this is totally clueless from start to finish.
The Congressional process of impeachment / conviction pertains to suitability for holding office. It has nothing to do with criminal prosecution through the judicial branch. An office holder convicted in the Senate would be removed from office - not sent to jail as it is not a prosecution. Being acquitted in the Senate does not negate a criminal prosecution - nor would a conviction require a criminal prosecution.
This is total nonsense.
If the constitutional provision for impeachment only relates to suitability to hold office and is completely separate from any considerations for criminal acts, then there would be no legal impediment for a state prosecutor to bring criminal charges against a sitting President.
I would have no problem with that on principle, but it’s an absurd scenario because it means the U.S. doesn’t really have a federal government.
What’s amazing is that you have to repeatedly answer what is wrong to begin with, impeachment is a political process and and has nothing to do with criminal proceedings, it seems like every day we have a couple of articles posted that offer a new perspective on defending Donald Trump regardless of how ridiculous they are people on FR fall for them completely and then get offended when confronted with evidence that proves the article is false
Yes, the criminal charges against Trump are wrong but the impeachment trials in the Senate have no bearing whatsoever on criminal charges with respect to double jeopardy
“Being acquitted in the Senate does not negate a criminal prosecution...”
The author states it does, since the Senate is converted into a courtroom during impeachment trial.
“...nor would a conviction require a criminal prosecution.”
That is as it always is, up to a the prosecuting attorney’s decision.
No, I must strongly disagree with your contention that is a “total nonsense”.
IMO, it’s a reasonable inference from the following portion of Article I, Section III:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The argument is that there would have been no reason to specify that conviction by the Senate is not a bar to subsequent criminal prosectution if it did not matter for double jeopardy purposes whether the offical was convicted or not. That’s a pretty run-of-the-mill way to interpret this language and it is certainly far from nonsensical.
The DOJ OLC took the position in a 2000 Memorandum that acquittal by the Senate is not a bar to subsequent prosecution. However, that Memorandum acknowledged that “the argument has some force” (p. 114) and notes its “initial plausibility” (p. 118). Indeed, before reaching the opposite conclusion, the Memorandum lays out the argument in detail (pp. 114-118). https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download You might well join the DOJ in rejecting the argument but to me it is far from nonsensical.