# DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Re-Indicted August 27, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 23, 2022, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455 "2022-11-23T20:14:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 80
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1582 "2023-10-06T12:46:29Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > When the Mueller report came out, I seem to remember a lot of talk about how Department of Justice policy wouldn’t allow indicting a sitting president, so any punishment of Trump would have to wait until he was out of office. > > Now that he’s out of office, isn’t in funny how some people are saying that because we didn’t punish him as president we can’t touch him now. I think that’s the “logic” that many GOP senators used as their basis for acquittal in the impeachment. “Well, he’s not the president _now_, so what’s the point in voting to convict?” ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1583 "2023-10-06T12:59:15Z")
this filing is just to gain a delay. nothing more. there is no legal argument. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1584 "2023-10-06T13:16:02Z")
But it’s not really going to delay anything, is it? It’s not as if Jack Smith is going to say, “Hey, I don’t have time to respond to the motion _and_ prepare for the trial, so we humbly request you push back the trial date.” And I can’t imagine the court is going to take a whole lot of time with the motion. ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1585 "2023-10-06T13:24:04Z")
the idea is that it will be denied, they appeal, that takes a bit, gets denied again, they appeal, and the supreme court will take it beyond the march trial date. the lawyers are also dragging out getting clearance for the handful of classified documents. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1586 "2023-10-06T13:42:41Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > the idea is that it will be denied, they appeal, that takes a bit, gets denied again, they appeal, and the supreme court will take it beyond the march trial date. Maybe I’m confused, but you can’t appeal until the case until the trial has concluded. I’m pretty sure the judge admonished Trump’s lawyers at some point for not knowing that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1587 "2023-10-06T13:46:00Z")
Also, at this point I think the Supreme Court is fed up with Trump’s bullshit, and they’re not fools; I predict they’re not going to let themselves be used as a delaying tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1588 "2023-10-06T13:50:20Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Maybe I’m confused, but you can’t appeal until the case until the trial has concluded. They’re not going to appeal the case. They’re going to appeal the decision not to dismiss the case, and will request that the trial be delayed while the appeals court (and then the Supreme Court) are determining the status of those appeals. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1589 "2023-10-06T13:53:25Z")
> [@rocking\_chair](#): > > the idea is that it will be denied, they appeal, that takes a bit, gets denied again, they appeal, and the supreme court will take it beyond the march trial date Doesn’t leave to appeal have to be granted at each stage? Certainly at the Supreme Court stage they can just decide that there is no issue worth their time. I mean, “something” has more chance of causing a delay than nothing, certainly that’s why they are doing it. I guess we’ll see how effective it is. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1590 "2023-10-06T14:37:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > There just isn’t anything about how double jeopardy has ever worked that would make it apply here. Agreed. This is because no one has ever been acquitted in a Senate trial and then tried for something that is arguably part of the same offense. If they had, [I think I would have found it here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges) I wonder if I would have more support in my views here if Biden was the one who had been acquitted by the Senate and was then facing a second trial in a jurisdiction where most people voted against him. It may happen! Perhaps some care more about Trump being held accountable than others in the future being treated fairly. I admit to the opposite priority. Better to let ten guilty go free than to punish one innocent. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1591 "2023-10-06T14:47:15Z")
Yes, we know that you do not consider holding Trump accountable to be a priority. As for Biden being held accountable by the legal system, I don’t understand why you think any of us would be against that. I say again, if they indict Biden and find him guilty of crimes, put him in jail. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1592 "2023-10-06T14:48:59Z")
Multiple posters have already stated that a Senate “trial” isn’t the same thing as a trial in a court. From your wiki link: > [Impeachment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment) is the procedure in which a legislative body, like the [United States Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress), can punish or remove government officials from their positions. Impeachment is a _procedure_ conducted by a legislative body, not a trial conducted by a court. Let’s stop beating this dead horse. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1593 "2023-10-06T14:49:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > They’re going to appeal the decision not to dismiss the case, and will request that the trial be delayed while the appeals court (and then the Supreme Court) are determining the status of those appeals. In other words, they would attempt an [interlocutory appeal.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory_appeal) ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1594 "2023-10-06T14:50:36Z")
Though I’m concerned we’re straying a bit from the path, I’ll offer this one thing to the current conversation: “Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate” (Randolph D. Moss, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, August 2000) [**46pp PDF**](https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download) The review is based on three parts: - [**Spiro Agnew**](https://www.jmichaelmartinez.com/post/scoundrels-political-scandals-in-american-history-spiro-agnew) - The arguments for and against the constitutional permissibility of criminal prosecution of officials for the same offenses of which they have been acquitted by the Senate - [**Hastings impeachment process**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Warren_Hastings) and of the Senate trials of two other federal judges who were impeached and convicted during the 1980s following criminal prosecution > CONCLUSION: We conclude that the Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office. ETA: IMHO (IANAL), “the _same_ offenses” is a significantly higher bar than new and different offenses. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1595 "2023-10-06T14:56:04Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This is because no one has ever been acquitted in a Senate trial and then tried for something that is arguably part of the same offense. Again: if it’s arguable, argue it. I gave you the relevant cites. You haven’t argued it, you’ve simply asserted it without any evidence. It’s a ridiculous claim that goes against every other judicial and political precedent. It goes against the very reasons that so many people voted against conviction during the impeachment. It uses a very slightly sloppy bit of constitutional writing to make a ridiculous claim. The constitution explicitly says that a conviction in the impeachment does not preclude criminal prosecution. It explicitly rules out double-jeopardy in this case. **It’s absurd to think that a lack of conviction would engender greater double jeopardy**. It doesn’t match how double jeopardy occurs anywhere else. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I wonder if I would have more support in my views here if Biden was the one who had been acquitted by the Senate and was then facing a second trial in a jurisdiction where most people voted against him. This is an offensive and underhanded accusation of hypocrisy. Don’t do that nonsense. If you make a weaksauce claim, people will criticize it for being weaksauce. It violates Occam’s razor to propose that there’s an entirely different reason that this weaksauce assertion is being criticized. If it’s arguable, use the specific documents to make the argument. Don’t just wave your hands and say “It’s arguable y’all!” That’s ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1596 "2023-10-06T14:57:02Z")
It has nothing to do with wanting to “get” Trump and everything to do with the nature of the proceedings, whether against Trump, Biden, or the man in the moon. Impeachment proceedings are not criminal, they’re at most civil proceedings and probably best classified as administrative, like a civil-service hearing. And civil proceedings have never had double-jeopardy effects on criminal charges. Impeachment proceedings decide nothing more or less than whether someone will continue holding their public office and/or be able to hold public office in the future. > 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. Impeachment proceedings cannot result in execution, imprisonment, or even a fine. A person acquitted at impeachment was not > subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb as the criminal case where life or limb is in jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1597 "2023-10-06T15:26:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If it’s arguable, use the specific documents to make the argument. Don’t just wave your hands and say “It’s arguable y’all!” Madison tried to get this language into the Constitution: [No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same offence](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s50.html). He failed. Instead the Constitution only lets you go on to a regular trial is the impeachment trial defendant was convicted: [the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.](https://contextus.org/United_States_Constitution%2C_Article_I.3.7?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en) Why doesn’t it say the party convicted or acquitted? Someone said that I should stop beating a dead horse, and I agreed with that in my mind until the word ridiculous got up my dander a bit. While my point is highly relevant to the Jack Smith election interference indictment, it of course remains that there are other indictments (secret/stolen documents and Stormy Daniels payoff) where none of the charges overlaps any prior impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1598 "2023-10-06T15:35:15Z")
Moderating: > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Why doesn’t it say the party convicted or acquitted? > > Someone said that I should stop beating a dead horse, and I agreed with that in my mind until the word ridiculous got up my dander a bit. You’re done hijacking this thread with your argument conflating a political action with a legal one. If you wish to continue this discussion, please take it to a new or different thread. You’re done discussing it in this one. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1599 "2023-10-06T15:45:27Z")
Edit–oops, modnote just showed up, so erasing my response. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1600 "2023-10-06T16:37:08Z")
deleted; my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455/1601 "2023-10-09T01:59:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Impeachment isn’t relevant to double jeopardy, because it’s not single jeopardy. The fact that conviction doesn’t bear any punishment other than removal and disqualification from office means that it doesn’t bar prosecutions that do have other punishments. Exactly. The 5th Amendment is clear: … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; An impeached official is not in jeopardy of life or limb. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=79) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/doj-jack-smith-investigation-into-trump-and-election-interference-january-6th-insurrection-re-indicted-august-27-2024/975455.md?page=81)