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

This District Court already gave the answer. For all intents and purposes, the 'political court' of the Congress is not recognized as a court of law. Or even as a trier of fact. Given this, Congress should obviously not have the compulsory powers of a court of law(it's even dubious as I pointed out as to whether or not any such evidence in the Trump case(and indeed in prior cases up to including Watergate) were legally acquired.

Because the only way the 'political court of the Congress' could have acted as such, is in coordination with and the enforcement of the judicial branch. Or to use words you're familiar with: The collusion of the judicial and legislative branches of the government.

To refute this, you'd have to do something Trump's lawyers couldn't a couple days ago: Establishing Congress as a legal judicial court with binding rulings.

In your opinion, but I have backed my opinion with my interpretation of it. To defeat an assumption, there has to be an alternative that is superior to it. By definition then, we could say that court rulings are assumptions they haven't justified(they don't need to justify it, due to the force of law.) but that's why we've had incidents like Dred Scott, etc. That's a whole different animal on if the courts have an outsized influence in social and political life.

Well, it's both the force of law and the legal recognition of their authority but neither of these are persuasive by any means.

As far as a 'justification' if you need one badly enough, the whole premise derives off the District Court's ruling. I just took it and read it to its logical conclusion. That it would be morally if not philosophically unfair for the "political court of the legislature" to have judicial authority, and yet at the same time lack the judicial recognition and/or not be bound to judicial limits, meanwhile the defendant of the political court is subject to both the political court and the judicial court all due to one part of ONE sentence, which we shall get to shortly.

It is that portion of the statute that allows this utterly ridiciulous situation. The idea that as long as one isn't threatened with jail time or death, that the judicial system could theoretically charge a person as many times as they want, as much as they want(in fact, I think the rules of evidence have something to the effect of trying to prevent this from happening). Of course the rules of evidence isn't exactly federal law sadly.

The only way we can come up with the legal status quo is to act as though "put in jeopardy of life or limb" is the only active part of the stature. But if we're going to do that, why can't we argue "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense" can be the cut off point? It's the same incomplete sentence!

(Attempting to read statures as an incomplete sentence, is also the 14th Amendment argument. It appears to be a legal-ism, but it's such an intellectually dishonest piece of work, that I'm morbidly impressed)

There's no logical reason that suggests we couldn't, only that the law community didn't choose that portion to cut off. That said, while we could do that I actually think it's fairer to take and apply the WHOLE stature, not just one portion or the other.

I do not think the framers, wary of the king's abuses(among chief of which was the judiciary) would allow a status quo of infinite charges so long as you didn't incarcerate or kill the suspect. And I also suspect, if they could see the development of the country they would come to regret the idea of the 'political court of the legislature', as it becomes basically a civilian version of the king's court.

So, if we read it in whole, we should read it(like we read most cases that get an acquittal): You get one chance, that's it. There is no qualifier to death or life. If you can't prove a person guilty in the jury of his/her peers, then you don't get to retry that case. And the political members of the court are 'jurors' for all intents and purposes.

If one takes the ability to judge, one has to render and live with that judgment. The so-called political court of the legislature allows the legislature to forsake this responsibility.

PS. Since you also like to snip posts, I too am going to get rid of the last paragraph because we're not talking about "high crimes and misdemeanors" or "crimes", we are talking about whether double jeopardy should apply to the political court as a constant rule or not. And I argue there's a far stronger argument that it is so, then it is not.

Yes, that argument did not win the day. That is tragic, the political court can collude with the judiciary but it also means the separation of powers is a bunch of ****.

 

The question was answered in post #20

 

Congress attempted 2 times to impeach and remove Trump and Trump was acquitted 2 times...Section 5 of the 14th amendment prevails...

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article (14th amendment Section 3).

 

When asked "What was he TRYING to do..." saying what he was NOT trying to do is not an answer.

What were you doing when you walked into the bank waving that gun around?

Well, I WASN'T walking my dog.

Can you see how that is a NON answer?

 

So...... The answer "Trump was definitely trying to overthrow our government." is all that would be allowed? When "Trump was not trying to overthrow our government." is the answer? Your ability to limit my ability to only answer the question with a lie is laughable.

 

No, give me an answer that explains WHY Trump made the phone call that does NOT involve trying to pressure Raffensperger into illegally changing the certified vote totals and we can talk about it.

Telling us what Trump was NOT doing is not an answer to the question of "What WAS he doing?"

 

Congress doesn't compel testimony by becoming a court of law. They compel it by issuing a legal subpoena. And if the recipient doesn't comply, they refer the case to the DoJ. So, I ask again, what is wrong with that? I don't understand what it is you're complaining about.

If you're saying that Congress should not be allowed to issue subpoenas, why do you need so many words to say something this simple? Too many words. Tell me that is what you mean and we'll discuss that. Everything else is "florid" language like "compulsory power" or "trier of fact". You must excuse me but that's B.S. State your point!

I'm not understanding. When has that ever NOT been the case? I mean, Congress has the power to order the Sargent at Arms to compel a subpoenaed witness to appear. But I don't think they have ever USED that power. Nancy Pelosi once said that there was even a small jail cell in the basement for that purpose, but that it's only used for storage. That's the ONLY "compulsory power" they have that ISN'T enforced by the judicial branch.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with double jeopardy? I sent you what it means according to the Constitution. That's the only thing that matters in this discussion. so let's see if you address it further along.

Well... you can take that up with the framers. But that's what the 5th A says. The purpose of the double jeopardy clause is to protect citizens from the jeopardy of being falsely convicted of a crime. Period! An Impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, therefore, there is no jeopardy of being convicted of a crime. Simple as that!

I think you write too much, but don't address this one and only simple fact. which is the ONLY relevant fact.

Double jeopardy had NOTHING to do with what you "get" or don't "get" to do. It's not about whether it inconveniences the accused. It's not about ANY of those things. It's about avoiding criminal jeopardy.

You didn't answer my question: if you are going to call it "double jeopardy", WHAT is in jeopardy TWICE? They are completely different things.

Sure. No problem. If you don't have anything to comment about a side comment, feel free to not quote it. I have no fixation about seeing what I wrote repeated, like some people do. And if we don't do this, by the end of these discussions each post will be the length of a whole forum page.

But you DO need to answer the most relevant question: What is in jeopardy TWICE?

A short succinct answer would be preferable.

 

No more of the silly games... Trump was not trying to overthrow our government. is the answer... deal with it..

 

YOU'RE the one playing "silly games"

You can't answer the question over what the call was FOR so you give your non answer of what the call was NOT for.

 

He's going to prison for it anyway. Deal with THAT!

 

He absolutely was, by trying to illegally overturn the certified results of an election he lost by illegal and violent means……. deal with it.

We are by prosecuting him.

 

Electoral Count Act of 1887... educate yourself.... and make sure you look into the pre-2022 law that the Democrats scrambled to change a 135 year old law to suit their agenda...

"fake and false" is a Democrat invented word... that the uniformed eat up and put on political forums... The are the same as "faithless" Hamilton electors...

Not before 2022.... The Democrats had to rush out and change 135 year old law to their liking...

https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one_pager_on_electoral_count_reform_act_of_2022.pdf

 

Funny the Democrats had to change the 135 year old law to say "Vice President into not counting legal electoral votes is not a legitimate method" when the law did no say it before... ask Senator Susan Collins about it..
Strange that they changed the term "Fake electors" from when the Democrats tried it before... was it a legal method when the Democrats did it ? Change "faithless electors" to "Fake Electors or fraud electors" and you have the same thing done by the other people with no consequences...
I think it is plain Trump did nothing illegal... Electoral Count Act of 1887.... a 135 year old laws on the books..
Democrats set the precedent when overthrowing democracy.... would you like to talk about it?? George Santyana : "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

""America needs 37 “faithless electors” from states Trump won""
Looks like they will have to explain the “Hamilton electors,” a group of electors who have sworn not to vote for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/15/opinions/faithless-electors-save-america-piro/index.html

Meet the 'Hamilton Electors' Hoping for an Electoral College Revolt
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...oping-for-an-electoral-college-revolt/508433/

The last-ditch push for the Electoral College to stop Trump, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

""The faithless electors who opposed Donald Trump were part of a movement dubbed the "Hamilton Electors" co-founded by Micheal Baca of Colorado and Bret Chiafalo of Washington. The movement attempted to find 37 Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican in an effort to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force a contingent election in the House of Representatives.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

""A group of so-called “Hamilton Electors” — nine Democrats and one Republican who borrowed the Found Father’s name in a nod toward his call for deliberation — has been working to persuade at least 36 other Republicans to ditch Trump, just enough to block his immediate election and send the contest to the House of Representatives.""
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogue-electors-hamilton-232802

 

You wasted a whole lot of meaningless words and references defending your Seditionist Orange Stain.

I will happily await the verdict of his criminal trial while you fabricate more excuses not to try him for his crimes.

 

And you waste everyone's time with no rebuttal.

 

Not at all . No rebuttal is required for your made up fantasies.

The jury will have the final say.

 

Answer the question.

 

That's not an answer.

 

Yes he did. He lost the electoral vote.

Why didn’t he concede and participate in a peaceful transfer of power to the incoming administration ?