Posted on 08/02/2023 7:38:02 AM PDT by conservative98
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.
Will the Supreme Court throw this case out?
This one and the documents case.
Specious argument. If a person convicted in an impeachment can still be held liable in federal court for the same actions, then a person not convicted can also still be held liable in federal court.
Its the same “dual sovereign” argument. The Senate is one sovereign, and the federal court system is another.
That’s correct in the U.S., but we are not in the U.S. anymore.
Impeachment and removal is a civil action, not criminal. Double jeopardy does not apply.
Constitution? what Constitution? Donald Trump has no Constitutional protections. I suspect they will if they have to one by one indict him for violating the entire Federal Codes. One by one until he dies or vows to never run for office again.
(Extract)...”through his “lies” about the 2020 presidential election.”
I would think that President Trump’s attorneys would welcome this indictment. Let’s get to discovery and really determine who is “lying” about the election results. Bring it...
Eventually, but not before an election so this election interference accomplishes just that.
This from the same genius school of thought that held that Pence could refuse to certify the election results. Flame away, pals, but that theory by John Eastman was pure crap. The better reading is this situation is that the impeachment was not a criminal case, notwithstanding the clarifying constitutional language quoted in the article. That which defeats this indictment is that the conduct complained of is plainly first amendment protected. We should focus on the dead bang winning arguments, not those that require reading between the lines.
BTTT
Don’t civil usually follow criminal, not visa versa? How can prosecutor be allowed to see a defendant’s defense, then bring back same charges again?
The problem for Trump is legal representation. Anyone who steps up to defend him faces literal DEATH. That’s the level of terrorism that is now the Democrat Party cell.
So the voters will decide? But if the election is rigged, the Deep State will decide.
1st Amendment
5th Amendment
And the reak kicker, if speculation is correct: indefinite detention. And the ACLU actually in their own words speaks about it, but its ok if 'their guy' does it:
Indefinite Detention Document Date: September 8, 2009
"No one should be indefinitely detained without charge or trial based on a president’s belief that the person is “dangerous.” No president—and certainly no government bureaucrat—should ever be given the power to order a person indefinitely detained without charge or trial on the basis of perceived future danger. Although different presidents and different administrations may handle their powers differently, we cannot give any political leader or government official the power to violate the Constitution."
I don’t know if that is accurate, but the indictment is bs, because they can’t defeat him.
There are way too many laws. Like a form contract where thing are only added and nothing is ever taken away. Soon they grow from 6 or 8 to 27 pages. Our laws overlap and even countermand each other.
I’ve quit even reading about the charges against Trump. They are dangerous in impactful but we all know they are political. We have gone from political mud slinging to political trials. We have crossed the Rubicon. Our nation is meaningless as just another banana republic or dictatorship.
Not buying it. Is says liable if convicted and I’m sure the courts will say the same if acquitted. I’ve read elsewhere that the novel acquitted angle is a non-starter. Besides, if Biden is impeached but not aquitted, we will all still want him prosecuted in the federal courts.
As Mark Levin said yesterday, the 12 jurors in DC will decide the next election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.