For some on the far left, “The Rachel Maddow Show” is a godsend. Otherwise, you would have to go to the subway to compete against others raving about microchips and oligarchies. Just take Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who went on the show on Friday to explain that Trump officials can now be arrested for “interfering with a legal proceeding” or “kidnapping.” It now stands as second only to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe’s claim on MSNBC that President Donald Trump could be charged (“without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt”) with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence.
(For the record, I have maintained since the start of this controversy that Garcia should have been returned to the United States and should still be brought back to what I believe would be an inevitable deportation).
Raskin prefaced his legal analysis with a heavy dose of hyperbole, warning viewers that “they’re arresting judges” and portraying Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin as an innocent victim of a law-hating, authoritarian regime. It is a claim that was echoed by other leading Democrats before any of the underlying facts have been established.
He then explained his case for a mass arrest of Trump officials:
“all of the people in the Trump Administration who participated in defying that order by Judge Boasberg themselves could be arrested for interfering with a legal proceeding and perhaps other criminal charges like kidnapping.”
It was another fevered Democratic dream, imagining lines of Trump officials being frog-marched to the federal penitentiary as kidnappers.
This is not the first time that the left has claimed that officials have kidnapped undocumented persons. After Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent undocumented immigrants to California (after Gov. Gavin Newsom invited them to come to the state), Newsom and Attorney General Ron Bonta claimed that the trip constituted “State-sanctioned kidnapping.”
Other Democratic leaders and legal experts repeated the earlier claim. As is often the case, sites from MSNBC to NPR then gave fawning attention to the claims despite knowing that they are legally absurd. The breaking news angle is then forgotten for the next media jump scare.
The same is true for the widespread claims of experts that Trump could be charged with incitement due to his speech on Jan. 6th. Despite some of us noting that the speech was clearly protected under the First Amendment, the press portrayed such a charge as credible and heaped coverage on District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine who announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that prosecution?
Racine’s failure to charge Trump was not due to any affection or loyalty to the former president. It was due to the utter lack of legal and factual foundation.
Under 18 U.S.C. 1201,
“whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward any person, or when the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce across a state boundary is guilty of kidnapping and shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or life and, if the death results, by death or life imprisonment.”
In this case, federal employees were acting under a claim of executive authority and a little-used federal statute. It is true that there was an order during the flight to return to the United States. However, the Administration has made a series of arguments as to why the Boasberg order was not carried out. Notably, other deportations were halted after additional court orders. There is no evidence of the specific intent to kidnap in this case.
Moreover, as to the alleged failure to “facilitate” his return, the decision of the Supreme Court is hopelessly vague and unclear on what that term means. Since most of us do not know what the term means, it would hardly be a credible basis for a criminal, let alone a kidnapping, charge.
There is also an interesting wrinkle under 18 USC 1201, which contains a 24-hour rule:
“With respect to subsection (a)(1), above, the failure to release the victim within twenty-four hours after he shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. “
This would not be dispositive but shows the relatively short period of time for the order and flight. Within 24 hours of the court order, Garcia and others were released into the custody of the El Salvadorian government.
In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court recently held:
“we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the ‘effective discharge’ of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'”
As for other federal officials, they have clear immunity for carrying out discretionary duties. Of course, a violation of a court order is not within that discretion. However, they were carrying out this order under the advice of the Justice Department under highly novel circumstances. This was a plane in international airspace and the Justice Department did not believe that it required the aircraft’s return. I disagree with that view, though we have not seen the entire record of what occurred. However, it would not constitute kidnapping even if the legal opinion of the Justice Department were rejected by the courts.
Notably, these individuals were arguably subject to being detained and held. It was the continued deportation after the issuance of the court order that was the primary conflict. The Administration still argues that it has this authority under federal laws and Article II of the Constitution. They can be wrong without converting that error into a federal crime.
Even civil actions alleging kidnapping have done poorly in the courts, as in El Masri v. Tenet. Khalid El Masri was kidnapped by the CIA and renditioned to a foreign prison where he was tortured. It was a horrific case that many of us condemned. Yet, the district court dismissed the lawsuit after the administration invoked the state secrets privilege. The United States Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Most courts would not seriously consider such a charge. Presumably, anyone assisting in these flights would be participants in the alleged mass kidnapping.
Taken to its full possible application, Raskin’s argument could produce an outcome where hundreds of alleged gang members and terrorists (according to the earlier presidential finding) would be freed from the El Salvadorian jail and brought back to the country while dozens of federal law enforcement officials could be sent to prison.
Raskin’s insistence that officials could be criminally charged with kidnapping is also curious given his silence on President Barack Obama actually killing an American citizen without a criminal charge, let alone a trial.
Of course, Judge Boasberg is considering the possible criminal contempt of officials for violating his orders. However, even that lesser offense seems doubtful. He would likely have to appoint a private lawyer to prosecute such a case, raising serious constitutional questions in the usurping of Article II authority.
Sigh. These people like Raskin are so ludicrous and unhinged now what can one do at this point but shake their head and shake off the toxicity? Madness. Pure madness. Clinical levels of dysfunction and dishonesty.
Jamie Raskin
Chuck Schumer
Adam Schiff
Amy Klobuchar
Elizabeth Warren
Dan Goldman
… Xerox …
They are not unhinged. They are very calculating. They know that they can make the most ridiculous claims and at least some will believe them and be swayed. Multiply this by dozens of ridiculous claims and you can get a critical mass of citizens to turn against their opponents. Even a small number can make the difference in a close election. When the media is sure to amplify even the “crazy” claims they can be believed by many. These partisans have elevated opposition to Trump to the pinnacle of the political hierarchy and thus any claim, no matter how damaging to the body politic, is allowed and even neccesary. Rationality is not a consideration when you oppose Hitler!
@CultivatingMan
One would have to be sick to make those calculations in the first place. I do not disagree – the modern DNC is a group of sociopaths. They see their relevance slipping into the time stream, so of course they will fight like hell. Does not make them any less sick.
There is nothing more terrifying to these people than having to be just another person, having equal footing with everyone else. We are witnessing the implosion of the *true* oligarchy, and it is not going to be accompanied by sanity on their parts.
I don’t understand why the DEMS think criminals are more important than the victims, or that illegal aliens are more valuable than American citizens, and I really don’t understand why the DEMS are breaking our own laws to protect these scumbags at the expense and sacrifice of our own citizens.
#. You don’t understand you say? They’re insane. The belong to the church of destruction. It is good to destroy whatever is good and whole. It’s a directive , it’s moral to do so. They have no free will just as you have no free will either in their eyes. Your directive is to make whole and good? They’re insane.
Greeks are an interesting people. They teach their children in minute actions to leave better than what you’ve found. It’s as small as leaving toilet paper folded just so after use. It’s as small as arranging chicken on a guests plate so it’s pretty. It’s as small as washing your own cup.
The illegals are their base.
Sadly, this is very true and very evident. 🙁
They’re acting on tribalistic emotion. There’s no dispassionate evaluation of self-interest. It can be as simple as:
I automatically and vehemently oppose anything my enemy wants to do. That’s as deep as the “thinking” goes. It’s hateful zealotry.
The media has been missing-in-action covering the impact on illegal immigrant gangsters and cartel members since
deportation to CECOT began. They have been laying low, many moving to Canada.
Very true.
They don’t but they do think that opposing trump and ALL his policies is more important than any individual or group of Americans.
That sounds very similar to the mindset of an Islamic suicide bomber – the ultimate sacrifice for the ultimate goal. A singular thought that allows for no deviation, no questioning, no alternative option.
When the Legislative and Executive branches conflict on the meaning of the Constitution, the SCOTUS is the final authority that determines what the Constitution says. Courts can order Congress to pass a certain bill, and they can order the President to return a deported person. Likewise, the President can order the court how to decide the verdict in an actual case.
But so what? Does that mean each of the three branches were endowed by the Framers with the power to begin to directly exercise the core constitutional functions of the other branches? If not, then the simple power to order something is meaningless. The ability to resolve constitutional conflicts relies on all branches’ mutual respect, and the ability to negotiate border disputes with each other.
On the other hand, we apparently live in Constitutional End Times, where extremists excitedly identify every issue as a constitutional crisis presenting ever-growing proof of the imminent collapse of government.
order the President to return a deported person.
***************
Does it say (illegal)
Cite where the Constitution says that.
Jefferson:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”(Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Abraham Lincoln – first inaugural address:
“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
Of course he thinks that. Don’t you get it? That’s why they can never have power again. And if the right or moderates think it will fine, they will learn otherwise.
Hmmmmm…..wonder what Raskin thought of his fellow travelers Eric Swalwell’s and Ruben Gallego’s recommendation to “kick every Russian student out of the United States” as “the sons and daughters of the richest Russians,” i.e., once again no facts, no evidence, no due process, no rule of law: https://thecollegepost.com/us-rep-expel-russian-students/; https://newrepublic.com/article/165509/punish-russian-students-swalwell-gallego.
Would that have opened The Big Guy Papa Joe Biden to kidnapping charges? (Oh, right…..)
Thank you, Professor Turley, for once again educating us on law and precedent; truly informative reading!
Democrat campaign slogan: We are ABOVE the law!!! Illegal criminals FIRST!!!
Raskin, et al., -and I do mean et al., reminds me of the classic “bark is worse than the bite” idiomatic expression. The unending rollout of fierce, histrionic condemnation of all-things-Trump typically ends not with a bang but a whimper, notwithtanding that Trump’s wins get very little to NO media attention, while his court losses demand ticker-tape headlines.
Yet I must admit that a complacent and complaisant MEDIA has/have provided the accelerant to the flames of anger when the Left needs more attention/visibility to achieve its Trump-bashing.
On these types of subjects, many here cite laws and legal precedents about the specific topic of the day, but from what I see, as long as you have a filed of “judges” who act as partisan in a civil war, citing laws seems rather a waste of time if laws are randomly ignored in favor of agenda.
We do not need to know of laws as much as we need to fumigate our cesspool of corrupt judges. Until that is done, laws are meaningless, as we are seeing, daily.
The judicial branch claims judicial supremacy and sole & final arbiter on everything. Congress is pretty much useless — one reason is they are corrupt and complicit.
Corruption will always be with us, hence the commandments to ( not steal, and not covet) which is human nature at its most animal form.
The job of honest government is to expose those who have succumbed to such.
DOGE is one tool to root out the evil, but, unless we can enforce our basic laws without the conniving and manipulations of an army of partisans bent on destroying anything obstructing their end goal, we are just wasting time.
Debating the merits of this crass abrogation of our rule of law is akin to rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
Debate, logic, fact, – meaningless unless SCOTUS and DOJ act with alacrity and put a dead stop to activist judges and recalcitrant government officials.
I don’t have the faith in SCOTUS that you do. I consider some of them to be activist judges, also. There are so many in government who are not honest. Too many in the populace who aren’t honest, either.
Oh, I totally agree, but, in the end we are left with a feckless congress and a some very flawed justices on SCOTUS.
It would appear, that at this time, we have arrived at a point where we can no longer sustain, nor support, our current government.
We were at this point nearly 250 years ago – what are our options at this point? One thing grows more certain daily; words are useless, especially without deeds to follow.
Ms. Bondi and Justice Roberts are the tip of the spear.
Yes. Action is needed.
Who is running the U.S. government?
If you guessed Congress, specifically the Democrats, you’re only half right. The real powers are the illegal criminals and rapists who they coddle.
It’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest all over again, except this time the patients aren’t just running the asylum. They’ve taken over the pharmacy, burned the rule book, and declared that anyone who objects must be insane. In Washington these days, sanity is the only disqualifier for leadership.
The unelected, the bureaucracy, courts, wealthy donors, NGOs, foreign interests, lobbyists, corporations, illegals. Everyone but the ones who are supposed to be in charge.
Good morning everybody. Such a beautiful day in the Midwest.
So Jamie Raskin is screeching again with insanities, so I see all is right with the world.
He reminds me of the king rat who first senses a whiff of something new in the trash dump and notifies the rest of the rat pack that is time to move on to another collection of refuse that has been freshly dumped in their vacinity.
And the Democrats just keep on making up ads for the Republicans for next years election.
I guess the arrest of those 2 judges has stirred the pack somewhat. I can foresee a long bunch of video ads with Democrats talking up the “Maryland man” and various other gang members and their desire to return then to the US with the final scene being of a judge or 2 led off in handcuffs with a list of impeding law enforcement , concealing illegals or harboring them in their homes or trying to destroy evidence (in New Mexico).
It sort of brings a spring to your step, so to speak.
Judge Boasberg needs to give things a rest and drop his vendetta against the administration. He seems to have forgotten that this is just business and not personal.
He needs to return to his regular duties in the District Court and the FISA court of making the lives of citizens miserable.
Happy Sunday to you GEB.
The judge in New Mexico had pictures on his phone of people who were murder. Yet the left wants to support them.
Talk about crazy.
Put the pics on the nightly news and the dead bodies of the slain. The right is too polite. Couple the pics with supporting dems. Say their names.
GEB,
Well said. It is something of a joy to watch as the Democrats and MSM continue to have their TDS meltdowns. Watching them as they try to defend their stupid and crazy. It is also amazing to watch as they try to justify their illegal acts as if they are fighting against . . . something. They really are pathetic. The really fun part is rather than admit they are wrong, they just keep doubling down on the stupid and crazy as if that is getting them somewhere. The polls clearly show they are losing.
Sado-machism- they’re begging the right to hurt them. Hurt me please is the message. Perversion at every turn.
Instead , poor raskin has had brain cancer. We wish him a speedy recovery. He’ll only get worse.
Okay, I’m probably just missing it, but based on my comment from yesterday — Hamilton — what Constitutional power does any judge have to order the president to do anything? Follow-up, what in the Constitution says the president must obey or enforce judicial rulings or orders?
Does the Constitution require the president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as defined by the judicial branch? Does the Constitution require the president to faithfully execute the laws as interpreted by the judicial branch?
Does the Supremacy Clause say judicial rulings are supreme and law of the land? Does the Supremacy Clause say the Constitution as interpreted by the judicial branch is supreme? Does the Supremacy Clause say federal laws — as interpreted by the judiciary — made in pursuance of the Constitution as interpreted by the judicial branch are supreme?
I’m sure I’m just missing where the Constitution delegates all this power and supremacy to the judicial branch…
You are, clearly, missing it.
I usually don’t reply to anonymous, but I will to say this…cite it.
See Marbury v. Madison
Do you really need me to tell you that’s not the Constitution?
Jefferson: This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823
Do you need me to define animadversions and obiter?? I can if you need me to.
And again, you are clearly missing it.
Again, I ask you to cite the Constitution.
Anonymous is empty of intelligence so the only citation he can provide is —Anonymous
Which is why I usually never reply.
The issue isn’t your replying to anything or not–it’s your deficient grasp of factual reality.
I have a great grasp on facts and reality. I’m asking for a citation of Constitutional authority.
And you got it.
Where?
You’re too busy with childish quips about people picking their noses Did you poke too hard and puncture your brain? One word sums you up: stupid.
Allan, don’t lie, you were picking your nose when you typed that.
That’s because it’s a decision about the means of upholding up the Constitution.
Do you need to wear head protection in the house?
The government’s authority is found in the Constitution. Upholding the Constitution is obeying the Constitution. Remember, I asked very specific questions about the authority and duties delegated by the Constitution.All I’m asking is for someone to use the Constitution to answer these questions. Cite the Constitution.
Anonymous9:23 AM- Marbury v Madison was a Supreme Court decision but it was never enshrined in the Constitution as an amendment so technically it could be reversed by another Supreme Court Decision. Sort of like when Separate but Equal (Plessy v Ferguson) 1896 was overturned by Brown v Bd of Education (1954).
People stated that Roe v Wade instilled a constitutional right to abortion but it was never instilled in the Constitution as an amendment so it could and was partially reversed. Times change and occasionally so does precedent.
Nothing is enshrined in the Constitution. ‘Rights’ have often been taken away. Meaning the Constitution consists of a list of privileges. See the Dobbs decision. See Jim Crow. See Japanese internment. See Native American genocide and slavery. The president is not, nor has ever been, a king. Sorry fox troll.
You chime in, yet again, in support of creeping fascism, Turls. After the arrest of the judge, it’s absolutely clear the very next electoral cycle in the U.S. will start at 1/6 and arrive at Pete Kegstand being dispersed to the states to seize election results….
You should’ve heeded Raskin’s warnings long ago in one of trump’s multiple impeachments.
OOOOOOOOOO be worried that Raskin might do something. Sorry bud. Both he and has party has zero power.
While the rest of us just laugh at the dem party.
Please keep supporting terrorist/illegals.
America is watching.
Loving your reading comprehension weaknesses and relexive straw man defense.
Turley is a MAGA authoritarian. Has been for years.
Democrats may get the civil war they seek.
Dear Mr. Turley, Good Morning and Happy Sunday! Please stop giving oxygen to the nut case known as Jamie Raskin. He is not worth your time and will soon be in the dustbin of history, long forgotten.
Professor, don’t waste your electrons on what Jamie Raskin says. He is trolling you (and us, of course). Ignore him. We all know what he is.
Wise.
But it is fun to watch (Jamies) scream over and over.
It’s no wonder the lib/dem party is headed for the trash can.
RASKIN is a far Left Radical Left Wing DEM who continues to make threats, almost daily, against Trump and Trump Admin. Nothing is going his and the radical Left’s way. They love illegals, gan members, thugs, etc. Raskin loves violence. He is the product of the Radical Left so called Harvard Professor Lawerence Tribe, who is a nut case, wild legal theories. Raskin is now trying to scare people not to act or take part on Pres. Trump’s policies and orders. The Globalist Left Wing Dems lost the election and every day they try to stop Trump and his policies.
Raskin threatened Leaders of other countries that work with Trump, refer to his last week’s threats.
Perhaps Raskin should be closely looked at by the DOJ, J6 Committee? Financials? etc.
Tomorrow Raskin will have another threatening idea. Perhaps Raskin should take a vacation with his friends in El Salvador or Gitmo?
Just to summarize, Raskin and these compromised judges said nothing the last 4 years when at least 12-15 million illegals invaded our country but now they want to arrest American citizens for kidnapping AND bring back criminal gang members. Yea let’s elect more Democrats and put them back in power!
Simple answer. Dem/libs love illegals more than Americans.
That’s why they flooded America for the last 4 years.
Where were all the judges when millions of criminals illegally entered the country?
Just Dems being Dems.
“. . . Garcia should have been returned to the United States . . .” (JT)
Not directed to JT, but to Garcia’s adoring fans on the Left:
The court order to not deport him to *El Salvador* was based on his admission, in court, that he is a gang member. In essence: Don’t send me to El Salvador because I fear reprisals from *competing gang members*.
Yet the Left keeps insisting that Garcia is not a gang member, but merely a wife-loving Maryland father.
So which is it? If he’s not a gang member, then his argument for non-deportation to El Salvador is bogus. If he is a gang member, then case closed.
That’s JT trying to appease both sides, and losing on both! Sooner rather than later, he’ll fall off that fence, and hurt himself irreparably.
Ano
Based on what? The loser is an Illegal and broke the laws of our nation.
Sam.
You left out one small part.
(but merely a wife-beating Maryland father) Enjoy the Sunday morning
Actually the order was to ‘not send him to Guatamala’. He was remigrated back to his homeland.
“Actually the order . . .”
I did not know that. Thank you for the correction.
Maybe Trump should just declare Marshall Law, round up all these activist judges, and activist Dems and ship them to Gitmo? After all, they think Trump is Hitler, Stalen, name your dictator. I say, let’s give them what they so richly deserve! 😁👍