he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except

[radical right]

he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United

States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

What does that really mean?

The actual impeachment process by the house and senate are not "offenses" against the US. So it's obvious no pardon can be issued to stop them, or nullify their effect.

And why would the constitution have to state the crimes for which they were impeached, can still be prosecuted, ie not subject to "double jeopardy"


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.

 

[radical right]

There is only one US officer that is immune to indictment while in office. All others subject to impeachment can be indicted, tried, and convicted either before, during, or after impeachment. The president stands alone, in being immune while in office.

Except for the president (who is exempt) saying that impeachment doesn't substitute for criminal responsibility doesn't need to be put into the constitution, unless there is a bigger reason to specifically enumerate it.

I think the impeachment exception to the pardon power, may serve as a "hands off" in cases of impeachment. Such as if a judge takes a bribe, a federal felony, and the president gives the judge a pardon, if the congress impeaches and convicts the judge, the last clause kicks in.

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Does this liability hold in cases of a presidential pardon, which is impared by cases of impeachment.

 

[radical right]

I can make a strong argument that the framers of the constitution used these clauses to prevent a president from using his pardon powers to escape legal justice.

Imagine a president openly selling pardons for $1 million each, and collecting hundreds of millions of dollars from so doing. Then facing hundreds of counts of bribery, the president pardons himself. Now he faces no criminal liability, and he gets to keep the money. Even if impeached, and convicted, it's limited to removal from office, and baring him attaining any other US office.

But he still faces no criminal liability, and gets to keep the ill gotten gains. Something that clearly would be abhorrent to the law and the constitution, but would be allowed on it's face. Unless....

Unless by the act of impeachment and conviction, the second clause attaches, where the person impeached: the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Along with the pardon power being limited by: he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That an impeachment conviction would invalidate the pardons from the impeachment case, and additionally prevent a subsequent president from issuing a pardon for the high crimes and misdemeanors the previous president was impeached and convicted of.

That every pardon cited, and convicted there from, in the articles of impeachment would no longer be valid. So the presidents pardon of himself would no longer protect him from the law. Putting reason into the impeachment clause.

Now the clause the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. making the clause finally make sense.