Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment
would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not >guilty.

States rights. Colorado has the right to its own opinion.

Not only that. It wasn't a real trial. The "jury" voted almost entirely
on political affiliation. (There were 5 or 10 Republicans with honor and
the rest voted to acquit becuase Republican voters wanted them to.)
There ws no voir dir to find unbiased "jurors", and they were about as
biased as one could ever find.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment >would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

No, impeachment trials do not count when deciding on double jeopardy. Because... What jeopardy is there during an impeachment? It is being
put out of office (and I gather from what I read 3 years ago, they can
also require that you not hold the office in the future.)

But what does the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Anmendment say? "nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb" Impeachments don't put anyone in jeopardy of
life or limb. And keeping someone off the ballot doesn't put him in
jeopardy of life or limb either.

Isn't trump in court arguing this right now, based just as you say, on
his impeachment, or was it last week and it's been ruled on? There are
so many court cases I can't keep track. If he didn't lose on this, he
will.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

Not being allowed on the ballot is not a punishment. it's a matter of
not meeting the qualifications required to be on the ballot. If he were
20 years old or if he were not a natural born citizen, and they wouldn't
put him on the ballow, would you consider that to be punishment?

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me...

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not >guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment >would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

Because impeachment is not a criminal action - it is a political action.
He was not found not guilty in a court of law of any crime. Also, note the Fifth Amendment reference to Double Jeopardy actually states: "nor shall
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb". Since impeachment is not a criminal trial, the President was not in jeopardy of "life or limb". His only jeopardy was losing his job.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/21/2023 7:06 AM, Rick wrote:

"Roy"  wrote in message news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me...

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found
not guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict.  The 5th
amendment would seem to preclude trying him again because of double
jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not
guilty?

Because impeachment is not a criminal action - it is a political action.
He was not found not guilty in a court of law of any crime.  Also, note
the Fifth Amendment reference to Double Jeopardy actually states:   "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb".  Since impeachment is not a criminal trial,
the President was not in jeopardy of "life or limb".  His only jeopardy
was losing his job.

--

The word "trial" or "criminal" is not mentioned. If someone is being
put in jail that is being deprived of "life". It has also been applied
where the offense is a fine (example traffic). So loss of job could be construed as a monetary penalty.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:um1m45$14eh8$1@dont-email.me...

On 12/21/2023 7:06 AM, Rick wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me...

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment >>> would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not
guilty?

Because impeachment is not a criminal action - it is a political action.
He was not found not guilty in a court of law of any crime. Also, note
the Fifth Amendment reference to Double Jeopardy actually states: "nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb". Since impeachment is not a criminal trial,
the President was not in jeopardy of "life or limb". His only jeopardy
was losing his job.

--

The word "trial" or "criminal" is not mentioned. If someone is being put >in jail that is being deprived of "life". It has also been applied where
the offense is a fine (example traffic). So loss of job could be construed >as a monetary penalty.

But in the case of Congress, nothing in the Constitution or in the rules of either chamber prohibits a president from being impeached twice on the same charges. It has never happened, but nothing would prohibit it. That's because impeachment is a political and not a criminal proceeding.

I get that the wording of the Fifth Amendment is vague and doesn't specify "trial" or "criminal", but I think it has been long interpreted to apply to such. Otherwise, it could be extended to any situation where a person is
in jeopardy of loss of job, such as an internal investigation by a private company to determine if a person should be fired for a particular action.
Let's assume a company investigates an employee for some potential violation
of rules (putting the employee in obvious jeopardy of losing their job) and decides the person is innocent and can keep their job. The next day there
is a change in management and the new team comes in and re-investigates the employee on the exact same charges and decides to fire the employee.
Assuming employment at will and no contracts, etc., and assuming no obvious racial or gender discrimination, etc., nothing would prohibit the person
from being fired.

I can't cite specific examples, but I'm sure the courts have held that the Fifth Amendment only applies to actual court proceedings where the jeopardy
is imprisonment or a fine, and not a political proceeding, which is what impeachment is.



--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Roy" wrote in message news:um1m45$14eh8$1@dont-email.me...

On 12/21/2023 7:06 AM, Rick wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me...

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not
guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment >>> would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not
guilty?

Because impeachment is not a criminal action - it is a political action.
He was not found not guilty in a court of law of any crime. Also, note
the Fifth Amendment reference to Double Jeopardy actually states: "nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb". Since impeachment is not a criminal trial,
the President was not in jeopardy of "life or limb". His only jeopardy
was losing his job.

--

The word "trial" or "criminal" is not mentioned. If someone is being put >in jail that is being deprived of "life". It has also been applied where
the offense is a fine (example traffic). So loss of job could be construed >as a monetary penalty.

Here is a pretty definitive statement on this issue from the Dept. of
Justice:

https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download




--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote in news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me:

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found
not guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th
amendment would seem to preclude trying him again because of double
jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not
guilty?

He wasn't actually found not guilty. Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution. They just decided not to expel him as President. People
can be prosecuted more than once on the same behavior if it's different entities that are doing the prosecution. Congress prosecuting Trump for insurrection is a different "sovereign" than the US government.

In the 1960s in the South there were racists who murdered blacks because
of their race, and were acquitted by all white juries. The federal
government was allowed to prosecute them again, for the same actions, for violation of the victims' constitutional rights.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy wrote:

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not guilty.

Technically no, but we'll let that pass.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict.

The government did not try him. An impeachment followed by trial is
not strictly speaking a criminal proceeding, and in any case "the
government" is the executive branch. The Department of Justice was
not involved in the proceedings of Congress, under the doctrine of
separation of powers.

The 5th amendment
would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

It would, if the proceeding before Congress has been a criminal
proceeding, but it wasn't. <https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation02.html>
explains the concept of double jeopardy, and the key sentence is
"... it is now settled that the clause protects with regard to every
indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined
crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute."

An impeachment is not an indictment, and "high crimes and
misdemeanors", which is the only statement in the Constitution of
what an officer can be impeached for, is not defined anywhere. (In
the Clinton impeachment, as I recall, a high-ranking member of the
House of Representatives said something like "a high crime and
misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives
and two thirds of the Senate think it is.") The Founders deliberately
left it vague because it's easy to see how a government official can
do something that is seriously to the detriment of the United States,
without it being a specifically defined crime. (I'm looking at you,
Clarence Thomas.)

In short, "double jeopardy" refers to criminal proceedings in the
courts, which impeachment is not. And even in standard criminal
trials, if a given act is both a state crime and a federal crime, if
you're tried in one venue and acquitted, you can still be tried in
the other. In the 1950s and 1960s, as I recall, Southerners who
murdered civil rights leaders were routinely acquitted in state
courts, but when then tried again on the Federal charge and were
found guilty.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

He wasn't found not guilty in any criminal sense, and he's not being
"punished under the 14th Amendment". Is a 30-year-old who wants to be
President being punished because the folks who make up the ballots
exclude her? Are Barack Obama and George W. Bush being punished
because they can't run again? Of course not? Article II says you have
to be 35 to be President, and the 22nd Amendment says you can't be
President if you've already been elected President twice. In the same
way, the 14th Amendment says you can't be president if you took an
oath to defend the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection. Of
course "insurrection" is not as black-and-white as "35 years old",
but both the trial court and the Supreme Court of Colorado agreed
that Trump did engage in insurrection.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:03:13 -0800 (PST), micky wrote:

No, impeachment trials do not count when deciding on double jeopardy. Because... What jeopardy is there during an impeachment? It is being
put out of office (and I gather from what I read 3 years ago, they can
also require that you not hold the office in the future.)

Not just that office, _any_ office. Article I, section 3:

"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."

But what does the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Anmendment say? "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb" Impeachments don't put anyone in jeopardy of
life or limb. And keeping someone off the ballot doesn't put him in jeopardy of life or limb either.

True, but courts have ruled that double jeopardy doesn't just apply
to life and limb.

"It is now settled that the clause protects with regard to every
indictment or information charging a party with a known and defined
crime or misdemeanor, whether at the common law or by statute."

<https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation02.html>

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:34:48 -0800 (PST), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com>
wrote:

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

He is not being punished. He is being disqualified from running as
president. The 14th amendment does not require a criminal conviction to
exclude a person from holding office.

After the civil war no one was convicted of insurrection.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th amendment >>would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

The impeachment clause says:

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 second clause seems clear enough to me, and I see no reason to
believe that the 5th intended to change it.


--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12/20/2023 10:34 PM, Roy wrote:

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found not guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict.  The 5th amendment would seem to preclude trying him again because of double jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not guilty?

The impeachment process is completely separate from the court process.

The HR impeached Trump (twice) but both times the Senate refused to
convict -- that requires a 2/3 majority (67 Senators voting Yea).

The 5th amendment states:
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
in jeopardy of life or limb; "

The courts have held that applies to jail/prison time as well. It
doesn't say anything about being barred from holding office.

The New York Times (of all organizations) published a piece explaining
why using the 14th Amendment to keep Trump off the ballot is a bad idea.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Fri, 22 Dec 2023 08:54:33 -0800 (PST),
"Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote in news:um0m96$vipv$1@dont-email.me:

Congress impeached Donald Trump for "insurrection" but he was found
not guilty.

Question:

The federal government tried him and did not convict. The 5th
amendment would seem to preclude trying him again because of double
jeopardy.

How can he be punished under the 14th amendment if he was found not
guilty?

He wasn't actually found not guilty. Impeachment was not a criminal >prosecution. They just decided not to expel him as President. People
can be prosecuted more than once on the same behavior if it's different >entities that are doing the prosecution. Congress prosecuting Trump for >insurrection is a different "sovereign" than the US government.

In the 1960s in the South there were racists who murdered blacks because
of their race, and were acquitted by all white juries. The federal >government was allowed to prosecute them again, for the same actions, for >violation of the victims' constitutional rights.

I'm still not happy with the dual sovereign situation. The civil rights movement cases might be another case of Hard cases make bad law, even
though it was justified.

For a long time there aiui there were few cases that were rimes under b
both state and federal law. Probably none at the start, but for example, starting when banks were insured by a federal agency, I guess bank fraud becaome a federal crime and not just a state crime.

Murder was not a federal crime, and it still isn't except on federal
property and maybe later, killing a federal official off federal
property. But the utter failure of the state system to deal properly
with the murder of civil rights workers called for extreme action. So
there still is no general federal law against murder and they were
charged with violating the civil rights of the person they murdered.
What an understatement.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)