Double Jeopardy and Impeachment?

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 wasn't an American from what I saw

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases; not civil or administrative cases. The 5th amendment even states that

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Clearly, the simple act of impeachment (and subsequent removal from office) does not place the "defendant" in jeopardy of losing life nor limb; therefore, it does not apply.

Some reading on double jeopardy: www.nolo.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Has Trump murdered someone?

Just wow really? first you and liberals accuse Trump of Russian puppet for Putin and then Ukraine phone call 3 months so far no evidence expect one whistleblower.

And now you claim that Trump murdered someone? hm yeah i dont think so.

Lets look at Hillary list shall see? like Seth Rich? libs are heavily protecting Hillary and Biden or anyone who was behind the current regime changes in Libya and Ukraine and their demands to remove Trump shows.

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

It is really sad to see TDS in action.

Lose the Senate?

The Rs will likely gain a super-majority in the Senate, and retake the House in a bigly way. Oh - and yes, Trump will be re-elected, and this time it will be both the popular and electoral by a large margin, maybe even bigly (the largest in history).

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?

Nope...

Double jeopardy only applies to the criminal law realm. Impeachment falls under whats called there political question doctrine. The US Supreme court ruled that because impeachment is a constitutionally delegated power belonging only to Congress courts have no jurisdiction to get involved. Several federal judges over the years who have been impeached have filed legal challenges citing due process violations and every single case was dismissed with the courts stating each time they have no jurisdiction.

High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by congress and have no relation to the Federal body of law because its not classified as a crime.

It is a political remedy to a political problem and is a part of our checks and balances.

* - Double jeopardy question:
Yes Congress can try to impeach even if their attempt originally failed. The recourse and support or punishment for that action will come from the citizens at the next election cycle.

* - criminal prosecution:
A President can be charged with crimes after they leave or are removed from office however it would be up to the Attorney General and the new President. There are supreme court rulings that touch on this area however they are not all that clear.

Resources -
* - Political Question Doctrine

Overview

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the nonjusticiability doctrine.

Applying the Doctrine

In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), which is one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues.

The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch.

The Court in Nixon v. United States (1993) also extended this doctrine to which lawsuits which challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings.

Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Actually, it only applies in criminal judicial proceedings. In civil court, the principles of res judicata (the thing has been decided) and collateral estoppel apply, but have very limited application.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It is really sad to see TDS in action.

I'm just telling it as I see it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"It is really sad to see TDS in action."

I'm just telling it as I see it.

I know, that is why it is so sad.

I honestly cannot even begin to fathom what it must be like to be so deluded.

originally posted by: jjkenobi


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

ROFLMAO... There is no reason why POTUS Trump would have ordered the assassination of Epstein... First of all, when Trump found out Epstein had abused a minor in his Mar a Lago, Trump banned Epstein from ever returning. Second of all, we have the flight logs which show Bill Clinton used the "lolita Express" several times and in occasion he got rid of his security detail... Third of all, there are no accusers of Epstein that say they saw Trump at the orgy/rape island... However there is at least one accuser of Epstein whom says she saw Bill Clinton in the island...

Between Bill Clinton and the UK Royal rapist, Harris(?), are more than enough of a reason for these two rich and famous families to have ordered the death of Epstein...

A few states waiting to prosecute on a number of things...how rich.....care to elaborate?

I think you have a bad case of propaganda, I wish you well.

originally posted by: underwerks
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: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"It is really sad to see TDS in action."

I'm just telling it as I see it.

I honestly cannot even begin to fathom what it must be like to be so deluded.

As expected, Democrats in Congress who have only a mild case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), are changing their minds about Impeaching President Trump.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Brenda Lawrence, a prominent supporter of Kamala Harris who has previously supported the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, abruptly announced Sunday that she no longer saw any "value" in the process and called for her fellow Democrats to abandon impeachment.

Lawrence's about-face came as polls have shown that independents are souring on the idea of impeaching and removing Trump from office, including in critical battleground states like Wisconsin, even as House Democrats aggressively presented their poll-tested "bribery" case against the president over the past two weeks.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

Congrats to all WISE Democrats!