5 Aug 2023 12:18 pm
So you are still without a clue. An impeachement is just a vote in the house to decide if there is a trial in the senate. Bork? Too funny. Agnew was a vice president guilty of tax evasion.That said Bork only became AG because of resignations and it would be interesting to see if the Supreme court would ignore what the constitution says in easily interpreted language.jerrab » 03 Aug 2023, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑ --------------------------------------------
Does that mean the founders wanted acquitted officials to be spared from “double jeopardy”? Not so, said Robert Bork in 1973 when the indictment of Vice President Agnew was mooted. Impeachment trials, unlike criminal trials, “may,” Bork observed, “sometimes be influenced by political passions.” Plus, too, “somewhat more than one-third of the Senate” might deem a crime “punishable in the courts,” yet not “on impeachment.”The suggestion that an official acquitted under impeachment would as a result be spared from criminal prosecution, Bork wrote, could result in an abuse of the impeachment power. It would grant such an official “permanent immunity from criminal prosecution however plain his guilt.” That could even “give the Congress the power to pardon by acquittal,” he reasoned. He found “no such requirement in the Constitution or in reason.”