No. of Recommendations: 8
Trump's legal team has filed a new motion late on October 23, 2023 in his DC insurrection case stating that he should not be subject to prosecution because the US Senate already tried him on charges related to January 6 and acquitted him.
"The United States Senate has previously tried and acquitted President Trump for charges arising from the same course of conduct alleged in the indictment, the impeachment and double jeopardy clauses both bar retrial before this Court and require dismissal," the filing argues.
Of course, this motion is COMPLETELY frivolous since anyone with a law degree knows the terms "trial", "conviction" and "acquittal" in the context of an IMPEACHMENT are associated with a POLITICAL mechanism for removing an elected official from power and are completely independent of criminal or civil prosecutions. No double-jeopardy restrictions apply, different thresholds for conviction apply (beyond a reasonable doubt is a higher bar than a two-thirds majority), etc.
The Constitution explicitly says this about impeachment and conviction in the Senate:
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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.
Thus, the Constitution is clear the purpose of IMPEACHMENT is not to exact legal punishment but to remove an elected official from office. It thus also means that a decision by the Senate to NOT remove an elected official also has no bearing on that official's fate in front of a criminal or civil proceding.
Trump's legal team SHOULD be sanctioned (heavily) for wasting the court's time with these delay tactics. Unfortunately, documented professional ethics standards apply significant caveats for filing frivolous motions in criminal cases:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Criminal defense attorneys are virtually never sanctioned for any level of frivolity in defending their client, giving free rein to these types of sideshows. Judge Chutkan should give these motions the attention they deserve and reject them with a single word - DENIED - in minutes.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
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: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.
Thus, the Constitution is clear the purpose of IMPEACHMENT is not to exact legal punishment but to remove an elected official from office. It thus also means that a decision by the Senate to NOT remove an elected official also has no bearing on that official's fate in front of a criminal or civil proceeding.
I haven't read the motion, but the plain text of the Clause gives them at least a way out of that. It only says that a Party convicted can be subsequently indicted. It doesn't say what happens when a Party is acquitted.
I imagine that they're arguing that if the Senate convicts, then the accused can then be subject to further criminal proceedings - but that if the person is acquitted, then that acquittal works to block a subsequent criminal case.
I don't think that will be persuasive, but it should be enough to avoid being sanctioned for a frivolous argument.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think the larger point is that impeachment is solely a parliamentary processs for solving political debates about one's suitability to make and enforce laws that has nothing to do with one's criminal or civil exposure TO those laws. Anyone with basic familiarity with how different the procedural processes and rules of evidence are between an impeachment trial and a criminal trial would never confuse the two or assume their outcomes are linked (positively or negatively). They have no bearing on each other. Hopefully, both Judge Chutkan and any judges up the chain involved with the inevitable appeals see this for what it is and quickly dispatch it to the trash can in unambiguous language for future reference.
WTH
