That'll be an argument for legal scholars. Some might say the "Nevertheless" governs things, that is, obviously you can try him outside the Senate, so, have at it J6 committee & DOJ. Some would say (as I do), a Senate trial resulting in acquittal means he's acquitted, so no double jeopardy; but then what is the case where the Senate doesn't hold a trial? Is that nulle prosequi? And if so, is that for these purposes, the same as an acquittal? (The case wasn't even strong enough to TRY to prosecte),
OR, is it, well, there was no TRIAL (Peach-mint is by the House and is a precondition for the trial, not the trial itself), so try him now...?
OR is it, well, since these are for accusations while as President, the ONLY way to try him would have been first the Senate, and since they declined, he can't be prosecuted as a private citizen for things which he did as President, and he wasn't impeached?
The Dems are good at pushing loopholes and ambiguities, and always in their favor.
If they prosecute, I greatly fear either civil unrest, or the Dems faking unrest to crack down on everyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin.
...and of course, if they establish the precedent, that you can retroactively prosecute a President for stuff there was no Senate trial over, no future President will ever be safe.
Dismantling another brick in the system which made the US the envy of the world for peaceful transition of power, for hundreds of years.
But to the Dems, that's a feature, not a bug.
Why didn’t Schumer, along with Kammy Harris, just tell the Senate that they were legally bound to find Trump guilty since the Constitution requires them to?
/snark
Many thankQs; thing is, with the current actions, they open up the possibility of going after presidents before PDJT, such as 0 and others.