President Donald Trump had executive power vested in him through his presidential office.
The reason impeachment, rather than traditional prosecution, applies to the president is because of the uniqueness of the office itself.
The president exposes himself to outsized publicity, controversy, and risk as a result of his office.
In any event, and for the purposes of what is relevant in Jack Smith's two indictments, the factual grounds on which President Trump allegedly committed crime(s) within his official duties as president have already been twice considered by the House of Representatives, for which the President-in conformance with Article II, Sec.
To continue to bring charges against the President for the asserted crimes on which he has already been prosecuted is by definition an abuse of the judicial power and an expressed violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment: "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
In contrast, if an officeholder were acquitted for an alleged crime and served the remainder of his or her term in office, it would not make sense to resume a criminal trial based largely on the same factual grounds on which the acquittal was based, once the acquitted officeholder left his or her post - in particular, after some time elapsed in which the officeholder was acquitted, served out the duration of his or her term, and then became a private citizen - only then to resume the criminal trial for which that officeholder had been acquitted.
In conclusion, Jack Smith's claims are ill founded; to the extent they have any merit at all, they have already been prosecuted to the fullest extent the Constitution allows, and on each count, President Trump has already been acquitted of any and all criminal wrongdoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment