- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Trump cannot be tried for J6 under double jeopardy clause.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:53 pm
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 on 8/2/23 at 7:55 pm to GumboPot
Lol that’s the last thing they care about
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:56 pm to GumboPot
You think they care about the law?
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:56 pm to GumboPot
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 on 8/2/23 at 7:57 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
You think they care about the law?
Yes. This is lawfare. It is their weapon of war.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 7:59 pm to GumboPot
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:02 pm to GumboPot
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
an impeachment ain’t a criminal proceeding
This post was edited on 8/2/23 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:02 pm to GumboPot
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!!
He's figured out something that nobody has considered!!
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:03 pm to Mickey Goldmill
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.
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:04 pm to AggieHank86
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:04 pm to FriscoTiger1973
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:10 pm to GumboPot
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:12 pm to trackem
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:28 pm to GumboPot
I’d be surprised if Joel Pollak has any formal legal training or education.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:30 pm to GumboPot
Please ... Brietbart? He won't lose this case but I suspect that will not be the reason.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:33 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:surprisingly, a lot degree from Harvard.
I’d be surprised if Joel Pollak has any formal legal training or education.
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 on 8/2/23 at 8:36 pm to GumboPot
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.
Popular
Back to top
