Would trying Trump be considered double jeopardy?
After all, he already faced a Senate trial over this. Legal experts, help me understand this.
Replies to: Would trying Trump be considered double jeopardy?
Jeopardy attaches when a jury is sworn in a criminal trial.
Jeopardy is linked to the loss of one’s liberty — which is not in play at a Congressional committee hearing or a Senate Impeachment trial.
Which is why Dems will never bring actual charges & allow Trump a defense.
(no message)
Political parties don't make charging decisions, except in your America.
(no message)
It's just not the same...without Trebek...
(no message)
Political vs CJ process would be my guess.
(no message)
You know these are hearings and not a court of law, yes?
They may talk about the crimes of Trump and they've proved beyond a reasonable doubt he
was acting as a tyrant who planned a coup attempt against his own gov't but there can be no
criminal charges made by them that would jail him. That's where the DOJ comes in. They can.
It's a simple thing actually. I'm surprised with all your expertise in all things you would ask
that question.
Well done JimB, a simplified straight forward and intelligent statement of the law.
(no message)
We all do. Good to hear you say it though.
(no message)
Obviously, the D's know this and you R's are still stuck on clueless.
And no you all don't know this hence his really silly question.
And do you agree this is one of the best opening/intros in rock?
Some Ds do, I think. A few notable posters here seem bumfuzzeled.
And unfortunately no, I do not share this opinion. I am not a terribly huge fan of Heart.
Both Chris and Baron are right.
(no message)
Chris is correct. Baron presumably flunked 8th grade American Government.
(no message)
How so when I agree with Chris? This is a circus, not a court proceeding. You don’t want crosses.
(no message)
Whoever said it was a court proceeding?
It is a House Select Committee, which has done an exceptional job investigating and presenting the facts of what happened.
Only a willfully blind person will deny how well the committee has connected the dots, in large part because of the committee’s talented and experienced staff — mostly former federal prosecutors.
No reasonable mind regards the committee as “a circus.” The committee’s work product is making an impact.
Not bi-partisan enough for you? Take it up with McCarthy.
BTW, notice how quiet Jim Jordan has been? It is because he is following his lawyer’s advice.
Cross examination is for trials. In a courtroom.
Link: https://january6th.house.gov/
So you admit I was right. Regarding the circus-keep it up. Polls keep dropping on you.
(no message)
Looks like conor didn't even read your posts. He just assumed he knew your position.
(no message)
"Hey! Read the posts, Jack!"
(no message)
Yep. Hope he’s better in his real life.
(no message)
Foe a defense attorney, he sure does like trials in which only the prosecution has a voice.
(no message)
Liberalism Rule #2.
(no message)
So Trump wants his side of the story told?
Is that why h used legal tactics to try to block the release of the White House communication records held at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)? Is that why he succeeded in delaying the release of the documents for about five months?
Is that why some of the documents were found to had been previously torn up by Trump and had to be taped back together by NARA staff?
Is that why Trump routinely shredded and flushed records by his own hand, as well as to have asked staff to place them in burn bags, throughout his presidency?
Is that why, as the presidential diarist testified to the committee in March 2022, the Oval Office did not send the diarist detailed information about Trump's daily activities on January 5 and 6, 2021?
Is that why Trump's phone records from the day of the attack, as provided by NARA to the committee, have a gap of seven-and-a-half hours that spans the time when the Capitol was being attacked?
Is that why the apparently missing records suggest Trump was using a "burner" cell phone during that time?
Is that why Trump asserted executive privilege when the committee began its request for the NARA records in August 2021?
Is that way Trump told Republican leaders not to cooperate with the committee?
Is that why the committee had to issue dozens of subpoenas to legally compel certain uncooperative individuals to testify?
Is that why close Trump associates (co-conspirators) who were subpoenaed nevertheless refused to testify?
Is that why Roger Stone, Mike Flynn and John Eastman pleaded their Fifth Amendment rights?
Is that why Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows were found in contempt of Congress?
There’s a reason why you fit the bill as a Hayseed, Ned.
By Twitter. But not in yet another political trial with no right to question witnesses.
You are being totally disingenuous here. Innocent defendants deserve fair trials...do you agree? or, should only the prosecutor be allowed to speak, and if the defendant tries to thwart the prosecution, you just assume guilt? 30% of the nation not trusting their government seems like an amazingly low number. I would think at least 70% would fear being demonized by your party, and having their children groomed for sex by you...you know, hayseeds, dupes, deplorables and the like...your average mainstream Americans.
Doesn’t everyone deserve a fair defense, hypocrite defense lawyer?
Since this circus allows you to avoid it, you will never bring real charges where Trump would be afforded an actual rebuttal in an actual court of law.
Again for the “hayseed” Jim Jordan slow-pokes here, it is not a trial.
These are hearings to discover what happened on 1/6. His defense is the history of facts. If he were innocent of the 1/6 insurrection planning that evidence would be laid bare.
Why does this take so long for you Rs to understand. You seem to get it when the 60 or so committee were formed to look at Benghazi.
Oh and obviously he is not innocent. Something you’ve known for years.
I think there are a great many who believe it is though. Some here.
But there were also folks that thought being impeached meant Trump was no longer el presidente! So there's that...
Mueller! Mueller!
(no message)
That would get him a law license in Delaware.
(no message)
No
(no message)
True - Dems could do it, but NFW will they expose themselves by doing so.
(no message)
The Dems don’t want any trial or opportunity to cross examine their craptastic lies. This is about
political damage. And it’s failed.
nothing they can do or say--djt will be pous
(no message)