Started By
Message
locked post

Trump cannot be tried for J6 under double jeopardy clause.

Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:53 pm
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
132503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:53 pm
quote:

Special Counsel Jack Smith accused former President Donald Trump of causing the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot through his “lies” about the 2020 presidential election. To that end, he indicted Trump on Tuesday on four federal counts — one of which carries a potential death penalty. But the indictment itself offers nothing new; it reads like the report of the January 6 Committee, or the second impeachment resolution against Trump. It is barred, therefore, by the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Double Jeopardy Clause, contained within the Fifth Amendment, prevents any person from being tried twice in a federal court for the same crime. It does not prevent someone from being tried for the same crime in a state court and a federal court, because state and federal governments are considered to be “dual sovereigns.” But it applies to the federal level — and while an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a formal criminal proceeding, it has many of the same features as a federal criminal trial.

One of the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses, in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, does say that a person who has been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial can still face a federal criminal trial: “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” It does not say that a person who has been acquitted by the Senate can still be subject to the criminal process. Arguably, the Constitution intended to protect an acquitted official.

That seems even more convincing when considering that the standard of proof in the Senate is lower than in a criminal court — there is no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Alexander Hamilton himself observed in Federalist 65, a Senate trial risks of being decided by political factors. An acquittal there is harder to win than one in court. Therefore Trump is protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The new indictment should be quashed before trial, and the country should be spared the drama.


LINK
Posted by momentoftruth87
Your mom
Member since Oct 2013
83954 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:55 pm to
Lol that’s the last thing they care about
Posted by theunknownknight
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
59146 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:56 pm to
You think they care about the law?
Posted by jamboybarry
Member since Feb 2011
33038 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:56 pm to
This indictment is bullshite but this claim seems far fetched. Impeachment is a political proceeding not a legal one. I’m no lawyer but this would put the executive “above the law” if they had the votes in either house
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
25733 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:56 pm to

Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
132503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:57 pm to
quote:

You think they care about the law?


Yes. This is lawfare. It is their weapon of war.
Posted by FriscoTiger1973
Frisco, Texas
Member since Jan 2012
1414 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:59 pm to
I don’t think this is true. Impeachment and conviction removes an officeholder, but it is not a conviction in a criminal sense. Nixon, had he been removed, could still face criminal trial.
Posted by Da Sheik
Trump Tower
Member since Sep 2007
8567 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:00 pm to
Swamp don’t care
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:02 pm to
Whoever wrote that tripe found in the OP is a massive moron. Yes, the indictment is pretty damned weak, but the notion that an impeachment invokes the Double Jeopardy Clause is absolutely too goddamn stupid for any serious consideration.

an impeachment ain’t a criminal proceeding
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 8:05 pm
Posted by BayouBlitz
Member since Aug 2007
18126 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:02 pm to
shite! Somebody from Trump's attorneys needs to hire a shameless shill from the TigerDroppings poli board as Trump's lead council.

He's figured out something that nobody has considered!!

Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
132503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:03 pm to
You have to admit, it’s an interesting theory.

The theory probably hinges on whether or not the impeachment charges that were brought to the senate are similar enough to Jack’s J6 charges. One thing that supports the theory, it’s the same event in the senate trial and Jack’s indictment.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
132503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

notion that an impeachment invokes the Double Jeopardy Clause


The article didn’t say this. It said the senate trial invokes the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
107547 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:04 pm to
quote:

I don’t think this is true. Impeachment and conviction removes an officeholder, but it is not a conviction in a criminal sense. Nixon, had he been removed, could still face criminal trial


That's not contested. The issue is what about the person who is "acquitted"?
Posted by trackem
Auburn, AL
Member since Jun 2009
1488 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:10 pm to
That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. You do realize the House/Senate impeachment proceedings are not criminal and aren’t a part of the legal system, so double jeopardy wouldn’t apply if Jack Smith actually charged Trump with inciting the riot or insurrection, which he didn’t?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
132503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

Senate impeachment proceeding


I’m pretty sure there is no such thing. There is a senate trial but the senate does not impeach.
Posted by Green Chili Tiger
Lurking the Tin Foil Hat Board
Member since Jul 2009
49890 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:14 pm to
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
82503 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:28 pm to
I’d be surprised if Joel Pollak has any formal legal training or education.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius
LA
Member since Oct 2020
3900 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:30 pm to
Please ... Brietbart? He won't lose this case but I suspect that will not be the reason.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:33 pm to
quote:

I’d be surprised if Joel Pollak has any formal legal training or education.
surprisingly, a lot degree from Harvard.

just goes to prove that even the finest institutions produce their share of slick idiots.
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 8:34 pm
Posted by Mickey Goldmill
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2010
25733 posts
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:36 pm to
quote:

You have to admit, it’s an interesting theory.

The theory probably hinges on whether or not the impeachment charges that were brought to the senate are similar enough to Jack’s J6 charges. One thing that supports the theory, it’s the same event in the senate trial and Jack’s indictment.



It’s a stretch, to say the least. Not only is an impeachment trial not considered a criminal proceeding so one would never be in “jeopardy” to begin with, Trump was only charged with “inciting an insurrection” in the impeachment. Smith did not bring this charge. Lastly, the Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy does not bar charging someone for a specific act and also conspiracy to commit that same act. The conspiracy charges would be separate.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram