Trump: "release the J6 hostages"

[Bradskii]

A criminal indictment of a sitting president, or a criminal indictment of what a president did during his term of office, can only happen after a guilty impeachment Verdict by the US Senate.
I could be incorrect with that interpretation of Clause 7. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. However, that is how I am understanding Clause 7.

Clause 7: '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.'

That clearly says that one cannot take the punishment for impeachment any further than disqualifying the person from holding office. But that the person is also lible to normal prosecution under the law in addition to that. I see nothing that says you can't be prosecuted unless you are impeached.

But that's exactly what Trump's lawyer said, prompted by the judge's question.

 

[Arcangl86]

And one thing I noticed as well is that the impeachment clause doesn't apply only to the President, but any Officer of the United States. So by the logic here, somebody can do something blatantly criminal, get fired for it, and not have to worry about criminal charges because Congress never had a chance to impeach.

 

[DaisyDay]

It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

In one sense this is true - a sitting president by DOJ policy cannot be indicted, so an impeachment and removal would have to come first. But that is only for a sitting president.

 

[childeye 2]

In one sense this is true - a sitting president by DOJ policy cannot be indicted, so an impeachment and removal would have to come first. But that is only for a sitting president.

That is a policy but not a law.

From Constitution annotated

ArtI.S3.C7.1 Overview of Impeachment Judgments​

By design, impeachment is separate and distinct from a criminal proceeding. Impeachment and conviction by Congress operates to remove an individual from office; it does not, however, preclude criminal consequences for an individual’s actions.6 Those who have been impeached and removed from office are still subject to criminal prosecutions for the same underlying factual matters, and individuals who have already been convicted of crimes may be impeached for the same underlying behavior later.7 A number of federal judges, in fact, have been indicted and convicted for conduct which has formed the basis for a subsequent impeachment proceeding.8

The text of the Constitution does not address the sequencing of impeachment and other legal proceedings. Generally speaking, historical practice has been to impeach individuals after the conclusion of any related criminal proceedings, although this might simply reflect practical convenience as such proceedings can alert Congress of improper behavior that may warrant impeachment. Nonetheless, nothing in the Constitution demands this order of events.

The Constitution bars the President from using the pardon power to shield individuals from impeachment or removal from office.9 A President could pardon impeached officials suspected of criminal behavior, thus protecting them from federal criminal prosecution; such a move would not, however, shield those officials from removal from office via the impeachment process.

 

[wing2000]

A criminal indictment of a sitting president, or a criminal indictment of what a president did during his term of office, can only happen after a guilty impeachment Verdict by the US Senate.
I could be incorrect with that interpretation of Clause 7. I am not a Constitutional lawyer. However, that is how I am understanding Clause 7.

Frankly, I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. The language is clear, even for us who are not Constitutional lawyers.

"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:"

The US Senate may only remove a president from office and disqualify him from ever holding the office again. The US Senate may not criminally idict a President.

"but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

....so a President can be convicted by the US Senate and be criminally indicted. IOW, an impeachment conviction does not preclude criminal idictment.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's very obvious that Ray Epps was going along with the establishment, his sentence should have been substantial. What a crooked government.

He was convicted of a single misdemeanor. He wasn't even at risk of a substantial sentence. Part of that was because, yes, he was cooperative with the authorities (DOJ/FBI) during the investigation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What happened on January 6th never ever should have happened. I do NOT condone what any of those protestors did.

Really? why not? They sincerely believe that the election was rigged, stolen and took the action they though necessary to save the country. Do you think they deserve pardons?

 

[SimplyMe]

Really? why not? They sincerely believe that the election was rigged, stolen and took the action they though necessary to save the country. Do you think they deserve pardons?

So does that justify looters, who believe they have been "held back" by government and society because of their skin color and are owed for their growing up poor, being "forced" to crime, etc. Do you think they deserve pardons?

Is mere belief enough to justify pardoning illegal actions?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So does that justify looters, who believe they have been "held back" by government and society because of their skin color and are owed for their growing up poor, being "forced" to crime, etc. Do you think they deserve pardons?

Is mere belief enough to justify pardoning illegal actions?

Of course not. But, Trump said he will pardon them.

 

[Laodicean60]

Do you think they deserve pardons?

They at least deserve a speed trial.

 

[NxNW]

It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

Trump's lawyers say otherwise.

 

[A2SG]

It appears to me that this Clause 7 indicates that being impeached and removing by being found guilty through impeachment is meant to come first.

Then criminal indictments and criminal trials would occur.

For a sitting president, that would be the case.

But Trump is not a sitting president, so impeachment and removal isn't an issue. He was already removed from office by the voters.

There is no indication in the Constitution that a president cannot be held criminally liable for his actions after his term of office ends. Civil suits may be covered by presidential immunity, but only for official acts, done as part of his duties as President.

Now, as to whether or not elections are within the official duties of the office of President, I think the 10th Amendment speaks to that pretty clearly. States decide how their elections are held, not the Executive office. The President doesn't govern state election laws, so when he questioned the results of state elections, he was acting as a candidate, not the President. Thus, presidential immunity doesn't apply.

I would be surprised if the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way...but, I suppose, you never know.

-- A2SG, even considering how stacked that body has become these days.....

 

[NxNW]

They at least deserve a speed trial.

How many of them have invoked their right to a speedy trial and had it denied?

 

[Laodicean60]

How many of them have invoked their right to a speedy trial and had it denied?

The government should know prisoner rights, shouldn't they? Maybe they'll get around to it after the election.

 

[JustOneWay]

How many of them have invoked their right to a speedy trial and had it denied?

Not only that, but how many defendants declined a speedy trial?

 

[JustOneWay]

The government should know prisoner rights, shouldn't they? Maybe they'll get around to it after the election.

The defendants have the right to decline a speedy trial. Please post your evidence that the defendants were either not offered a speedy trial or requested one and was denied. This is on you to prove since you asked the question. You are assuming it is the governments fault. Prove it.

 

[NxNW]

The government should know prisoner rights, shouldn't they?

You didn't answer the question.

Maybe they'll get around to it after the election.

Get around to what?

 

[NxNW]

Not only that, but how many defendants declined a speedy trial?

Did anyone demand a speedy trial only to have it denied?

 

[Laodicean60]

You didn't answer the question.

Get around to what?

I don't know and like I said earlier I may have been mistaken about the J6 prisoners.

 

[JustOneWay]

Did anyone demand a speedy trial only to have it denied?

So far, I have found one case. Considering it is an illegal act, I am sure there were not too many. I am sure most defendants received what they requested

Feds admit breaking law with delay in case against alleged Jan. 6 rioter

After highly unusual concession from prosecutors, defense tries quick guilty plea

www.politico.com