CDZ Does double jeopardy apply?

[Old Man Grumbles]

I don't believe Trump could be tried by a state court, unless he committed an offense against state law while physically in said state. If, and that's a big If, Trump were to be impeached, found guilty and removed from office Pence would immediately pardon him. End of story.

A pardon would not apply in a state case.

And what does locale have to do with crime? If Trump broke a New York State law, he broke the law, if he was at Mar-a-Largo or D.C. or Timbuktu

Wrong you can not break a State law when you are NOT in the State, well unless your action was directed AT that State and its laws.

If my 'foundation' is headquartered in New York and I file a fraudulent rad return to New York all while I was in residence in Dlorida, the crimes are committed against Mew York, and nowhere else.

Also consider the feds could come after you potentially for using the US Mail or using electronic means to commit fraud.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't believe Trump could be tried by a state court, unless he committed an offense against state law while physically in said state. If, and that's a big If, Trump were to be impeached, found guilty and removed from office Pence would immediately pardon him. End of story.

A pardon would not apply in a state case.

And what does locale have to do with crime? If Trump broke a New York State law, he broke the law, if he was at Mar-a-Largo or D.C. or Timbuktu

Wrong you can not break a State law when you are NOT in the State, well unless your action was directed AT that State and its laws.

If my 'foundation' is headquartered in New York and I file a fraudulent rad return to New York all while I was in residence in Dlorida, the crimes are committed against Mew York, and nowhere else.

Also consider the feds could come after you potentially for using the US Mail or using electronic means to commit fraud.

True. But the state cannot be prohibited from enforcing their own laws.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

True. But the state cannot be prohibited from enforcing their own laws.

In certain circumstances, like tax filing, you are correct. However, you commit a murder in Florida and murder is against the law in New York, could New York prosecute you for the murder you committed in Florida?

\ADDED: Keep in mind that it would not be double jeopardy.

 

[The Professor]

IF. Trump is impeached (indicted) by the House and acquitted by the Senate, then loses re-election, could the charges developed and explained by the House be used in federal court against ex-president Trump? Or does the Senate trial (of a sitting president) open the double jeopardy box?

Although I am not familiar with any case law on the subject, it appears the President, once impeached, can be tried in a criminal court based upon the same charges. The following provisions of the U.S. Constitution are relevant:

Article 1, Section 3

“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 I

Amendment V

“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 offense 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.”

The Fifth Amendment states that no person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; however, the Courts have extended the Fifth Amendment protections to all criminal procedure, regardless of the potential punishment. Here is a good article that breaks it all down:

“Although the text of the Fifth Amendment refers to being placed twice in jeopardy of "life or limb," the Supreme Court has said that protections against re-prosecution for the same crime extend to all felonies, misdemeanors and juvenile delinquency adjudications, regardless of the potential punishment.”

Double Jeopardy - FindLaw

CONCLUSION: There is no conflict between the provisions of Article 1, Section 3, and the Fifth Amendment. Article 1, Section 3, clearly states the President may face criminal prosecution based upon the same charges. Double jeopardy does not attach because impeachment involves only removal from office and no criminal punishment.

 

[Care4all]

IF. Trump is impeached (indicted) by the House and acquitted by the Senate, then loses re-election, could the charges developed and explained by the House be used in federal court against ex-president Trump? Or does the Senate trial (of a sitting president) open the double jeopardy box?

No. Absolutely not!

the evidence from the special counsel can be used, but NOT what is done in Congress, is my understanding... or any information a prosecutor and his investigation team can be used, if relevant.

the impeachment charges and process is a political process...
the person being impeached does not have all the safe guards that are provided by a criminal charge and trial... because it is simply a political process our founders gave us to remove a president that abuses hiis power.

but yes, after a president leaves office, prosecutors can charge him with any crime they have sufficient evidence to charge him with....

With Clinton, even though the Senate did not convict him, Starr was going to charge him after he left office for Obstruction of justice and perjury, but Clinton, copped a plea deal with Starr, the day before he left office, so he would not have to go to court.... Clinton gave up his law license for 5 years and his ability to argue before the Supreme court and a few other things in the plea deal.

 

[Care4all]

Justice would never indict a president – sitting or former – as it would establish a dangerous precedent.

That's not true Clayton.... Starr was going to indict Clinton, even though acquitted by the Senate of impeachment charges.... and the day before Clinton left office, he got a plea deal that they settled on so that he would not be charged in court.

 

[Papageorgio]

Double jeopardy can’t be attached. The Senate is only allowed to, based on evidence, remove a President from office, nothing more. Courts would be where double jeopardy attaches.

I thought the Senate was the executioner? (Judge sentence)

They have only have the power to remove the President, their power carries no further.

I should look this up, so a president obstruct justice, he is not removed he can still be charged in criminal court?


How come no one charged Bill then?


Obstruction of justice is a Class 4 felony offense, punishable by one to three years in prison (the Illinois Department of Corrections) and a fine of up to $25,000. However, the judge does have the option to sentence you to probation as opposed to incarceration.
View attachment 264357
Chicago Criminal Lawyer | Cook County Criminal Defense Attorney | Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C. › ...
Obstruction of Justice | Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer David L ...

Even probation is a criminal punishment. The Senate is not part of the Justice system, they are the Congressional Branch, they create laws, not carry out justice. I doubt there would ever be a federal level indictment on a former President, they never prosecuted Nixon or Clinton. Arkansas had Clinton disbarred however that was at a state and not a federal level.

 

[Care4all]

Double jeopardy can’t be attached. The Senate is only allowed to, based on evidence, remove a President from office, nothing more. Courts would be where double jeopardy attaches.

I thought the Senate was the executioner? (Judge sentence)

They have only have the power to remove the President, their power carries no further.

I should look this up, so a president obstruct justice, he is not removed he can still be charged in criminal court?


How come no one charged Bill then?


Obstruction of justice is a Class 4 felony offense, punishable by one to three years in prison (the Illinois Department of Corrections) and a fine of up to $25,000. However, the judge does have the option to sentence you to probation as opposed to incarceration.
View attachment 264357
Chicago Criminal Lawyer | Cook County Criminal Defense Attorney | Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C. › ...
Obstruction of Justice | Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer David L ...

Even probation is a criminal punishment. The Senate is not part of the Justice system, they are the Congressional Branch, they create laws, not carry out justice. I doubt there would ever be a federal level indictment on a former President, they never prosecuted Nixon or Clinton. Arkansas had Clinton disbarred however that was at a state and not a federal level.

What Sort of Plea Did Clinton Cop?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Justice would never indict a president – sitting or former – as it would establish a dangerous precedent.

That's not true Clayton.... Starr was going to indict Clinton, even though acquitted by the Senate of impeachment charges.... and the day before Clinton left office, he got a plea deal that they settled on so that he would not be charged in court.

Yes, it is true.

The fact that Starr didn’t indict is proof of that.

Justice will never establish the precedent of indicting a sitting or former president out of concern that by doing so it would undermine and hobble a future president’s efforts to conduct war and defend the country against terrorism, where such efforts could be construed as illegal, war crimes, or crimes against humanity – such as GWB’s illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama and Trump’s continuing the Bush policy of killing Americans abroad suspected of planning or conducting acts of terror against the United States.

Indeed, the inadvertent killing of civilians with drone strikes alone could be prosecuted as a war crime or a crime against humanity – subjecting Bush, Obama, and Trump to criminal indictment.

Again, Justice will never indict a sitting or former president.

 

[Flopper]

I don't believe Trump could be tried by a state court, unless he committed an offense against state law while physically in said state. If, and that's a big If, Trump were to be impeached, found guilty and removed from office Pence would immediately pardon him. End of story.

I agree Trump could only be tried in a state for state crimes. For most crimes the person has to be present in the state but not all crimes. Pence can not pardon his impeachment because it is not crime.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

True, hence the word "if"

 

[Leo123]

Fear not, I just watched a four-night exposé on the details of the so-called 10 potential Mueller "obstructions" and they are a joke. Several of them were totally dismissed by Mueller himself. Of the remaining, one was Trump's merely saying that Mueller being picked could mean the end of his presidency! That isn't any obstruction at all, it is not even some admission of "guilt," it was Trump merely commenting that based on his past dealings with Mueller, first, turning him down as FBI director and also some sort of business deal that went sour, that Trump didn't feel Mueller would be fair or impartial.

The few remaining were merely Trump's exploring the possibility of replacing Mueller as a result. Either way the investigation would have continued, DID continue and was ultimately found that Trump was indeed free of any guilt of collusion or conspiracy with Russia. So what was Trump "obstructing?" His innocence?

And there still remains made NO public evidence of these so-called Russian efforts. Not ONE person, not one county, has been shown affected, changed or swung in Trump's favor ---- ---- the Left's MSM do far more every day trying to influence and change votes, views and opinions than the Russians will ever do.

If the idiot's in the DNC try to impeach Trump on the basis of THIS, it is going to be the biggest clusterfuck backfire into their own faces since the 3 Stooges had their last pie fight.

Mueller tried to renege on a Trump National Golf Club membership over an alleged disagreement with membership fees. Trump refused. Here is a link to a Lefty Newsweek story that is biased but has some details.

Why did Mueller quit Trump’s golf club? Dispute reportedly key to president’s desire to fire special counsel

 

[toobfreak]

Fear not, I just watched a four-night exposé on the details of the so-called 10 potential Mueller "obstructions" and they are a joke. Several of them were totally dismissed by Mueller himself. Of the remaining, one was Trump's merely saying that Mueller being picked could mean the end of his presidency! That isn't any obstruction at all, it is not even some admission of "guilt," it was Trump merely commenting that based on his past dealings with Mueller, first, turning him down as FBI director and also some sort of business deal that went sour, that Trump didn't feel Mueller would be fair or impartial.

The few remaining were merely Trump's exploring the possibility of replacing Mueller as a result. Either way the investigation would have continued, DID continue and was ultimately found that Trump was indeed free of any guilt of collusion or conspiracy with Russia. So what was Trump "obstructing?" His innocence?

And there still remains made NO public evidence of these so-called Russian efforts. Not ONE person, not one county, has been shown affected, changed or swung in Trump's favor ---- ---- the Left's MSM do far more every day trying to influence and change votes, views and opinions than the Russians will ever do.

If the idiot's in the DNC try to impeach Trump on the basis of THIS, it is going to be the biggest clusterfuck backfire into their own faces since the 3 Stooges had their last pie fight.

Mueller tried to renege on a Trump National Golf Club membership over an alleged disagreement with membership fees. Trump refused. Here is a link to a Lefty Newsweek story that is biased but has some details.

Why did Mueller quit Trump’s golf club? Dispute reportedly key to president’s desire to fire special counsel

Ahha! I caught Trump saying one day there had been some private deal gone sour but he didn't elaborate, but it became quite clear Trump felt Mueller too prejudiced between that and Trump's not hiring him to replace Comey (what a private club we have!) that I agree with Trump's feeling Mueller too biased to be Special Investigator and anger at Rosenstein's hiring him anyway. This "obstruction" crap is nonsense and it was plain in his presser and shaky, quivering voice that even Mueller wasn't buying it, nor his "inability to fully exonerate" the President.