Federal Court lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes

[johnwk]

Federal Court lacks prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez’s alleged crimes

.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, for alleged criminal Acts - accepting bribes as a Senator of the United States, and illegally acting as a foreign agent, on behalf of Egypt and Qatar – which violate his office of public trust. His trial begins today 9/15/2024 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

But, the fact is, the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over Senator Menendez because the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution to try a federal officer who is accused of criminal conduct affecting his office of public trust, was intentionally placed in the Senate's hands and not a federal district court, unless being first convicted by the Senate.

Hamilton confirms the above in Federalist 65:

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives… .

. . . These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments."


Some provisions of our Constitution relevant to the due process to be afforded to those holding an office of public trust and are charged with violating that trust are:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:

“The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 6:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be in Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be ... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."


Why are so many determined to subvert the due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution, to deal with a federal office holder who is accused of criminal acts which violate their office of public trust?

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[acptulsa]

He merely can't be prosecuted while a sitting Senator. He can be prosecuted -- in that court -- after being removed from office, either by impeachment or by the voters of his state.

It's really not that difficult a concept.

The only thing about this which is the least bit surprising or confusing is a senator getting busted for bribery this many years after they made campaign contributions of basically any size, for basically any amount of quid pro quo, legal for themselves.

 

[johnwk]

He merely can't be prosecuted while a sitting Senator. He can be prosecuted -- in that court -- after

After being convicted by the Senate as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be ... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" . . . and in a federal district court.

.

 

[acptulsa]

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be ... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" . . . and in a federal district court.

.

No, any ex-senator can be indicted. It doesn't make one bit of difference to anyone but you how he or she became an ex-senator.

 

[johnwk]

federal due process procedure for one violating his/her public trust

No, any ex-senator can be indicted. It doesn't make one bit of difference to anyone but you how he or she became an ex-senator.

I appreciate your opinion, but it is not in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and its due process procedure intentionally adopted to deal with a federal office holder of criminal acts while in office.


I am talking about the due process procedure intentionally adopted, and written into our Constitution, to deal with one holding a federal office of public trust, who uses their office to engage in criminal conduct.

After studying the charges for which Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has been INDICTED and then reading the Congressional Research Report, Impeachment and the Constitution part of which states:
.
.
"While evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse, the evidence available indicates that they considered impeachment to be an essential tool to hold government officers accountable for political crimes, or offenses against the state. 70 James Madison considered it “indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief executive,” as the President might “pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression,” or “betray his trust to foreign powers.” 71 Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” 72 Such offenses were “POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” 73 These political offenses could take innumerable forms and simply could not be neatly delineated. 74"
.

I am of the opinion that the first step to deal with Sen. Menendez is the have the Senate convict him of the charges, which then opens the door for him being "... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and in a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[acptulsa]

I appreciate your opinion, but it is not in harmony with the documented legislative intent of our Constitution, and its due process procedure intentionally adopted to deal with a federal office holder of criminal acts while in office.

Sure it is. And thank you for saying, "...while in office." That's the whole point, and perfectly in line with what I said.

You're just advocating for a different opinion because someone told you that would help Trump.

 

[johnwk]

Sure it is. And thank you for saying, "...while in office." That's the whole point, and perfectly in line with what I said.

You're just advocating for a different opinion because someone told you that would help Trump.

It appears you are now agreeing that both Trump and Menendez are being prosecuted in a court without proecutorial jurisdiction because neither have been convicted by the Senate, which is necessary to then be prosecuted in a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

 

[acptulsa]

It appears you are now agreeing that both Trump and Menendez are being prosecuted in a court without proecutorial jurisdiction because neither have been convicted by the Senate...

Does it?

How hard do you have to squint your eyes to hallucinate that? Do you have to print my words so you have them on something you can twist and spin before it looks that way to you? Are drugs involved?

 

[johnwk]

Does it?

Yes. Of course, I am assuming you agree that one who holds a federal office of public trust and violates that public trust by engaging in criminal acts using their office of public trust, must first be convicted by the Senate, which then opens the door to being "... liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", and by a federal district court as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:

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.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes. Of course, I am assuming you agree that one who holds a federal office of public trust and violates that public trust by engaging in criminal acts using their office of public trust, must first be convicted by the Senate, which then opens the door to being "...

I'm not that stupid. I can read. The language says impeachment does not preclude indictment. It does not say it's a necessary prior step.

Getting the crook out of office one way or another is a necessary prior step if and only if he or she is still in office. And nowhere in the Constitution does it specify which route out into the street the crook must take.

So stop assuming. You're only making an ass out of you by doing it, not me.

 

[johnwk]

I'm not that stupid. I can read. The language says impeachment does not preclude indictment. It does not say it's a necessary prior step.

See the INDICTMENT for what is being charged.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, the prosecutorial jurisdiction question, as related to one who holds an office of public trust and uses that office to engage in criminal conduct, as I have presented it, has never been tested in the Supreme Court.

But see: Smith v. United States, where a unanimous court held that when a venue for a criminal trial was improper, the conviction should be vacated with the possibility of a retrial.

Seems quite clear one who holds an office of public trust and violates that trust, must first be convicted by our Senate which would then make a federal district court, a court of competent jurisdiction, to further try the convicted party "according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clauses 7:

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.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I would point out that federal judge Walter Nixon was convicted of perjury, and this conviction was.the basis for his subsequent removal from office by the Senate via impeachment.

 

[TheCount]

This is what being a Trump apologist does to a person.

They end up defending Bob Fucking Menendez because his circumstances are vaguely similar to Trump's.

 

[johnwk]

This is what being a Trump apologist does to a person.

They end up defending Bob $#@!ing Menendez because his circumstances are vaguely similar to Trump's.

I didn't know you are a Trump apologist.

Aside from that, the historical evidence confirms, impeachment's due process procedure is intended for all those exercising a federal public trust who violates that trust. And that fact has nothing to do with your absurd political partisan nonsense.

JWK

[FONT=&quot]The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)[/FONT]

 

[acptulsa]

I didn't know you are a Trump apologist.

How old are you?

 

[johnwk]

How old are you?

I see you have yet to respond to THIS POST

.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I see you have yet to respond to THIS POST

.

And I see you have yet to respond to the fact that Walter Nixon was first convicted and later impeached,

 

[johnwk]

QUESTION: Why has the House not impeached Senator Menendez?

And I see you have yet to respond to the fact that Walter Nixon was first convicted and later impeached,

.



Of course I haven't. The subject of the thread has to do with our Founder's reasons for putting the impeachment process, and its due process, in our Constitution.



As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.

The problem is, our entire Congress, House and Senate, has become one big happy family and den of thieves behind closed doors, and they protect each other’s rear end.

As a matter of fact, when one carefully studies the bills they vote on, almost all use their vote to plunder our federal treasury for objects not authorized by our Constitution, and this is the first step in their massive money laundering operation by which, in the end, redistributes $ BILLIONS, even $ TRILLIONS, from our federal treasury, and fattens their own fortunes and the fortunes of their major donors.

So why would they want to hold one of their own accountable, and impeach them for using their office of public trust for personal gain? Almost every one of these scoundrels are in on the act and doing it. The plundering of our federal treasury has become so common these days, members of Congress begin re-balancing their checkbooks after bills are passed and the President signs them, who is also in on the act along with his staff.

JWK

Under today’s authoritarian democrat party leadership, our government doesn’t help to fix the nation’s problems. It fixes the people, like Trump, who dare to point to the nation’s problems.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.[/quote/quote

Your problem is that this clause doesn't say that impeachment must precede a criminal trial. It simply says that if a party is removed from office via impeachment he can still be held accountable for any alleged criminal activity. Such a result should be obvious, since impeachment is a civil matter and not a criminal one and that removal from office needn't be based on any criminal activity (one federal judge was removed for drunkenness, which by itself isn't a crime).*

The Nixon case is inconsistent with your theory that impeachment must precede a criminal trial. I guess Nixon, his lawyers, and the judge all missed your theory. Not surprising, since there's nothing in the Constitution to support it.

George Carlin explained this in his brilliant discussion of everyday expressions:

 

[Sonny Tufts]

As much as I think Sen. Menendez probably was involved in some criminal and unethical activity connected to his office of public trust, he still is entitled to the unique due process procedure adopted into our Constitution for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust. And that procedure requires the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, before he can be made “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law”, as per Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7:

”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."

If a Senator is found guilty by the Senate of violating his office of public trust, then, and only then, is the door opened for that Senator to be “… liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." But that Senator is entitled to the special due process procedure agreed upon in our Constitution for those who violate their federal office of public trust.[/quote/quote]

Your problem is that this clause doesn't say that impeachment must precede a criminal trial. It simply says that if a party is removed from office via impeachment he can still be held accountable for any alleged criminal activity. Such a result should be obvious, since impeachment is a civil matter and not a criminal one and that removal from office needn't be based on any criminal activity (one federal judge was removed for drunkenness, which by itself isn't a crime).*

The Nixon case is inconsistent with your theory that impeachment must precede a criminal trial. I guess Nixon, his lawyers, and the judge all missed your theory. Not surprising, since there's nothing in the Constitution to support it.

George Carlin explained this in his brilliant discussion of everyday expressions: