HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "in Cases of Impeachment....

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:07 AM

"in Cases of Impeachment...the Party convicted shall nevertheless be ...subject to Indictment

It's right there in black and white, clear as day; we can't allow Trump apologists to claim otherwise:

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7

Judgement 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, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.


In other words, the impeachment itself can result in removal from office; impeachment may be brought in addition to criminal indictment.

27 replies, 3680 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply "in Cases of Impeachment...the Party convicted shall nevertheless be ...subject to Indictment (Original post)
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 OP
NewJeffCT Jun 2018 #1
Adrahil Jun 2018 #5
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #10
unblock Jun 2018 #7
tritsofme Jun 2018 #2
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #11
tritsofme Jun 2018 #17
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #18
tritsofme Jun 2018 #19
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #20
saidsimplesimon Jun 2018 #26
billh58 Jun 2018 #3
FreepFryer Jun 2018 #4
Adrahil Jun 2018 #6
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #12
duforsure Jun 2018 #8
bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #9
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #13
onenote Jun 2018 #14
bucolic_frolic Jun 2018 #15
Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #16
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #22
Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #25
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #27
scipan Jun 2018 #21
lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #24
bdamomma Jun 2018 #23

Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:11 AM

1. It says the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject

To me, that implies they need to be convicted in the impeachment process before being subjected to indictment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:46 AM

5. That's not what the clause means.

 

All it means is that conviction by impeachment doesn't get you of the hook for criminal indictment.

In other words, double jeopardy does not attach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:59 PM

10. Exactly, thank you!

It's inclusive, not exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:49 AM

7. that's the weak argument they're making. it doesn't really imply that, it leaves it open.

all it says is that a conviction after impeachment does not get anyone out of criminal liabilty.

it's silent on the question of whether a president (or anyone else in an office potentially subject to impeachment) is immune from criminal liability until out of office.

the question is, is it silent because they meant to suggest that they wanted to create a tyranny, or did the leave it silent because it's completely fucking obvious that they didn't mean to grant people a license to commit any and all crimes they want for as long as they're in office....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:19 AM

2. It can be read differently, which is why it is a matter of such controversy.

Does your reading also imply that the president would be prohibited from pardoning any executive branch official or even judges who are subject to impeachment?

It could also be read to mean that even after impeachment, the normal course of the criminal justice process will still apply, and that process includes the pardon power.

I think the overarching principle that no man may be a judge in his own proceedings is a stronger argument against self-pardon. The language in the pardon clause also strongly implies that the party giving the pardon (the president) and the party receiving the pardon are two different people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:59 PM

11. I could read it in Klingon or Elvish; that doesn't change what it clearly says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:04 PM

17. Well, all it clearly says is that the only restriction is that a pardon cannot apppy to impeachment

Implying that a self pardon is legal. Not sure what your position is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:07 PM

18. My OP is not about pardons at all.

The thread went in that direction too, which further boxes in Trump and that's great. But my point (the point of the Founding Fathers) is that impeachment and criminal prosecution are separate matters; one does not exclude the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:14 PM

19. Then I misunderstood.

I didn’t realize then, what you are discussing is a matter of controversy? Impeachment is clearly is a political, not legal/criminal process


Many are interpreting the clause you posted to mean that since criminal prosecution is an option after impeachment, that a self pardon must be prohibited. I think it is a weak argument, as I described above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:18 PM

20. Bizarrely, it is indeed a matter of controversy.

Also, the clause does not say that criminal prosecution can only happen after impeachment. It only says that impeachment does not exclude criminal prosecution. No particular sequence is prescribed or proscribed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:26 AM

26. You and Stephen Colbert,

have a way with comedy and words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:28 AM

3. Article II, Section 2

Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/?_escaped_fragment_=/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power


It appears that if he is impeached, he can not pardon himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:37 AM

4. Another interpretation is that the president cannot pardon any party involved in an impeachment case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreepFryer (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:47 AM

6. People forget that many officials are subject to impeachment, not just the President.

 

And he cannot nullify an impeachment of anyone with a pardon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:00 PM

12. He also can't pardon anybody else being impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 11:52 AM

8. Including Gorsuch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 12:32 PM

9. ah, yes, the usurping, installed stooge

If we ever obtain a majority, I hope Democrats will, according to judicious use of political power and law, within the bounds of reason, counter this GOP display of theft and larceny

Or will we be nice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:01 PM

13. We'll be nice.

It would be rude to impeach him just because he was illegally installed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:09 PM

14. Good luck proving that there was anything "illegal" about the confirmation of Gorsuch

or the failure to act on the nomination of Garland.

We may not like the outcome, but there was nothing about it that violated any statutory or constitutional mandate.

(If there was, then every president and every Senate has violated the Constitution countless times by leaving office with any position that requires presidential appointment and Senate confirmation unacted upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:10 PM

15. You've hit the nail on the head

finding the moral argument is easy, once the treason is proven. Legally not so easy. Impeachment is political as much as legal. And without legal underpinning justifications, you have something as political as stealing the seat in the first place, and you create a precedent in the process.

But we should do it. It is what is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:16 PM

16. I don't think you can impeach him legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:11 AM

22. Right; impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

So if you have the power (i.e. 2/3 in the Senate and majority in the House), you can impeach him and the legal side of it is just about irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:23 AM

25. I don't think it is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:27 AM

27. Mathematically, I agree, unfortunately.

Even if we sweep the board in November (a VERY long shot), we won't get 2/3 in the Senate. The RePutin Party is 100% corrupt and will block any effort to remove the traitors (because they would be removing themselves).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:06 PM

21. not clear

The first OLC memo was issued on September 26, 1973, not long before the October 20 “Saturday Night Massacre,” in which Nixon directed officials of the Justice Department to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the top two Justice officials resigned, leaving the dirty work to then-Solicitor General Robert Bork.

That memo considers the Constitution’s text and finds no answer. It says, correctly, that there is no “airtight separation of powers, but rather … a system of checks and balances, or blending the three powers.” The Constitution provides very limited immunities for members of Congress and none for the president. The impeachment clause says that any official impeached can be tried—at least, but not clearly only, after removal. The debates during the framing and ratification of the Constitution suggest that the president is subject to laws like any citizen, but never discuss prosecution in office. During the trials of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall had insisted that Thomas Jefferson was subject to subpoena—but also that as president he could refuse to attend court in person, and could withhold some evidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/presidential-indictment/560957/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scipan (Reply #21)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:14 AM

24. I'm aware of the infamous DOJ memo,

which I consider to be on very weak ground; the words of the Constitution itself don't seem to back it up. So the controversy remains, because, as with the 2nd Amendment, we keep letting the pundits say crap about it, but almost nobody just reads the (very very brief) relevant text of the Constitution. We have to start putting the actual words out there in everybody's faces. It's not that complicated!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 09:13 AM

23. please let him be gone

enough already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread