Double Jeopardy and Impeachment?

Stupid question, but does double jeopardy apply in the case of an impeachment like it would in a regular civilian court?

If Trump comes through this and is vindicatednot removed from office, can the democrats come back later on and try again later on?

Bonus dumb question, if Trump loses the next election and becomes just a regular former president, could he be tried over the whole Ukraine thing in a regular civillegal court?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Has Trump murdered someone?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Stupid question, but does double jeopardy apply in the case of an impeachment like it would in a regular civilian court?

If Trump comes through this and is vindicatednot removed from office, can the democrats come back later on and try again later on?

Bonus dumb question, if Trump loses the next election and becomes just a regular former president, could he be tried over the whole Ukraine thing in a regular civillegal court?

If the Dems are gluttons for punishment, I think they could try all over again, as soon as .... if Trump is vindicated in the Senate.
Edit to add.... They can try again on a different charge that is not related to the first impeachment attempt.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Has Trump murdered someone?

Of course not directly, the rich have other people do their dirty work. ** cough Epstein cough**

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I'm not a lawyer, but the impeachment process once it reaches the Senate is a trial, and the law is that a person can't be tried for the same crime twice. So, I'd say no, Trump couldn't be retried for the same issues.

However, if the Republicans loose the Senate and the Democrats keep the house, and Trump wins again, they might try to impeach him again.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

He can be impeached repeatedly on different issues if there are grounds for it, however the caveat is that if the reasons are flimsy it becomes more farcical than practical and they damage themselves more than him.

a reply to: butcherguy

If the Dems are gluttons for punishment, I think they could try all over again, as soon as .... if Trump is vindicated in the Senate.

haven't they been trying since Dec 2016 after the electoral college made it official? some say it started Nov 9,2016

They will fabicate something new, just as they did with ‘Russia collusion’, ‘Obstruction of justice’, ‘hiding the crimes in the Mueller report via redactions’, ‘not releasing his taxes’, ‘Ukrainien phonecalls’, ‘obstruction of congress’, ‘being racist’, ‘abuse of power’, ‘being a big meanie’, ‘Orange man bad’ and so on...

They don’t need the double jeopardy... they WILL think of something new...

This present farce proves politicians can do whatever they want-as many times as they want-and who's going to stop them? Not the citizens (who listens to voters?) nor the courts (they own them) nor the president. The balance of powers no longer exists.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: butcherguy

If the Dems are gluttons for punishment, I think they could try all over again, as soon as .... if Trump is vindicated in the Senate.

haven't they been trying since Dec 2016 after the electoral college made it official? some say it started Nov 9,2016

Yes they have. Impeachment is just a new political campaigning tool that will be used on the next Democrat president. The Democrats will kick and scream when we impeach their innocent president, but we will all tell them to live by the precedent they set.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Bonus dumb question, if Trump loses the next election and becomes just a regular former president, could he be tried over the whole Ukraine thing in a regular civillegal court?

Not sure about that. What I am sure about is that a few state governments are waiting until he isn’t President to prosecute him for a number of things.

So however you want to look at it, Donald Trump will be held accountable eventually for his shady, unethical practices.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: butcherguy

If the Dems are gluttons for punishment, I think they could try all over again, as soon as .... if Trump is vindicated in the Senate.

haven't they been trying since Dec 2016 after the electoral college made it official? some say it started Nov 9,2016

Yes they have. Impeachment is just a new political campaigning tool that will be used on the next Democrat president. The Democrats will kick and scream when we impeach their innocent president, but we will all tell them to live by the precedent they set.

That is something I have been trying to say. You said it well.

There is a new standard set for US Presidents

1. The opposition will feel obligated to look for and find (no one is pristine) even the smallest reason for impeachment and begin openly investigating before swearing in begins.

2. No US President can ever again speak to a foreign leader without the leader worrying that transcripts of the call will be forced to be made public in the press. No US President can ever again conduct diplomacy, one on one without the foreign leader being afraid that whatever is said will be made public.

The Democratic Party can never complain if this is how the next Democratic President is treated (and there will inevitably be one) as they are the ones who set the precedent.

I can assure you that absolutely no professional politician hasn't done something, sometime that can't be used as a basis for an impeachment "inquiry". 99.9% of professional politicians enter politics as upper middle class and within a short time become millionaires and multi-millionaires on about $250K salary per year while maintaining 2 households, one in their district and one in DC. This doesn't happen without something happening that could be construed as an impeachable offense.

This proverbial "Spanish style inquisition" (assumption of guilt/only evidence that demonstrates guilt allowed/based on loyalty to ones deeply held ideology) and the preceding failed Mueller attempt at impeachment, have set a new precedent for US politics and how no President will ever again be treated as the "loyal opposition", as was done in the past.

The best thing about this all is. Congress has refused to do anything except attempt to destroy Trump and any and everyone associated with him, or who supports him. That means they have accomplished absolutely nothing. A wonderful precedent in my opinion. The less Congress manages to do, the less mess they make of the country with over regulation and economy destroying laws.

I say, let's keep all future Congress' so involved in destroying the sitting President and defending the sitting President that the people in the country are left alone by big and bigger government.

When he's vindicated it will be the same as Bill Clinton. He got much stronger. As the saying goes, if you go for the king you better kill him.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I do not think double jeopardy applies to civil..

For example criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.. aka you need to be 85% ish sure to vote guilty..


Civil is based on a 51% basis.. it is not beyond a reasonable doubt..

Plus I remember Paula Jones repeatedly sued Clinton for sexual harassment even after losing the case 3 times before.. he finally settled not to have to repeat the process during an election.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

A) not being removed from office will only be vindication in trumpettes’ heads..

The gop senate will block his removal.. that is not vindication lmao..

originally posted by: Goedhardt
They will fabicate something new, just as they did with ‘Russia collusion’, ‘Obstruction of justice’, ‘hiding the crimes in the Mueller report via redactions’, ‘not releasing his taxes’, ‘Ukrainien phonecalls’, ‘obstruction of congress’, ‘being racist’, ‘abuse of power’, ‘being a big meanie’, ‘Orange man bad’ and so on...

They don’t need the double jeopardy... they WILL think of something new...

Man, think if Obama would have been suspect to even ONE of those... The right would have had an aneurysm by proxy.

a reply to: The2Billies

1. The opposition will feel obligated to look for and find (no one is pristine) even the smallest reason for impeachment and begin openly investigating before swearing in begins.

So what you’re saying is, no change at all. This is how things have been starting with Obama. Hell, it’s 2019 and there are still Republicans trying to open inquiries into Hillary’s emails. And she isn’t even a politician anymore.

No US President can ever again speak to a foreign leader without the leader worrying that transcripts of the call will be forced to be made public in the press. No US President can ever again conduct diplomacy, one on one without the foreign leader being afraid that whatever is said will be made public.

Maybe a President should be conscious of the legality of his own actions and at the very least know the constitution. That’s a crazy idea I know. But if everything the President did was legal there wouldn’t be anything for a whistleblower to blow a whistle about.

The Democratic Party can never complain if this is how the next Democratic President is treated (and there will inevitably be one) as they are the ones who set the precedent.

Again, this is how the Democratic Party is already being treated. So no big change there.

I can assure you that absolutely no professional politician hasn't done something, sometime that can't be used as a basis for an impeachment "inquiry". 99.9% of professional politicians enter politics as upper middle class and within a short time become millionaires and multi-millionaires on about $250K salary per year while maintaining 2 households, one in their district and one in DC. This doesn't happen without something happening that could be construed as an impeachable offense.

Then these people shouldn’t be politicians. I don’t see a negative in weeding out people with an unethical past. As a Republican, I’m sure you disagree.

This proverbial "Spanish style inquisition" (assumption of guilt/only evidence that demonstrates guilt allowed/based on loyalty to ones deeply held ideology) and the preceding failed Mueller attempt at impeachment, have set a new precedent for US politics and how no President will ever again be treated as the "loyal opposition", as was done in the past.

The same “loyal opposition” that told Obama they were going to oppose everything he did on principle? The same “loyal opposition” that tried to shout him down at his state of the union address and held numerous private inquiries into every aspect of Hillary Clinton and still couldn’t find anything to charge her with?

You guys left that barn door open a long time ago.

I say, let's keep all future Congress' so involved in destroying the sitting President and defending the sitting President that the people in the country are left alone by big and bigger government.

That I can agree with. If every President knows that people are watching everything they do all the time maybe they won’t be as quick as Trump to break the law and violate the constitution.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: Goedhardt
They will fabicate something new, just as they did with ‘Russia collusion’, ‘Obstruction of justice’, ‘hiding the crimes in the Mueller report via redactions’, ‘not releasing his taxes’, ‘Ukrainien phonecalls’, ‘obstruction of congress’, ‘being racist’, ‘abuse of power’, ‘being a big meanie’, ‘Orange man bad’ and so on...

They don’t need the double jeopardy... they WILL think of something new...

Man, think if Obama would have been suspect to even ONE of those... The right would have had an aneurysm by proxy.

He didn't have to be suspect. He was actually guilty of many things. For example: Selling guns to cartels that in turn took the lives of a couple of agents, spying on the oppositions presidential campaign, locking kids in cages at the border, promising Russia he would have way more leeway after the election, and those are just off the top of my head.

I could get into all the wars he started, but I think you get the point.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I asked this question the other day. Based on the research, technically speaking, there is no limit on the House’s impeachment powers.

As long as they have a 51% majority ...

The prohibition of double jeopardy is a right in judicial proceedings not legislative.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Has Trump murdered someone?

Are you thinking of Hillary?