The Appeals Court had many rulings today, let's tackle the double jeopardy one

So the Appeals Court more or less ruled in a mostly typical way IMO(I always thought, and my first post on the case that the legal theory brought forth by Trump's team was a long shot at best.) But the double jeopardy one was an important one, and I'm sorry I cannot on philosophical grounds agree with the status quo of "Well, it's political so it's not an acquittal."

Why then, does the Senate have this function? And no, calling it political by itself, doesn't excuse it. If you are going to 'charge' someone, have hearings on that 'charge' and render a verdict, then for that verdict to have validity, it has to have staying power.

Whether that verdict is for conviction or for not guilty. By calling it 'political' and lacking both the legal force and standing of law, then it need not bother with any of the proceedings. Actually, more to the point: Since it lacks legal force and standing of law, Trump can argue any evidence used in the impeachment inquiries, up to the 1/6 commission is ineligible evidence, because none of it was pursuant to an actual warrant(that whole pesky 4th amendment deal)


Simply, it cannot be a 'political court' and not have any legal relevance. Either it is a part of the legislative branch(in which case, again it has no legal relevance and therefore any evidence acquired is the fruit of the poisonous tree. We can take this a step further and challenge the so-called 'contempt of congress'. Since Congress lacks the judicial authority, it is not possible to be 'contemptful' of a non-court. In fact, the very process of the contempt citation seems to suggest this is the case. IE: An actual district court takes over and files the actual charges). But this isn't fair to any defendant, because they were not in contempt of the district court. They were in contempt of the so-called 'court of congress' that this district court just said wasn't a judicial court.)

Essentially, contempt did not take place because it cannot be found to legally exist if the district court is consistent with its own logic.

OR it is a court with legal powers and in which case for its rulings to be binding then it has to be accepted. It cannot be, as the district court cited that the politicians could vote to pass it along to the judicial system.

If you want a TLDR, its this: It cannot be BOTH. It cannot function as a device of the judiciary branch, while also having the primary function of the legislative branch. This status quo gives legislators more authority and clout than the POTUS.

Because Congress can subpoena citizens, the POTUS cannot.

 

Think they went along a separation of powers route all the way through from what I can tell--President cannot legally interfere with Congress doing its job and the double jeopardy didn't apply because that is totally within the purview of the courts. I think I said in the beginning there was no way in hell even the Trump-appointed SCOTUS would co-sign saying the sitting president can do whatever he wants with absolute legal immunity. I understand historically courts have been very narrow in applying double jeopardy. If you are on one side of the state line and shoot someone on the other side of it, both states can prosecute you for the same crime and if you win in state court you can still be charged in federal court for crimes stemming from the same act(s).

 

This:

more than anything else makes it not a part of the double jeopardy prohibition. Essentially it is an exception to the general prohibition.

Trump and his lawyers gave it a good go but it never would have worked. What I find more objectionable regarding the double jeopardy clause is that its not applied when it comes to federal charges vs state charges. Both the state and federal can charge someone with the same crime, yet its not considered double jeopardy? That makes far less sense than the argument Trump and his lawyers presented.

 

The impeachment process is the safety valve in our system... it's purpose is to prevent this very thing from happening... as you stated... that is why the Senate has the "trial" part instead of the judicial courts doing the "trial" part... The president MUST be impeached and removed by both the House and Senate before they can go after him with political hack Jack Smith... Which is why Trump's lawyer John Saur insisted that very thing in the off the wall question about "a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to murder a political rival." that in fact, they MUST remove him first.... which if a murder was ordered, without a doubt, Congress would definitely have him removed and that process would be complete as the founding fathers intended... not 4 Democrat judges...

This will either be taken before the SCOTUS or Trump can request a rehearing before the full panel of the same DC Circuit. "en banc"... or maybe both... just to drag it out,

Notice the judges did not even sign their names...they only wrote an "opinion of the court"
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/gov.uscourts.cadc_.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

 

We've already had totally illegal and unapproved acts carried out by presidents who went rogue.

An example is Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Another example is the many criminal acts related to Trump's moves to overthrow our election.


Were we to make all future presidents above the law, outside the checks and balances of the other two branches of government, outside the the strictures of our constitution, we would have created a dictatorship. It would be the end of our federal democracy. And, it would be far more thorough than simply sending highly trained murders to kill politicians and others that the president doesn't like.

This isn't just about Trump. Reagan was a reasonably moral individual who believed in America. And, he was NOT safe.

Would have our congress impeached Trump had his criminal insurrection defeated Biden?

Obviously NOT. Impeachment is political, not legal. Would the current Speaker of the House lead an impeachment of Trump in that case? Remember: He was working hard to lead the effort to make Trump the winner, even though he was NOT the winner. The current Speaker of the House should be indicted for those past efforts and there is no chance he would defend our democracy going forward.

 

Very specifically rejected by the Appeals Court, and hardly surprising. All you have to do is read the Constitution and give it literal meaning.

Do you suspect Humpty is deliberately trying to 'drag it out,' and if so, why? Would he not want his user friendly SCOTUS to get their hands on this sooner rather than later, or are you worried SCOTUS might not be so Humpty friendly on this issue?

 

that is about being fired, it's not a court of law

but regardless, OJ was found not guilty in criminal court and retried in civil court - it was allowed

 

It's an exception that, I cannot fathom where the logical basis comes from(obviously, it is written stature, but it doesn't make sense). That exception, as written and literally interpreted is essentially saying "Yeah, we're not a judicial court but the judicial courts CAN have a go at it."

Why have the prohibition at all, if you're going to carve out an exception? If it's not a judicial court, then it should not be entitled to any powers therein.
Essentially, this 'exception' allows the Senate to have a court/trial of public opinion, and even IF you get acquitted, you will still face the judicial system which will have access to the evidence 'gathered' from the public trial.

That in itself also brings into question the validity of the rules that prevent trials 'being tried publicly'. Essentially, citizens may not defend themselves publicly, but it appears the Congressional political system by way of its "political trial" can in fact not only defend itself, but advance the prosecuting case of its interest.

To me, a politician(or more specifically, the political bodies themselves) has way more authority than the executive branch. The legislative branch AND the judicial branch can collude it seems. But not the executive branch.

 

Our government was more or less set up to be the legislative branch controlling the reins and the other two controlling the legislative branch. This Imperial Presidency stuff really is not what the framers had in mind. In fact, they probably would have opposed it IMO for the most part.

 

Trump did not try to overthrow our government.

On to the SCOTUS now....

 

Why does the left want to deny Trump a fair trial that is available to all Americans?

 

???

 

What was he trying to do on Jan 6 and in making phone calls to Georgia?

 

Trump did not try to overthrow our government. Keep spinning...

 

Seriously? They considered that one the worst excuse of them all.

I don't know what philosophical grounds you're talking about. They are simply stating a FACT. Impeachment is a political trial. Therefore it's not criminal acquital.

Because it's not a judicial body.

This is NOT philosophical. This is simply how the government is organized. If you don't like how the framers organized powers, I'm afraid your about 240 years too late.

Exactly. So it doesn't. Congress only has the power to appoint and remove high ranking officials.

 

Try to answer the question, please:

What was Humpty trying to do on Jan 6 and in making phone calls to Georgia?

 

the answer your question... Trump did not try to overthrow our government. the game playing is over..

 

I acknowledge another white flag. You too may keep your horse but you too must also leave your guns.

 

You skimmed an entire post(omitting crucial facts and thoughts), and you gave this reply why? It's so scattered that it's hard to even reply to. So I'll try.

1)And like I said, this is a line of reasoning that does NOT make sense. If you want to call it that, then there should be no authority to compel testimony, no ability to issue subpoenas. After all, it is a political court with no legal relevance. Instead, the system as its set up is to have it both ways. Where the judiciary reinforces the political court, and then later on the judiciary may pick up the pieces for its OWN trial.

I would argue that it is worse than double jeopardy because at least when you re-try a case, it's typically the same case file. Here, the judiciary gets to act as though its a separate case and need not consider any of the exculpatory factors. It places an undue burden on any defendant who happens to be before a political court, one that cannot and is not attempted to be remedied by the judiciary.

Or another way to put it, you're better off as a civilian facing just a criminal court as opposed to a political defendant who must face both the political and the judicial court. See the problem now? Political figures targeted by the judicial system, have less rights than average citizens, under our current system.

2) If it's not a judicial body, it is not entitled to nor should it be allowed to have judicial powers. We should no longer allow this line of reasoning which is hypocrisy galore with no sense. Either it is, or it isn't but the federal Republic can no longer tolerate conditions in which it's both. That condition, will undermine the foundations of the country post-Trump.

3)Except it is, and it does. The removal system compromises of a quasi-legal system, and then it gives carte blanch to the the judiciary(who aided the political court) essentially to pick the meat off the rest of the bone.

You mock that I'm 240 years too late, I'll argue in those 240 years we haven't had such a clear civilian-political judiciary connection as to reveal the deep flaws in our structure. Flaws that make it so that Congress can laughably act as a part of the judiciary as well as the legislature. As Trump had said 'Legislate or investigate'.

It is not healthy for this Republic. These flaws can only continue to exacerbate themselves, as more and more citizens see that the judiciary is an ally of the congress and not of the people.

 

for the last time...
"What was he trying to do on Jan 6 and in making phone calls to Georgia?"
the answer your question... Trump was not trying to overthrow our government.

 

I only address the parts I have something to comment about.

For example, what could I say about things like...

A complete non-sequitur. Why NOT have the authority to compel testimony? You don't answer that, you just state it as some sort of given fact.

From there you just go on a description that only works under an assumption that you haven't justified. So there is no room for comment.

Do you grasp the concept of "double jeopardy"? What is in "jeopardy"?

You should have started by reading the amendment:
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."

There is no jeopardy of life (which includes incarceration) or limb in an impeachment trial. NONE!

I think you are confusing "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" with crimes. The former is abuse of power which may or may not be crimes. Whether they are a crime or not is not for Congress to decide. The WORST thing they can do is fire them. They can't send anybody to prison. That's authority belongs to the judicial power. But abuse of power is NOT for the judicial power to decide. The authority belongs to Congress.

Because it IS a separate case. It's a criminal case where "life or limb" is in jeopardy. Congress can't determine if something is a crime. But it CAN determine whether or not it's abuse of power. The courts can't determine if something is abuse of power unless such abuse raises to the level of criminal behavior.

It's not about burden. It's about jeopardy!

This is the thing. You want me to comment about your ENTIRE post. But you started with an inaccurate assumption that you simply take as a given. And that makes it impossible to comment on the rest. I'd just be repeating the same over and over: nothing that you comment is "JEOPARDY". So it CAN'T be "double jeopardy".

All I can tell you is: first correct the assumptions and mistakes you made, and then try to make your case WITHOUT those assumptions and mistakes.

 

Begging... Unseemly yes but scarcely illegal

 

"Begging" for what?

 

Ti find more votes, not make more votes or steal some votes but find some;

 

So, when he was addressing the many assembled and armed faithful on Jan 6, he was begging for them to find votes by storming the Capitol? Is that what you are asserting?