Who the hell is out there, like "yes, Trump tried to overthrow the election but we should let him get away with it"
Who the hell is out there, like "yes, Trump tried to overthrow the election but we should let him get away with it"
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
It's legalese but I can think of three rationales. Two of them are wrong but might be persuasive to people. The third might actually apply. The first is that since he was the sitting President at the time, he had prosecutiorial immunity. He could be impeached but not criminally prosecuted for it. Since he was not impeached and is not now in office I think that's flimsy but I could see how someone might adopt such a stance. The second idea ties into the first, says the only avenue is being convicted in an impeachment, either first or as the only measure, and holds that since he is not now in office, there can be no impeachment. This was trotted out when we did try and impeach him in office, that impeachment only matters if you're actively in office. It's just false but I can understand confusion on the matter.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The third is that we already DID prosecute him, that was what the second impeachment was all about, and double jeopardy now applies. If the impeachment proceedings hadn't passed in the House this would be no barrier. Failure to impeach/failure to indict can't create a double-jeopardy situation because you were never tried in the first place. He was tried on this matter by the Senate though. It doesn't matter if new evidence is brought to light. There is not a definitive answer on whether you can be criminally convicted on charges you've already been impeached over. Past DoJ advisory memoranda think you can be but it's never been ruled on. You can be impeached and removed even if you've been criminally acquitted which is definitely suggestive, but that can also just be viewed to indicate the bar for impeachment and being banned from further office is lower than that of criminal conviction and related sentencing.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I've never heard anyone put forward this argument. Every legal expert I've ever heard talk about impeachment has been very clear that it is not a criminal trial, and does not count for double jeopardy. The constitution explicitly allows for a criminal trial following the impeachment, so there can be no question that double jeopardy cannot apply. If you recall, the fact that it was not a criminal trial was the entire basis for the Republican vote for acquittal - they said he was guilty and should be tried in a criminal court, but claimed that an impeachment trial was now improper because the Republicans delayed it for too long. This was also the reason Nixon needed a pardon after his impeachment and resignation. Even if the Constitution weren't clear on the matter, the reasoning still wouldn't work for the same reason that you can have a civil suit against someone who's been criminally convicted of the same thing being sued over - double-jeopardy only applies to criminal trials, and only counts criminal trials for the same offense from the same authority.
Sorry, that just doesn't hold water.
The more likely explanation is the one I've heard people actually say. "Yes, he tried to overturn the election but it deserved to be overturned." or "...but the democrats did stole it first"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote