Should the D.C, District Court be put on judicial notice in Trump trial (lack of prosecutorial jurisdiction)?

[johnwk]

In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):


"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."

So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

Provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Article II; Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[1srelluc]

LOL....I think that the "sufficiently dignified" train left DC long ago.

 

[johnwk]

.
What has become increasingly apparent in the case being discussed (USA v. Trump, No. 23-3228 (D.C. Cir. 2024), is, the very fabric of our Presidency is under attack and being made susceptible to the whims and passions of political partisan opponents by ignoring the unique due process procedure thoughtfully placed in our Constitution to deal with a President who might violate his public trust and engage in acts thought to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

As confirmed by historical evidence during the making of our constitution, and with respect to a President who might violate their public trust and cause injuries to society itself, our founders rightfully concluded the first step to be taken was for the people, through their Representatives, to accuse and charge that President of acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”


The next step in the unique due process procedure adopted to address charges lodged against the President by the people is to conduct a trial to determine guilt or innocence. And our wise founding fathers as a preponderance of the evidence confirms (e.g., see Federalist No 65) the United States Senate, and not our ordinary judicial system, is the proper venue to conduct such a trial.


Hamilton convincingly argued that the Senate and not our ordinary judicial system, was the proper venue as the place to try “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,”

Hamilton went on to note:

“The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.”


And if by chance the President was indeed found guilty of the charges complained of by the people, not only would that president then be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust but would then be “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “ within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system. (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)



So, here we are today, with the very due process procedure agreed upon by the adoption of our Constitution being ignored, and in doing so, opening the door for our Presidency in future years to be exposed to the very uniformed and dangerous passions and prejudices of self-interested political actors feared of by our founders. Even our Supreme Court appears to have lost its spine, or has joined in on the attack on our Constitution, and is willing to be an accomplice in subverting the very intentions and beliefs under which the unique due process procedure was adopted to deal with those who violate a public trust.

.

JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

 

[johnwk]

The $64,000 question in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939

With all the brilliant minds in the forum, perhaps someone will step forward and shed light on a question which I believe is at the heart of the case, Trump v. United States.


On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

“This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the events of January 6, 2021. Trump sought a stay of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision affirming the district court’s rejection of Trump’s presidential immunity defenses.”

The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clause 7:

”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.”(my emphasis)

Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?

 

[BackAgain]

Assuming that the analysis spelled-out again in the OP is correct, the good news is that a question of jurisdiction survives a conviction and even an appeal.

 

[johnwk]

Assuming that the analysis spelled-out again in the OP is correct, the good news is that a question of jurisdiction survives a conviction and even an appeal.

Let me also point out that Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust.


Our constitutional system is one of positive law, and it is not silent on dealing with one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust. In fact, our founders intentionally provided a specific due process procedure in our Constitution to deal with public servants, and that would include a President, who is accused of engaging in acts consider to be within the meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.


The only way the already-provided due process would not apply is if a charge was leveled, which is beyond those included within the wording “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”, as the passage was intended to mean when adopted.

In any event, to confirm our founders intentionally provided a due process procedure as stated above see: Impeachment and the Constitution

Quote:

"While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74"

.
And yes. A question of prosecutorial jurisdiction survives a conviction and even an appeal and may be raised at any time!

 

[johnwk]

Assuming that the analysis spelled-out again in the OP is correct, the good news is that a question of jurisdiction survives a conviction and even an appeal.

.
Let us also keep in mind the fact that the charges the House impeached Trump under (H. RES. 24) and the D.C. indictment of Trump Filed, 08/01/23 are essentially the same crimes and accusations which Trump was acquitted of by the Senate.

And that raises another question.

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024



The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:

”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.”(my emphasis)


Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?
.
.

 

[BackAgain]

.
Let us also keep in mind the fact that the charges the House impeached Trump under (H. RES. 24) and the D.C. indictment of Trump Filed, 08/01/23 are essentially the same crimes and accusations which Trump was acquitted of by the Senate.

And that raises another question.

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Trump v. United States, No. 23-939. See: The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024



The question presented to the Supreme Court was limited to:

"WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE." SOURCE


On April, 25th, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments concerning the above question asked.

What seems to be unclear is why that question would be asked when in fact, our Constitution provides the answer under Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:

”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.”(my emphasis)


Article I; Section 3, Clause 7, is part of the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to deal with those holding a federal office of public trust, who are charged and convicted of violating that trust. The above mentioned Clause addresses the question asked and stipulates, one who is convicted by the Senate is to be removed from office and prohibited to ever hold another office of public trust and is then “. . . liable and subject to indictment, trial, Judgement and Punishment . . . “, within the boundaries of our ordinary judicial system.

So, why was our Supreme Court asked to answer the above mentioned question, considering former President Donald Trump has not been convicted by the Senate, and in fact has been acquitted, which makes the question absurd?
.
.

I posted the Meese brief two or three times already. I think it’s spot on.

 

[johnwk]

I posted the Meese brief two or three times already. I think it’s spot on.

I was totally unaware of the Meese amici curiae brief

It certainly is another piece of evidence confirming a concerted effort and conspiracy is afoot to subjugate our system's rule of law and prevent Trump from being re-elected.

Thank you for bringing that brief to my attention.

 

[johnwk]

In defense of adhering to our rule of law, and its unique due process adopted, to deal with a federal actor who violates their office of public trust.


After studying the charges the House impeached Trump under (H. RES. 24) and the D.C. indictment of Trump Filed, 08/01/23, and then reading the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution part of which states:

"While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74"

I am of the opinion that the charges found in (H. RES. 24) and the D.C. indictment of Trump Filed, 08/01/23, are the very type of charges for which our Founders created a unique due process procedure for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust, and especially as applied to a President. And, there is good cause for a special due process procedure.

Our President is empowered to act under some extraordinary circumstances, and sometimes those situations involve actions by a President which could be construed as criminal conduct by civilians, especially those uniformed with the legitimate functions of our President. In view of these obvious facts, it becomes self-evident why our founders decided to have members of our Senate as a venue for holding a trial to determine guilt or innocence should the president be charged with alleged criminal conduct.

In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “. . . injuries done immediately to the society itself . . . “ Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."


Finally, considering our constitutional system is based on “positive law”, and that a unique due process procedure was intentionally adopted to deal with public servants who violate their public trust, that procedure must be followed when determining guilt or innocence of a party so charged. Why is there such a resistance among some, to adhering to our rule of law?

 

[Care4all]

In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (Federalist 65):


"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."

So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

Provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Article II; Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

Why did all presidents before trump, every single one of them, believe the president could be prosecuted for crimes committed during presidency, after they left office, whether impeached and convicted or not? Why did Nixon need to be pardon, he wasn't convicted in an impeachment?

 

[Blaster]

Why did all presidents before trump, every single one of them, believe the president could be prosecuted for crimes committed during presidency, after they left office, whether impeached and convicted or not? Why did Nixon need to be pardon, he wasn't convicted in an impeachment?

You are delusional.

 

[Care4all]

You are delusional.

How so?

Why was Nixon pardoned after he resigned??

 

[johnwk]

How so?

For those accused and found guilty, the impeachment due process opens the door to making them ". . . liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7)