6 Aug 2023 11:25 am
Still you ignore the fact that Trump was not convicted in either phony impeachment. An impeachment by itself is nothing more than an allegation. The senate has the final say. Seems something is missing between your ears. A functioning thought process."The Department" can take any view it wants but the Supreme court makes the final decision. The current "Department" is nothing more than Biden's fascist brownshirts, Hitler would look upon them favorably. He would also look favorably on the Brownshirts that ran Nixon out of office.jerrab » 05 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑ -----------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download
We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution
*************************
In response to the argument that impeachment must precede prosecution, the brief first states, “ As it applies to civil officers other than the President, the principal operative effect of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, is solely the preclusion of pleas of double jeopardy in criminal prosecutions following convictions upon impeachments.” Agnew Brief at 7. It goes on, however, to contend that the clause allows criminal prosecution upon acquittal by the Senate as well. See id. at 8
**********************************************
C. The Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “ [n]o person . . . shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. For several reasons, we think a party acquitted by the Senate may not rely on the Double Jeopardy Clause as a bar to prosecution in the courts for the same offenses. 1. Original Understandings First, the history of the Double Jeopardy Clause suggests that its drafters understood the phrase “ in jeopardy of life or limb” to exclude impeachment proceedings. The Clause’s legislative history, like that of the Bill of Rights amendments as a whole, is sparse. We know that in Madison’s proposal to the House,