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

[lagomorph777]

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.

[NewJeffCT]

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?

[Adrahil]

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.

[lagomorph777]

10. Exactly, thank you!

It's inclusive, not exclusive.

[unblock]

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....

[tritsofme]

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.

[lagomorph777]

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

[tritsofme]

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?

[lagomorph777]

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.

[tritsofme]

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.

[lagomorph777]

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.

[saidsimplesimon]

26. You and Stephen Colbert,

have a way with comedy and words.

[billh58]

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.

[FreepFryer]

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

[Adrahil]

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.

[lagomorph777]

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

[duforsure]

8. Including Gorsuch.

[bucolic_frolic]

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?

[lagomorph777]

13. We'll be nice.

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

[onenote]

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.

[bucolic_frolic]

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.

[Demsrule86]

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

[lagomorph777]

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.

[Demsrule86]

25. I don't think it is possible.

[lagomorph777]

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).

[scipan]

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/

[lagomorph777]

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!

[bdamomma]

23. please let him be gone

enough already.