tried and I supervised thousands. Would I have papered this case? No. The thing that bothers me about the Justice Department in this case is they made it into a show. They waited a whole week to paper this case, a week."
He also said they "made a spectacle of this case."
Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City was packed with VIPs last week for the funeral of Pope Francis, who recently passed away after health complications.
According to the New York Post, one of those VIPs was former President Joe Biden and his wife, former First Lady Jill Biden. The former president seemed to be all smiles as he mingled with the crowd, even stopping to smile for selfies with fans.
Bicden, now 82 and looking as frail as ever, was escorted through the crowd to his seats by gripping onto his wife and a priest who seemed to help guide the confused, elderly former president.
The Bidens were reportedly not seated with President Donald Trump, as they are no longer heads of state. Instead, they were seated toward the back of the foreign dignitaries section of the proceeding.
Biden had met with Pope Francis on only a few occasions, with the first time leading the U.S. delegation as vice president during Pope Francis' inauguration in 2013.
The former president also met the pope when he came to America to address a joint session of Congress. Biden sat behind the pope during the session, and is only the second Roman Catholic president to serve, with John F. Kennedy being the first.
Biden seemed to enjoy his time with other mourners before the funeral services began later that morning. He was spotted taking selfies with other mourners.
Why is Former-Disgraced-President Biden wearing a Blue suit and blue tie at the Pope's funeral?!?
OH THE DISRESPECT. OH THE WORLD'S GOING TO END!
(That's what you sound like Democrat NPCs, LOL) pic.twitter.com/vSxgUyhZFG
— Nick Flor 🥋+🇺🇸 (@ProfessorF) April 27, 2025
Biden released a statement on Pope Francis after the funeral, praising him for his leadership of the Catholic Church for over a decade.
"He was unlike any who came before him," Biden said. "Pope Francis will be remembered as one of the most consequential leaders of our time and I am better for having known him."
Users across social media had plenty to say about Biden's selfie-taking at the funeral. Many weren't happy about it.
"Taking selfies at a funeral. Very respectful, right?" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Joey's having a party how respectful."
Honestly, President Biden probably forgot where he was and how he got there.
Tragedy struck as Virginia Giuffre, a courageous survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous crimes, took her own life at 41, Breitbart reported on Saturday.
Her death, confirmed by her family, occurred on her farm in Western Australia. This loss reverberates through communities fighting against sexual abuse and trafficking.
Giuffre’s suicide marks a somber end for a woman who bravely exposed Epstein’s sex trafficking network. She was a key figure in bringing justice to victims of the late billionaire pedophile. Her family shared their grief in a statement to NBC News.
As a teenager, Giuffre was lured into Epstein’s world under false pretenses. In 2009, she filed a lawsuit against Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. She alleged they recruited her for a supposed masseuse role, only to exploit her as a minor.
Giuffre’s accusations extended beyond Epstein and Maxwell. She claimed Maxwell coerced her into sexual encounters with Britain’s Prince Andrew. These allegations shook the elite circles tied to Epstein’s operations.
In November 2019, Prince Andrew publicly denied Giuffre’s claims. He stated he had “no recollection” of meeting her. Giuffre had described dining, dancing, and engaging in sexual activity with him in London’s Belgravia district.
Giuffre’s testimony proved instrumental in securing justice. Her information aided the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York. It also contributed to Maxwell’s eventual conviction for her role in Epstein’s crimes.
Epstein’s death in 2019, a suspected suicide, ended his chance to face a full trial. Found dead in his jail cell, he left behind a trail of victims seeking closure. Giuffre, among them, carried the weight of her trauma publicly.
Her family described her as a “fierce warrior” against sexual abuse. They noted her advocacy lifted countless survivors. Yet, the burden of her experiences ultimately overwhelmed her.
“It is with utterly broken hearts that we announce that Virginia passed away last night at her farm in Western Australia,” her family said. The statement conveyed their profound sorrow. It highlighted the personal toll of her fight for justice.
“She lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking,” they added. This stark reality underscores the lasting damage inflicted by predators like Epstein. Giuffre’s story is a grim reminder of their impact.
Her farm in Western Australia, where she sought peace, became the site of her final moments. The isolation of the location reflects the solitude she may have felt. Her death leaves a void in the survivor community.
Giuffre’s legacy is complex, marked by courage and pain. She exposed powerful figures, forcing accountability where wealth often shields guilt. Her contributions to investigations reshaped the narrative around Epstein’s crimes.
Yet, her family’s words reveal the cost of such bravery. “In the end, the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight,” they said. This statement captures the tragedy of her loss.
The fight against trafficking remains urgent, as Giuffre’s story shows. Her accusations against figures like Prince Andrew sparked global conversations. They challenged the untouchable status of the elite.
Virginia Giuffre’s death is a call to continue her work. Her voice, though silenced, echoes through the survivors she inspired. Society must honor her by protecting others from similar fates.
President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust two Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners has ignited a fierce legal showdown.
Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya are suing the administration, asserting that Trump lacks the authority to remove them from their posts, Newsweek reported.
The lawsuit, filed by Slaughter and Bedoya, challenges Trump’s attempt to fire them from the FTC, an agency tasked with consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. On April 25, 2025, a group of Democratic state attorney generals from states including California, New York, and Illinois filed an amicus brief supporting the commissioners.
The brief, addressed to U.S. District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan, argues that Trump’s actions overstep his legal bounds.
The FTC operates with five commissioners, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving seven-year terms. No more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring a bipartisan balance. The president designates one as chair, but the law restricts removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The amicus brief contends that Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter and Bedoya lacks justification under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It warns that allowing such removals could set a dangerous precedent, likening the move to hypothetically ousting Article III judges, who serve during “good behavior” per the Constitution. The brief emphasizes that courts must intervene to prevent “untenable consequences.”
“The Administration essentially asserts that even if the President has no power to remove an officer, he can do it anyway,” the amicus brief states. It argues that such actions, if unchecked, would undermine the rule of law. The brief insists that federal courts have the authority to block unlawful removals.
The comparison to Article III judges underscores the gravity of the issue. “For instance, all parties presumably agree that the President does not have the power to remove an Article III judge,” the brief notes. If a president attempted such a removal, courts could declare it legally void, ensuring the judge remains in office.
The FTC’s structure fosters collaboration with states, pooling resources to combat fraud and monopolies. Its century-long record of expertise bolsters its credibility in consumer protection and antitrust litigation. The amicus brief argues that removing Slaughter and Bedoya disrupts this bipartisan framework, weakening the agency’s mission.
Alvaro Bedoya, in a March 18, 2025, post on X, defended the FTC’s independence. “The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists,” he wrote. He criticized Trump’s actions as an attempt to turn the agency into a “lapdog” for his allies.
The lawsuit draws on the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which affirmed the independence of agencies like the FTC. This ruling limits the president’s ability to fire commissioners without cause. However, the Trump administration seeks to challenge this precedent, arguing it hampers executive authority.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, in a letter to the Congressional Judiciary Committee, expressed the administration’s intent to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. “The Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule [Humphrey’s Executor],” Harris wrote, calling it an unconstitutional restriction on the president’s supervisory power. This position signals a broader push to expand executive control over federal agencies.
The administration must respond to the lawsuit by April 23, 2025, with plaintiffs given until May 5, 2025, to reply. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025, before Judge AliKhan. The outcome could reshape the balance of power between the president and independent agencies.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for the attorney generals’ offices in Colorado and Illinois also declined to provide additional statements. The silence from both sides leaves the public awaiting the court’s decision.
The amicus brief warns that unchecked presidential removals could extend beyond the FTC, threatening judicial independence. It imagines a scenario where a president attempts to bar a judge from a courthouse, requiring court intervention to restore order. “The district court has the power to vindicate the statutory scheme,” the brief asserts.
The brief further rejects the idea that unlawful actions by the president are automatically effective. “The President cannot expand his powers through adverse possession,” it states, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding legal limits. This argument aligns with conservative principles of checks and balances, even as it critiques Trump’s approach.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case tests the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of federal institutions. The FTC, a cornerstone of consumer protection, stands at the center of this high-stakes dispute.
The May 20 hearing will be a critical moment in determining whether Trump’s actions hold or are struck down by the courts.
Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his ex-aide Cade Cothren stand trial in Nashville, accused of misusing taxpayer funds in a political mail scheme, the AP reported.
The federal case, unfolding in Tennessee’s capital, centers on allegations that Casada and Cothren orchestrated bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering through a sham company called Phoenix Solutions.
Both men were forced from their leadership posts after a political scandal rocked their tenure in the Tennessee House.
Casada, a Republican heavyweight, served as House Speaker, with Cothren as his trusted chief of staff.
Their troubles began when they allegedly funneled taxpayer money into political mailings, a move prosecutors claim was corrupt.
To conceal their actions, Cothren reportedly created Phoenix Solutions, a front company registered under the alias Matthew Phoenix.
Phoenix Solutions was established in New Mexico, where LLCs can be registered anonymously, shielding Cothren’s identity.
The company offered mail and consulting services to lawmakers, with Casada actively promoting its operations.
Cothren dodged requests for face-to-face meetings, further raising suspicions about the company’s legitimacy.
Former state Rep. Robin Smith, entangled in the scheme, took a plea deal and endorsed Phoenix Solutions’ fictitious owner.
Her involvement helped prosecutors unravel the alleged plot, spotlighting Casada and Cothren’s actions.
The trial, which began Thursday, has drawn attention to the inner workings of Tennessee’s political machine.
In opening statements, Cothren’s attorney, Joy Longnecker, admitted her client used the fake name Matthew Phoenix to attract business.
“Cade may be a sinner, but he’s not a criminal,” Longnecker declared, framing Cothren’s actions as misguided but lawful.
Casada’s lawyer, Ed Yarbrough, called the investigation a politically driven attack, orchestrated by current House Speaker Cameron Sexton.
In a startling development, federal agents have detained a circuit court judge from Milwaukee, Judge Hannah Dugan, amid allegations of obstructing an immigration operation, Breitbart reported.
This case has brought to light the tensions that exist between federal immigration law enforcement efforts and local-level resistance from some judicial figures and other entities.
The allegations against Judge Dugan are tied to an incident on April 18, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to apprehend Eduardo Flores Ruiz, a Mexican national, from her courtroom. Ruiz was there for a routine scheduling hearing regarding three misdemeanor battery charges. As ICE agents arrived to carry out their duties, unexpected events unfolded, drawing immense public interest.
According to reports, Judge Dugan is accused of maneuvering Ruiz and his legal representative through an alternative exit to evade the ICE officials waiting for them. Directing them to a side door and through a private corridor, they emerged into a public space, allegedly bypassing the federal agents entirely. This alleged action positioned Dugan at the focal point of the federal investigation.
The announcement by FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the arrest and elucidated the federal perspective. Speaking on the matter, Patel emphasized, “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject...”
The situation with Judge Dugan is reminiscent of a 2019 case in Massachusetts, where Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph faced parallel allegations of obstruction. Joseph's charges, eventually dropped in 2022, underscore the complex judicial interactions that can arise concerning immigration laws.
Judge Dugan is not a stranger to public service, having spent time working with legal aid institutions and Catholic Charities, focusing primarily on underprivileged communities. Her path to the judiciary was paved with a notable commitment to social justice and service, which began long before her 2016 ascent to her current role.
The arrest underscores ongoing debates about the boundaries of immigration enforcement and the judiciary's role. In this instance, ICE officials sought to implement federal immigration laws, but the alleged actions within Dugan’s courtroom illustrate the complexities faced by law enforcement and legal foundational structures.
Some see Dugan's actions as a reflection of broader resistance to strict immigration enforcement at certain state and local levels. The existence of sanctuary cities and resistance by state governments are manifestations of this ongoing national conversation.
Dugan's Role in Milwaukee County
Since being elected to the Circuit Court nearly a decade ago, Dugan has worked predominantly on misdemeanor cases. Her track record includes a history of advocating for the economically disadvantaged, fitting within the broader context of her professional journey.
The arrest of Judge Dugan by federal authorities extends the national dialogue about immigration arrests and judiciary involvement. Supporters and critics are weighing in, amplifying the conversation about the balance between following laws and showing compassion.
The attention focused on Dugan's alleged actions has intensified scrutiny on other judicial figures across the United States who might operate in similarly contentious contexts. While not directly stating her motives, some believe her actions may stem from her history of advocacy for vulnerable groups.
The federal approach to enforcing immigration rules continues to clash with pockets of judicial resistance, as illustrated by this case. The consequences for Dugan could reverberate more broadly, potentially altering how immigration laws are enforced in courtrooms.
Former Rep. George Santos has been sentenced to seven years in prison for identity theft and wire fraud, The Guardian reported. The disgraced New York Republican sobbed when his sentence was read and claimed he was "humbled."
The 36-year-old emerged as a pathological liar during his congressional campaign and in the only year he ever served. Last summer, he threw himself at the mercy of the Long Island court when he pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and federal wire fraud.
"I offer my deepest apologies. I cannot rewrite the past, but I can control the road ahead," Santos said.
U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert was unimpressed. "Where is your remorse? Where do I see it?" Seybert said. She chided Santos for demonstrating that he feels "it’s always someone else’s fault" when sentencing him to 87 months behind bars.
During proceedings, Santos admitted to stealing identities to funnel money to his campaign, including from his family members. The openly gay politician spent that money on the pornography site OnlyFans, Botox treatments, luxury vacations, and other high-ticket items.
Santos was a notorious liar, and prosecutors said his guilty plea was a rare instance of him telling the truth. "For what may seem like the first time since he started his campaign for Congress, Mr Santos told the truth about his criminal schemes," Breon Peace, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement.
"He admitted to lying, stealing, and conning people. By pleading guilty, Mr Santos has acknowledged that he repeatedly defrauded federal and state government institutions as well as his own family, supporters, and constituents," Peace added.
"His flagrant and disgraceful conduct has been exposed and will be punished. Mr Santos’s conviction demonstrates this office’s enduring commitment to rooting out corruption and grift by public officials," Peace said.
Santos took to social media to complain about his prosecution, saying he was a "scapegoat" that was being pursued by the "cabal of pedophiles" in the Department of Justice. Besides time in prison, Santos will pay $373,749.97 in restitution and forfeit $205,002.97.
It seems Santos was unable to tell the truth about anything in his public life. He lied about attending New York University. According to CNN, he claimed he was "half Jewish" and that he was a "Latino Jew" when speaking to the media.
He said that his grandparents became Catholic to escape the Nazi invasion in Belgium after already surviving Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union. Alternatively, he also claimed that his Ukrainian maternal grandfather emigrated to Brazil during the Nazi regime.
However, there was never any proof of any of this in the genealogy records, even his alleged Jewish heritage. Santos also claimed that his mother died "a few years after" 9/11, after surviving the attacks, ABC News reported.
Santos said that she "was in her office in the South Tower on September 11, 2001, when the horrific events of that day unfolded." Unfortunately for him, there are records show that show his mother wasn't even in New York at the time of the attacks.
Regardless of political party, Santos is a disgrace for his lies and crimes. Although some believe seven years is excessive, the sentencing is well within the bounds of the law for a man who so flagrantly commits such misdeeds.
President Donald Trump pardoned health care executive Paul Walczak, whose mother was involved in the plot to expose Ashley Biden's diary, The New York Times reported. Walczak was convicted of tax evasion just two weeks ago.
Due to his conviction, Walczak was ordered to pay $4.4 million in restitution and serve an 18-month prison sentence. The executive allegedly used the money he withheld from the government to purchase luxuries, such as a yacht.
"Paul and his family are truly grateful to the president, and Paul looks forward to returning his focus to his lifelong passion for improving the country’s health care system," Raymond R. Granger, the attorney who drafted the pardon, said. Some believe Trump is rewarding his loyal allies through pardons.
Although he only donated $450 to Trump in the 2020 election, Walczak's mother, Elizabeth Fago, is a longtime Republican fundraiser who helped Trump in his 2020 presidential campaign. She was part of the Ashley Biden diary controversy, which was unrelated to Walczak and his conviction.
In the runup to the 2020 presidential election, the contents of a diary kept by Ashley Biden, daughter of Joe Biden, were leaked to the press. Fago allegedly had a part in that as she was roped in as a donor and fundraiser for the GOP.
Sources close to the matter said that Robert Kurlander, who possessed the diary, reached out to Fago. She immediately saw it as an opportunity to undermine Joe Biden's campaign by releasing the information contained therein.
At a September 2020 fundraiser at Fago's Jupiter, Florida, Kurlander passed around the diary. Later, Fago made the most of the incriminating journal and tipped off Project Veritas about it.
The whistleblower organization paid Kurlander and another woman, Aimee Harris, $40,000 to purchase the diary. The Department of Justice later became involved because the property was considered stolen, and Kurlander and Harris were both convicted as a result.
Fago and her daughter were not convicted, nor was anyone from Project Veritas. However, the legal battle would eventually prove that the diary was indeed authentic and belonged to Joe Biden's daughter, who made some startling admissions.
Once Joe Biden became president, his Department of Justice pursued criminal action against Kurlander and Harris. This proved that what recovering drug addict Ashley Biden wrote was true, at least in her own mind.
In pages released to the press, a handwritten note asking whether she "was molested" and later that she showered with her father and that it was "probably not appropriate." The X account Libs of TikTok shared it with a caption about Harris's conviction.
"Ashley Biden’s diary is real. A woman is now going to prison for selling it. Here’s a reminder of what she wrote," the April 9, 2024. post stated. "Joe Biden showered with his daughter. She felt it was “probably not appropriate” and also questioned if she was m*lested."
Ashley Biden’s diary is real. A woman is now going to prison for selling it.
Here’s a reminder of what she wrote.
Joe Biden showered with his daughter.
She felt it was “probably not appropriate” and also questioned if she was m*lested. pic.twitter.com/510xM4x5pt
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 9, 2024
As the president, Trump can pardon anyone he pleases, just as Joe Biden did. However, the bigger story is that a man was elected president in 2020 who, at the very least, was privately implicated in some twisted interactions with his own daughter.
Ukraine is engaged in peace talks with Russia mediated by the Trump administration, and the latest reports indicate that pressure on Ukraine is building.
Kyiv's Mayor Vitali Klitschko reportedly stated that achieving a peace deal with Russia may require President Volodymyr Zelensky to give up some areas that Russia has taken since the beginning of the brutal war.
The BBC reported on Friday that Klitschko stated, "One of the scenarios is...to give up territory. It's not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution, temporary."
In Ukraine's situation, fairness isn't even being considered. With the United States bled dry and European nations balking at funding Ukraine to the tune of hundreds of billions a year, Ukraine must make a peace deal sooner rather than later.
Russia also has a strong motivation to sue for peace as it has been brutalized by the war, losing thousands of men and untold amounts of equipment that Russia is struggling to replace due to its failing economy.
Both sides must make concessions to end the war, but both sides are being predictably difficult. Russia holds more cards than Ukraine, but it is Ukraine that is refusing to give up a single square mile of the territory conquered by Russia, which is arguably an insignificant area.
Russia had hopes of seizing major areas quickly at the beginning of the war, but failed horrifically, and the war became a grinding war of attrition, with many of Russia's gains coming at immense cost in lives and equipment.
President Zelensky's refusal to make any concessions is bogging down peace talks, which have frustrated U.S. President Donald Trump, who wanted the war to end within weeks of assuming office back in January.
While both sides continue to make no concessions, people continue to die. On Thursday, Kyiv was hit by missiles and drones from Russia, killing at least 12 people in the biggest attack on the capital this year.
For Ukraine, the question is will it be worth it to continue fighting in this brutal war or would it be better to concede a small amount of territory that wasn't worth the cost of conquering?
With the U.S. scaling back financial and military support for Ukraine, the clock is ticking. It's up to Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to make the right decision for their people and end the war that has caused over one million killed or injured.
Trump and Zelenskyy met this past week ahead of Pope Francis's funeral, and the sentiment seems to be that a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia is "very close."
This happened as Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on Friday to discuss Washington’s peace plan, although details of that meeting weren't being made readily available.
According to a Truth Social post, Trump claimed that "most of the major points are agreed to” between Russia and Ukraine. The White House is now working on a meeting between Ukrainian and Russian representatives to settle the remaining issues and finally sign a deal.
Despite loud demands from Ukraine that Crimea be returned after being annexed in 2014, hopes are high that the end is finally here.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Already, a former judge in New Mexico and his wife have been arrested for housing an alleged member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua terror organization, and a Wisconsin judge has been charged for helping an illegal alien escape from federal agents who arrived at the courthouse during his hearing to take him into custody.
That's probably not the end of actions against activist judges who use their judicial powers to thwart the president's border security agenda, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi
"No one's above the laws in this country," she said. "And if you are destroying evidence, if you're obstructing justice, when you have victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence and you're escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated, and it is a crime in the United States of America. Doesn't matter who you are, you're going to be prosecuted."
The latest arrest was of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was taken into custody by the FBI for allegedly hiding a previously deported illegal immigrant in her jury room in order to stop him from being arrested by ICE.
Fox News reported Dugan was charged with obstruction.
In an interview on "American Reports," Bondi explained how the Trump administration will handle judges who obstruct and block federal efforts to secure the border and remove illegal aliens.
"We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you. I found out about this the day it happened," she said.
"We could not believe, actually, that a judge really did that. We looked into the facts in great depth… You cannot obstruct a criminal case. And really, shame on her. It was a domestic violence case of all cases, and she's protecting a criminal defendant over victims of crime."
Dugan is accused of protecting illegal alien Eduardo Flores-Ruiz after his criminal court hearing before Dugan just days ago.
"Dugan demanded that the (federal) officers proceed to the chief judge's office and – after his hearing ended – escorted Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a restricted jury door, bypassing the public area where agents were waiting in order to help him avoid arrest, per the complaint," the report said.
Bondi pointed out that Flores-Ruiz fled on foot, creating a threat to the public.
"We're sending a very strong message today," she said. "If you are harboring a fugitive, we don't care who you are. If you're 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. We will find you."
The earlier arrests were of ex-New Mexico Magistrate Judge Joel Cano and his wife, Nancy Cano.
They allegedly harbored a suspected Tren de Aragua terror group member, Cristhian Ortega-Lopez.