Isn't kidnapping an impeachable offense?

[Cyrano]

We all know what happened at the Mexican border.

Families were torn apart. Mothers, fathers, guardians were torn away from their loved ones.

Children were kidnapped.

Some have been reunited and will bear their scars for the rest of their lives.

And, horribly, there are perhaps some who will never be reunited and never again see their loved ones.

This is kidnapping and mental torture by any other name.

It was ordered by Trump and Sessions and was carried out by government officials who must be held responsible for doing it.

Put it any way you want. These were crimes against humanity.

And those responsible must, some day, be brought to justice.

[shraby]

1. And what was the ransom for the children??? A miserable, unwanted WALL.

[avebury]

6. Here is a possible criminal act on a grand scale

I know someone who was 18 at the time and stupid. Some minor aged kids talked him into taking them on vacation to Florida. When the authorities caught up with them, the 18 year old was charged with interference with parental custody.


Perhaps it is possible to file a RICO level charge against the Trump Administration as well as every Federal employee involved with the theft of hundreds of children from their parents.

[tritsofme]

2. An impeachable offense is whatever 218 congressmen decide it is at any given time.

It is a political process.

[Cyrano]

3. A crime against humanity is self evident

[Maraya1969]

4. Who brings up charges on crimes against humanity?

[unblock]

8. There's some practical truth to this, but in theory it's wrong

The founders didn't simply say congress has the power to remove the president, they specified certain conditions and a certain process. Had they wanted congress to have the power to remove for arbitrary reasons, they would not have done this.

It's not likely to ever happen, but in theory congress could remove a president on flimsy charges or fabricated charges, etc, and then convict and remove. The impeached president could then go to the Supreme Court and challenge the removal on such grounds as the charges didn't amount to bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors; or that the senate trial was not conducted properly.

Again, unlikely in practice, but in theory, there's a solid constitution argument for the view that congress does *not* have the right to define high crimes and misdemeanors in a way that renders the constitutional restriction on impeachment power meaningless.

[tritsofme]

10. I think it is much more likely that the courts would find the former president's complaints

A nonjusticiable political question and not touch it with a ten foot pole.

Impeachment is a political process and plenary power of Congress, I would be very surprised if the courts even entertained intervening in even the most theoretically petty of impeachment convictions.

[unblock]

11. Well far more likely is that it wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court.

In practice, any president impeached and removed would likely not bother trying to appeal.

Even if he won, congress would simply repeat the process, this time stating charges that clearly qualify as bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors.

The senate would then convict even if the revised charges were clearly false. *that* is an area where the Supreme Court would not step in. The constitution gives the senate the right to vote on conviction, the court would not say they got it wrong.

Note, though that impeachment is expressly not a plenary power. It only applies in specific cases. It only appears plenary because the term "high crime and misdemeanors" can be interpreted fairly broadly.

[pnwmom]

14. Depriving thousands of families of their right to due process and stealing their children

is not a flimsy charge.

[unblock]

16. certainly in donnie's case, there's more than enough for the trifecta:

treason, bribery, *and* high crimes and misdemeanors.

multiple counts, too.

[onecaliberal]

5. And conspiring against the United States with a hostile foreign government to rip off the election.

[brooklynite]

7. Is this a rant or do you want a serious answer?

If the Police arrest someone on suspicion of robbing a bank, have they been "kidnapped"? Of course not; they've been detained under color of Law. Now HOW that suspect is detained is a separate matter, and you can make a moral judgement about the conditions under which they're held. But arguing that kidnapping has occurred would get you laughed out of Court. Federal Statutes (passed long before Trump came into office) allow the detention of people who cross the Border without permission.

[pnwmom]

15. They weren't detained under color of law. They were denied their right to due process,

a right that applies to anyone on American soil, whether they arrived here legally or not.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-3f39-d1bc-afef-7fbbdf010001

This Court previously entered an order finding Plaintiffs had stated a legally
cognizable claim for violation of their substantive due process rights to family integrity
under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on their allegations the
Government had separated Plaintiffs from their minor children while Plaintiffs were held
in immigration detention and without a showing that they were unfit parents or otherwise
presented a danger to their children. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 302
F. Supp. 3d 1149, 2018 WL 2725736, at *7-12 (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2018). A class action
has been certified to include similarly situated migrant parents. Plaintiffs now request
classwide injunctive relief to prohibit separation of class members from their children in
the future absent a finding the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, and to require
reunification of these families once the parent is returned to immigration custody unless
the parent is determined to be unfit or presents a danger to the child.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm,
and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor, thus warranting
issuance of a preliminary injunction.

[Progressive dog]

9. Impeachable offenses are whatever Congress says they are

Almost none of the Republican majority in Congress could be persuaded to impeach Trump for anything. Many like what he is doing. They all took an oath to defend the Constitution, but they continue to applaud that narcissistic psychopathic puppet of Putin.
We'll be lucky to ever get rid of Trump but we need to try. Vote them out.

[tanyev]

12. Not when you're a Republican president with a Republican Congress.

[Corvo Bianco]

13. It's looking more like trafficking and that ought to be impeachable also. Nt