CASUS BELLI: January 6 Committee Seeks Prosecution of Trump, Says It Has Enough “Evidence” to Indict Trump

The final act of the coup. It’s all about, it’s always been about, keeping Trump off the ballot.

CA casus belli is an act or an event that either provokes or is used to justify a war. A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war.

The Democrats’ Insurrection Circus Ignores the Real Insurrection, the One They Supported

January 6 Committee Seeks Prosecution of Trump, Raising Question of Double Jeopardy

By: A. R. Hoffman, NY Sun, June 13, 2022:

When on Monday morning the cameras click on for the second public hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, the resemblance to a legal rather than a legislative proceeding likely will not be just uncanny, but undeniable.

More than just Americans at large, the audience for the committee’s work appears to be Attorney General Garland. It is his Justice Department that will ultimately decide whether to bring charges against President Trump, or anyone else.

Since the hearings began on Thursday, calls for criminal indictments based on the committee’s work have accelerated, with Representative Adam Schiff urging the Department of Justice to “investigate any credible allegation of criminal activity on the part of Donald Trump.”

As talk of indictments and prosecution heats up, one constitutional question is starting to come into sharp relief — the prohibition against double jeopardy. The parchment’s Fifth Amendment states that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

Double jeopardy stands for the idea that irrespective of whether a verdict is guilty or innocent, a person cannot be tried a second time on the same criminal charges. This does not apply to charges brought up by the state and federal governments, as they are considered independent sovereignties.

The committee, whose staff is stocked with federal prosecutors, is intimately familiar with the nature of those deliberations. Two of the committee’s highest-profile members, Representatives Schiff and Jamie Raskin, led the impeachment trials against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Schiff has not been shy about urging the executive branch to apply itself, noting “there are certain actions, parts of these different lines of effort to overturn the election that I don’t see evidence the Justice Department is investigating.”

Any such investigation will occur in the shadow of Mr. Trump’s second impeachment, whose sole article included “incitement to insurrection” and “lawless action at the Capitol,” overlapping with the events that the committee has spent months pondering.

The outcome of that trial — a legal and political hybrid designed by the Founders — was an unambiguous verdict of “not guilty.” It may be that a majority of the senators, 57, voted to convict. That, though, is far short of the constitutionally required supermajority of 67.

That experience, in which Mr. Raskin spearheaded the prosecution, is likely what prompted him to promise that the committee will be able to demonstrate “a lot more than incitement.” Speaking at Harvard University’s commencement, Mr. Garland vowed “we will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

There is, though, a startling feature of the Constitution’s language in respect of impeachment. While impeachment proceedings have the accoutrements of a trial, including the chief justice of the United States presiding and the Senate sitting as jury, a guilty verdict does not activate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy.

That amendment’s language has been read broadly by our courts as prohibiting double jeopardy for any crime. If one is convicted in an impeachment and removed from office, though, the Constitution allows for a second trial in a regular court.

“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,” is how the Constitution puts it, “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

That second trial is available, though, only to “the Party convicted.” This raises the question of what happens if the party — like Mr. Trump — is acquitted. That is, was discovered by trial in the Senate to be, in fact, “not guilty,” as the Senate pronounced it. In this case, is the government empowered to try in regular court a person who was acquitted in an impeachment?

An attempt to bring charges against Mr. Trump in connection with insurrection could well be the first time this question has been presented. None of the three presidents who have been impeached — Andrew Johnson, William Clinton, and Donald Trump — were tried in criminal court after their conviction…….

Reads the rest.