Posted on 12/12/2023 6:48:14 AM PST by bitt
It was Bshaw who asked why it wasn’t a double jeopardy argument. Whether you call it ‘double jeopardy,’ or something else, the question before the Supreme Court isn’t whether a former President has immunity from prosecution because he was impeached and found not guilty, it is whether a former President can be tried for actions taken while in office.
McCord may have been in charge of managing it, but it wasn’t her idea. One person who isn’t the director can’t decide to spy on a candidate and do the Russia hoax.
Please stop posting that verifiably false crap.
The text of the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case didn't even fill one page.
...................
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
I'd be curious to see where that came from. My understanding is that Trump's legal team advanced BOTH arguments in his initial appeal in the case in the D.C. Circuit.
Maybe Smith is only asking the Supreme Court to rule on one of them?
Not only would I.... I actually did.
The opinion wasn't directed at Nixon, it was directed at William Jefferson Clinton.
The irony of all this is that if you dig deep enough into this legal question, you may very well end up concluding that most of the U.S. Criminal Code is completely unconstitutional.
Where do you find that in Article III? Sure sounds to me like the Framers were creating a Federal criminal trial system.
Section 2The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;
Just one random example is 18 U.S. Code § 36 ... which is titled Drive-by shooting
What the hell is the constitutional basis for the Federal government to be prosecuting crimes for drive-by shootings?
P.S. — That’s why the U.S. Department of Justice didn’t even exist before 1870. The duties of the U.S. Attorney and his District Attorneys were primarily civil in nature. Treason and tax evasion were probably the only notable crimes that were tried in Federal courts.
Horseface Kerry’s relative?
“Is it your argument that they would not stand trial for the murder?”
No, my argument is that Trump’s January 6th political speech is protected by his 1st Amendment protections, his Presidential immunity, and that the POLITICAL question of whether Trump incited a riot that day was tried during an impeachment where he was acquitted by those most affected by the riot.
The only one talking about murder is you, keep your words and absurdities to yourself.
I have to agree with you there 100%.
Similar features, for sure! 😂
Why the long face, Mary McCord?
Ya’d think she’d look happier...
So, who are you voting for since you've already given up?
I hope she at least bought you dinner beforehand. And maybe even let you give suggestions on how to improve her TD to INT ratio, or the Jaguars' chances at making the Super Bowl.
She looka like a man!
*evil grin*
*evil wink*
Impeachment Judgments
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
President Trump was NOT convicted of insurrection for the Jan 6 events, because he was acquitted by the senate, which means this clause does not apply, and as Trump's lawyers indicate, he cannot be further charged as it would be double jeopardy. Thanks to the crazy democrats that tried to impeach hem, Trump is IMHO immune to any Jan/6 charges or prosecution.
Thanks for elucidating what the issues are in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.