Many experts in constitutional law will point to Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and suggest that conviction in a Senate impeachment trial would be necessary for any further prosecution to take place.
It's all academic anyway. Unless the crime was murder or rape, no prosecutor would subject a deposed president to criminal trial.
The way I see it (academically), Congress has limited remedy - removal from office, prohibit from office. If Congress refuses to remove from office, that doesn't create "legal jeopardy" so that a criminal trial is precluded. I think prosecutors just avoid prosecuting the criminal case as a political matter.
Congress also has more latitude, in that it can impose the remedy of removal and prohibition without proving the elements of a statutory crime.
Ok.
I thought you were saying Greg Jarrett needed to get his facts straight.
Jarrett makes a very good point:
Namely, that even though there was insufficient evidence to mount a legal case (as evidenced by failure to indict Clinton after he left office), and even though a sitting president may not be prosecuted (due to the co-equal branches doctrine), - that did NOT prevent the DOJ from making politically motivated charges in order to trigger impeachment, which, as a purely political process did not require a preponderance of evidence, as would a legal conviction, but instead requires only a sufficiency of political will for removal.
Lucky for Clinton, there was not sufficient political will in the Senate for his removal.