Texas sheriff recommends criminal charges in DeSantis migrant flights to Martha’s Vineyard

[GeorgiaModerate]

A Texas sheriff’s department has recommended that the district attorney in Bexar County bring criminal charges over the first iteration of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ so-called migrant relocation program. Those flights last September sent 49 asylum seekers, most of them Venezuelans, from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.

According to a statement provided to the Miami Herald, the Bexar County sheriff completed its criminal investigation into the on-the-ground operation that allegedly lured migrants onto the flights with false promises of jobs and opportunities on the other end. “The case filed includes both felony and misdemeanor charges of Unlawful Restraint,” according to the statement. “At this time, the case is being reviewed by the DA’s office. Once an update is available, it will be provided to the public.”

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article276114271.html

[Middle-aged Europe]

Lock him up!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Would be fun if two felons were the front-runners for the Republican nomination.

[Crumpets]

Would be fun if two felons were the front-runners for the Republican nomination.

Law and order!

[Badger]

Abbott would only pardon him.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Abbott would only pardon him.

The governor of Texas has a fairly limited pardon power. He can only pardon criminals if a state board (the name eludes me at the moment) recommends a pardon for them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

[ProudModerate2]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

[Alben Barkley]

Wow, even in criminal indictment DeSantis looks pathetic next to Trump. Trump got charged for paying off a porn star he f--ked and got his glamorous estate in South Florida raided by the FBI. He's a criminal, but one who looks like a Scarface-style gangster.

Meanwhile DeSantis might get indicted by some local Texas sheriff for trying to pull off one of the most embarrassing political stunts of the century in a strained, pathetic effort to look "tough" like Trump.

[S019]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

[Alben Barkley]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

[Alben Barkley]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

If DeSantis committed a crime in the state of Texas, he can be charged in the state of Texas. There should be jurisdiction there. Otherwise it's like saying if I order a hit in Kentucky and it's carried out in Tennessee, they can't charge me for murder in Tennessee because I never crossed state lines.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

[S019]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

If DeSantis committed a crime in the state of Texas, he can be charged in the state of Texas. There should be jurisdiction there. Otherwise it's like saying if I order a hit in Kentucky and it's carried out in Tennessee, they can't charge me for murder in Tennessee because I never crossed state lines.

As I understand it, he sent migrants in Florida on flights to other states. I don't see how he would have sent flights from Texas or whatever. Especially since I believe Abbott was doing something similar anyways. Also this isn't even a border county so anyone taking flights from this county (where San Antonio is) has already been in the US for quite some time, and I understand he was mostly sending new arrivals on flights.

[Alben Barkley]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

If DeSantis committed a crime in the state of Texas, he can be charged in the state of Texas. There should be jurisdiction there. Otherwise it's like saying if I order a hit in Kentucky and it's carried out in Tennessee, they can't charge me for murder in Tennessee because I never crossed state lines.

As I understand it, he sent migrants in Florida on flights to other states. I don't see how he would have sent flights from Texas or whatever. Especially since I believe Abbott was doing something similar anyways.

I'll have to wait and see what the specific charges are, it's not even clear DeSantis was charged yet. I'm just saying it absolutely is possible to be charged in a case like this, it's not necessarily some fringe thing.

[Alben Barkley]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

[OSR stands with Israel]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

If DeSantis committed a crime in the state of Texas, he can be charged in the state of Texas. There should be jurisdiction there. Otherwise it's like saying if I order a hit in Kentucky and it's carried out in Tennessee, they can't charge me for murder in Tennessee because I never crossed state lines.

As I understand it, he sent migrants in Florida on flights to other states. I don't see how he would have sent flights from Texas or whatever. Especially since I believe Abbott was doing something similar anyways.

I'll have to wait and see what the specific charges are, it's not even clear DeSantis was charged yet. I'm just saying it absolutely is possible to be charged in a case like this, it's not necessarily some fringe thing.

No that is completely breaking with American precedent. How you put a stop to something like this is by challenging the policy in court and asking for an injunction

[Alben Barkley]

All of the outrage aside, I don't really think the jurisdiction exists here. This has about as much meaning as all those weird referenda about sending Bush+Cheney to jail that seemed to be all the craze in the late 2000s.

If DeSantis committed a crime in the state of Texas, he can be charged in the state of Texas. There should be jurisdiction there. Otherwise it's like saying if I order a hit in Kentucky and it's carried out in Tennessee, they can't charge me for murder in Tennessee because I never crossed state lines.

As I understand it, he sent migrants in Florida on flights to other states. I don't see how he would have sent flights from Texas or whatever. Especially since I believe Abbott was doing something similar anyways.

I'll have to wait and see what the specific charges are, it's not even clear DeSantis was charged yet. I'm just saying it absolutely is possible to be charged in a case like this, it's not necessarily some fringe thing.

No that is completely breaking with American precedent. How you put a stop to something like this is by challenging the policy in court and asking for an injunction

I haven't read the charges. Have you? No? No one has? That's what I thought.

Also how do you "put a stop" to something that has already happened? DeSantis's stunt was carried out in full. The question is whether there was a crime committed in that sick, stupid action, one which might have flagrantly broken the law of one or more states and is not a mere matter of policy or civil law but is in fact a criminal matter. I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but it is serious if law enforcement and/or prosecutors pursue charges in this matter. Dismissing the process because you don't like the political implications makes you, again, the hack.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

Yes , unlawful policies are challenged in court all the time and judges put injunctions on them all the time. If you dont understand that then yes its hackish to an extreme extent.

If DeSantis gets arrested for this, Democrats are gonna be end up charged too and we will end up like India which charges politicians all the time for policy stuff

[Alben Barkley]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

Yes , unlawful policies are challenged in court all the time and judges put injunctions on them all the time. If you dont understand that then yes its hackish to an extreme extent.

If DeSantis gets arrested for this, Democrats are gonna be end up charged too and we will end up like India which charges politicians all the time for policy stuff

How is it so hard to understand there is a difference between deciding whether or not a law or policy is constitutional and deciding whether or not a crime was committed? Example with Trump: It was a constitutional matter as to whether his "Muslim ban" was legal or not. It is a criminal matter as to whether his payoffs (and possibly his interference in the GA election for example) are legal or not. "Legal" means different things in different contexts. In the former context, it refers to whether it is a POLICY or LAW itself which is not superseded by some higher law or voided by some court ruling for example. In the latter context, it refers to whether an actor deliberately broke criminal statutes. It is entirely possible for an elected official to do the latter. If you don't think so, what's next, you gonna defend Edwin Edwards??? Richard Nixon??? You really believe if a president or even governor does it, it's not illegal? THAT is third world thinking my friend.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

Yes , unlawful policies are challenged in court all the time and judges put injunctions on them all the time. If you dont understand that then yes its hackish to an extreme extent.

If DeSantis gets arrested for this, Democrats are gonna be end up charged too and we will end up like India which charges politicians all the time for policy stuff

How is it so hard to understand there is a difference between deciding whether or not a law or policy is constitutional and deciding whether or not a crime was committed? Example with Trump: It was a constitutional matter as to whether his "Muslim ban" was legal or not. It is a criminal matter as to whether his payoffs (and possibly his interference in the GA election for example) are legal or not. "Legal" means different things in different contexts. In the former context, it refers to whether it is a POLICY or LAW itself which is not superseded by some higher law or voided by some court ruling for example. In the latter context, it refers to whether an actor deliberately broke criminal statutes. It is entirely possible for an elected official to do the latter. If you don't think so, what's next, you gonna defend Edwin Edwards??? Richard Nixon??? You really believe if a president or even governor does it, it's not illegal? THAT is third world thinking my friend.

Trump was charged cause his crime was personal and not policy and thats a different. Otherwise you could probably arrest every governor and president .

So should Obama be charged for drone striking an American Citizen without a trial

[S019]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

Yes , unlawful policies are challenged in court all the time and judges put injunctions on them all the time. If you dont understand that then yes its hackish to an extreme extent.

If DeSantis gets arrested for this, Democrats are gonna be end up charged too and we will end up like India which charges politicians all the time for policy stuff

How is it so hard to understand there is a difference between deciding whether or not a law or policy is constitutional and deciding whether or not a crime was committed? Example with Trump: It was a constitutional matter as to whether his "Muslim ban" was legal or not. It is a criminal matter as to whether his payoffs (and possibly his interference in the GA election for example) are legal or not. "Legal" means different things in different contexts. In the former context, it refers to whether it is a POLICY or LAW itself which is not superseded by some higher law or voided by some court ruling for example. In the latter context, it refers to whether an actor deliberately broke criminal statutes. It is entirely possible for an elected official to do the latter. If you don't think so, what's next, you gonna defend Edwin Edwards??? Richard Nixon??? You really believe if a president or even governor does it, it's not illegal? THAT is third world thinking my friend.

Trump was charged cause his crime was personal and not policy and thats a different. Otherwise you could probably arrest every governor and president .

So should Obama be charged for drone striking an American Citizen without a trial

There are some idiots who would actually say yes to this. Of course, there are still people who want to send George W. Bush to The Hague.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

This might actually boost DeSantis's poll numbers as DeSantis being charged in this would indeed be a complete outrage and a clear abuse of power.

So what you are saying is that the likes of criminals like trump and desantis would like to be charged, as it would create "complete outrage" within their party's electorate, and they could then scream at cameras that "it's a witch hunt" and "abuse of power."

Yes, that really makes them look good.

Charging over something like this would literally be an example of the third worldization of our country. If you think a policy is unlawful, then you ask the courts to put an injunction in it as thats how things are done here.

Charging someone over it is completely outrageous in every way possible and is an massive abuse of power and if you left wing hacks defend it, I don't ever want to hear the fact that you care about democracy because you dont.

TIL that upholding the law, voted on by the people and their representatives, is ACTUALLY what is unlawful and undemocratic.

No, it would make us a third world banana republic if we let criminal scumbag gangster wannabe dictators take power instead of stopping them lawfully. You have it so backwards it's not even funny.

Its called challenging the policy in court and try to get injunction and not freakin arrest governors for stuff like this.

This is not upholding the law, this is weaponizing the laws for political benefit and yes you are a hack if you dont understand that

Crimes aren't mere "policies" which are challenged in civil court. They are actions which get people arrested and charged. To argue otherwise is to suggest governors are above the law, which makes YOU the hack.

Yes , unlawful policies are challenged in court all the time and judges put injunctions on them all the time. If you dont understand that then yes its hackish to an extreme extent.

If DeSantis gets arrested for this, Democrats are gonna be end up charged too and we will end up like India which charges politicians all the time for policy stuff

How is it so hard to understand there is a difference between deciding whether or not a law or policy is constitutional and deciding whether or not a crime was committed? Example with Trump: It was a constitutional matter as to whether his "Muslim ban" was legal or not. It is a criminal matter as to whether his payoffs (and possibly his interference in the GA election for example) are legal or not. "Legal" means different things in different contexts. In the former context, it refers to whether it is a POLICY or LAW itself which is not superseded by some higher law or voided by some court ruling for example. In the latter context, it refers to whether an actor deliberately broke criminal statutes. It is entirely possible for an elected official to do the latter. If you don't think so, what's next, you gonna defend Edwin Edwards??? Richard Nixon??? You really believe if a president or even governor does it, it's not illegal? THAT is third world thinking my friend.

Trump was charged cause his crime was personal and not policy and thats a different. Otherwise you could probably arrest every governor and president .

So should Obama be charged for drone striking an American Citizen without a trial

There are some patriots who would actually say yes to this. Of course, there are still people who want to send George W. Bush to The Hague.

FTFY

[Alben Barkley]

Trump was charged cause his crime was personal and not policy and thats a different. Otherwise you could probably arrest every governor and president .

So should Obama be charged for drone striking an American Citizen without a trial

No, Trump was charged because he (probably) broke a criminal statute. Most governors and presidents haven't explicitly done so. He also was impeached and could well still be charged for more blatantly political activities as well. Nixon, likewise, was likely to be charged for political activities prior to Ford's pardon; the Watergate break-in was not "personal" like paying off a porn star is, but then again, both actions were done to help the offender's election chances! So it's still political. And as for the Edwin Edwards example, even more obvious an example of how an elected official can indeed be charged for abusing his power and corruption that is not necessarily "personal."

The president has wide latitude in foreign policy and national security actions, in part thanks to your boy Dubya's AUMF. The Obama comparison is totally nonsensical.

What you are essentially arguing for in this thread is a blank check for elected officials and executives to do whatever the f--k they want without accountability, above the law, no restraints, then you have the audacity to accuse people arguing against this dystopian nightmare you envision of being the authoritarian ones. Words fail me as to how surreal and backwards your argument is.

P.S. The law doesn't distinguish between "business" and "personal" the way you seem to think it does. It's not the mob. IF DeSantis was responsible for human trafficking, that's a crime. Doesn't matter if he's governor. Doesn't matter if he tried to turn it into "policy." If anything, abusing the power of his office should make it WORSE.