“I’ve never heard of the USSC preventing a criminal case from going to trial.”
I would think that anything they are doing to Trump regarding January 6 would fall under double jeopardy? He already faced an impeachment over this very matter.
That said, there needs to be a judicial-smackdown on the new ‘Lawfare’ approach to bankrupting people and organizations using our legal system as a process of punishment.
One final add to this, Merrick Garland announced a Special Prosecutor only when Trump announced his candidacy for President. Since when is announcing your candidacy a legitimate trigger for a special prosecutor?
So you get to sick a prosecutor, (who has now spent $25,000,000.00), to just fish around a political candidate and dream shit up? Indict you over here, maybe over there. Raid your home. Take your stuff. Use you as media-cover every time your preferred political leader gets some unfavorable press. EVERY TIME!
They are terrified of Trump beyond all imagination.
It all seems very Soviet to me. Levin may be onto something. Unprecedented actions require an unprecedented response!
Both true.
First, the double jeopardy argument would have to be heard by a trial court. The USSC isn’t going to hear an objection not argued at trial.
Second, the defendant would have to be found guilty before an appeal would be heard.
Third, an impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. You might recall that when McConnell voted against the second impeachment, he specified that he did so not because he felt that President Trump was not guilty but because since he was no longer in office that the more appropriate course was a criminal case.
Fourth, the idea that the Constitution contemplates the idea of a “judicial smackdown” is absurd.
Going to the USSC would not be about double jeopardy or even the specifics of the case, it would be about the election interference.
Yes, it seems Soviet, because it is.