So we should let trump skate because of his threats? Hell No.
Speaking of the civil service, if a civil servant is legally entitled to a hearing before he/she can be fired for, say, embezzlement, do you think the hearing result has double-jeopardy effects barring the (ex-)civil-servant from being criminally prosecuted for that embezzlement?
ETA: @PhillyGuy’s immediately previous post.
Since you’ve assumed that democracy and the rule of law is already irretrievably going to be lost on 2024, what is the actual factual point of playing your kid gloves charade now?
- Treat trump legally gently, he wins and it’s game over for the rule of law for a century or more.
- Treat trump legally aggressively, he wins, and it’s game over for the rule of law for a century or more.
How does gently make things better? It doesn’t.
But here’s what aggressive (but fully within the norms of criminal prosecution) does:
- Treat trump legally aggressively, he is disqualified and / or loses, and the rule of law in this country does NOT end. Instead it is upheld as how we do things in the USA .
I have listened patiently for months now about how #3 is impossible and only #1 is safe. Seems to me #2 is far safer than #1, and has the bonus of probably resulting in #3 instead.
The Senate and the House did not (and could not) indict for criminal charges. Just like OJ was acquitted in Criminal court but found “guilty” in Civil court, the two systems do not interact like that.
That is exactly why he needs to be convicted.
When one leader commits crimes, more follow. And even more follow if we decide for some foolish reason that it’s bad to punish them for it.
Again, while Trump and his Lawyers use the world “Trial” that is NOT what happened. Please. An impeachment is NOT a trial, as I said, because impartial parties and actual review of law were not involved. Don’t try to make that argument. An impeachment, even when justified is an internal political evolution, although according to the democratic ideal, it SHOULD put truth before politics.
Thank you.
You make it sound like it’s a cause and effect. An equal interpretation is that corruption is not usually limited to one person. Corruption is a societal issue, where it’s rare that only one person is corrupt; rather, corruption is usually marked by a culture of corruption.
The fact that one person in government is tried and convicted for corruption can be a marker that political corruption is an endemic issue in that society, and more cases will likely be uncovered as time goes on.
If I ever said that, I apologize. It would have been unintended.
I think the rule of law will be challenged if Trump wins next year, but have repeatedly said it will NOT be irretrievable. Rather it will depend on what all of us do.
And the rule of law means that anyone who breaks the law should be investigated, and if the evidence warrants it, charged and tried in open court.
That’s exactly what’s happening with Trump.
Every time you make an argument that Trump should not be treated like anyone else who may have broken the law, in my opinion, you are undermining the rule of law.
So what is it about the impeachment trial that you think has any bearing on an actual criminal trial?
I don’t agree. He was acquitted on ONE charge, incitement of insurrection. He now faces a long list of charges, but not one of those charges is insurrection or incitement to riot.
He’s charged….federally…with -Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Conspiracy Against Rights.
And, if you read the indictment the the bulk of the evidence supporting these charges is built around Trump’s actions leading up to January 6th, the fake elector plot, the fake DOJ letter….not the incendiary speech he gave on the day of.
People can commit more than one crime in a short time period, and the crimes might even be related. Even if you are acquitted of murder, you could still be convicted of robbing the gun store to obtain the weapon.
Of course, it’s all moot because the worst thing that can happen during impeachment is you can lose your job and the ability to reapply, which is not the same as losing your liberty or life. And the plain language of the Constitution says the President can be prosecuted after being impeached, and that doesn’t change no matter how many times you rephrase it using different words.
And even if he had been convicted by the Senate, removed from office, and barred from any further federal offices, he still could be tried in the federal courts for the conduct. That would not be double jeopardy, because the Constitution expressly permits it.
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.
Trump has not been criminally tried. Your argument is the equivalent to saying that a cop who gets investigated for wrongdoing but doesn’t get fired by the board should be immune from facing a court trial.
There just isn’t anything about how double jeopardy has ever worked that would make it apply here. Jeopardy doesn’t even attach in civil trials. Why would it attach to a political process? Being judged by the court of public opinion (through the people’s representatives) is not the same thing as being judged by the law itself.
Treating impeachment as separate doesn’t allow multiple criminal trials. And Congress has always been legally allowed to have repeated impeachment trials if it can get enough votes. It is, after all, a political action. And the Constitution puts no limit on it.
I’m sure not even Trump’s own lawyers, as incompetent as they are, believe this will work. Otherwise they would have tried it before. They could have even gotten summary judgement.
Trump’s legal proceedings are going as normally as feasible. He was indicted for committing crimes. And now he has to face trial. He doesn’t get to use his job review as a way to avoid said trial.
Just like everyone else.
Yeah, it’s an absolutely baffling legal hypothesis with no basis in any written regulation and explicit Constitutional text to the contrary.
Clarence Thomas will no doubt sign right up for it!
If you’re too scared to prosecute criminals because they might retaliate, then there is no such thing as law anymore. Don’t fall into that pitiable trap.
Also, just a general reminder: The Supreme Court is not Trump’s friend. They have not hesitated to rule against him multiple times. It’s almost as if they have a grudge. (Though it’s also quite possible that he keeps putting ridiculous requests in front of them that are easy to rule against.)
Well, the new ones were put there primarily to overturn Roe v Wade, i.e. because of their views on abortion. And I’m pretty sure they don’t believe the nonsense that Trump is a devout conservative Christian with Jesus standing over his shoulder. They are untouchable, so why should they pander to someone who they know does not really share any of their core values, and who might upend the rule of law if reelected just when they have got the system working for them. I’m quite sure at this point they’d much rather have a “normal” (by today’s standards) Republican than Trump.
Even if you want to draw an analogy between impeachment and a criminal case, there was no trial. The impeachment is more like an indictment – the House saying to the Senate, “We have found enough evidence that we think this guy should be removed from office. Look our evidence over and decide for yourself.”
The Senate majority in its infinite wisdom decoded it didn’t need to look over the evidence. “Nothing to see here – move along citizens.”
Didn’t McConnel say that this should be left up to the DOJ? And so, did not vote on impeachment conviction.
This is simply false. Why on earth would you make this claim? Please be specific.
Edit: here, I’ll help you out. Here’s the indictment.
Here’s the article of impeachment.
Which specific counts in the former are the exact same as the single count in the latter?
So, because Trump is likely to violate civil liberties if he gains power, we should invent new civil liberties that apply only to him and make it likelier he will gain power, at which point he can violate civil liberties, because doing so protects civil liberties? Is that the gist of it?