Democrat Judge Dodges Prison After I Was Jailed For Defending Trump

Last week, former Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan received her punishment for a federal felony charge. The jury found she obstructed an immigration arrest by ushering an illegal alien — in her courtroom on a battery charge — out a private door while federal agents waited in the hallway.

The sentencing guidelines called for 15 to 21 months in prison. Prosecutors noted the average obstruction sentence runs 16 months.

Her sentence: a $5,000 fine. No prison time. Not even probation.

I know something about federal sentencing, because I went through it from the other side of the political aisle. In 2023, I was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress — each carrying a maximum of one year in prison — for honoring executive privilege at the direction of the President of the United States.

The prosecution broke with roughly half a century of Justice Department policy holding that senior presidential advisers cannot be prosecuted for contempt in these circumstances. My appeal remains pending.

For those misdemeanors, I was sentenced to four months in federal prison. I served every day of it, at age 74, after the courts refused to let me remain free pending appeal. I paid a $9,500 fine — nearly double Dugan’s.

Let’s sit with that comparison.

Dugan: A felony that judicial guidelines said deserved well over a year in prison — a smaller fine than mine paid, then sent home.

Navarro: A first-of-its-kind misdemeanor rooted in a constitutional dispute between Congress and the presidency — double the fine plus prison, with no mercy and no delay.

Now consider who did the sentencing. Dugan drew Judge Lynn Adelman — a former Democratic Wisconsin state senator elevated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton. Adelman was formally admonished by the Seventh Circuit’s Judicial Council in 2020 for publishing an article titled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

In administering his partisan mercy, Adelman described Dugan as “an otherwise good person, upset by immigration policies in this country,” who “made a bad decision in the moment.” I drew a Barack Obama-appointed judge in a Washington, D.C., courthouse. I was tried before a jury pulled from a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans roughly ten to one.

Even with that stacked jury deck, the judge stripped me of any meaningful defense. My trial took a D.C. minute. The government called three witnesses. I was barred from presenting executive privilege — the heart of my defense — to the jury at all.

The point is not that every defendant should go to jail. The point is that like cases should be treated alike, and more serious conduct should not receive lighter punishment simply because the defendant belongs to a favored legal or political class.

America cannot sustain a justice system in which “resistance” gets few to no consequences, and the defense of constitutional principles gets prison. Nor can we tolerate a system in which the courtroom becomes another weapon in partisan combat.

My case is still on appeal because the underlying issue remains vital. If Congress can subpoena senior presidential advisers, refuse to accommodate privilege claims, and then imprison them for not appearing, every future president — Republican or Democrat — will be weaker. The presidency itself will be weaker.

If judges can commit serious federal felonies and simply be let off by their colleagues, the court system will be weaker as well. Justice is not blind when it is weaponized. It is partisan.

That is why the Dugan sentence should concern every American, regardless of party. It reveals a system too willing to forgive political allies and too eager to punish political enemies.

Equal justice under law is not a slogan carved in marble. It is a standard. Right now, that standard is being trampled.