Could a US president be advance pardoned from the result of a senate trial following impeachment? Non-American here, trying to puzzle things out. If I understand correctly, a US president can grant pardons, but only for federal crimes. If I understand correctly, impeachment is a political act, and not a crime as such. Would a senate trial following an impeachment be a federal crime? If so, could a president be advanced pardoned for such a trial? I understand that there is uncertainty as to whether a president can pardon him/herself. So, let us posit that they resign and are given a blanket pardon along the lines of that given by Ford to Nixon. Could that pardon apply to a senate trial following impeachment?
No Section 2, Clause 1 says: ... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Impeachment is explicitly carved out from the President's power to pardon.
"I don't recall" will protect you from perjury only if it's true. Let me try an example. You're asked: "Did Mr. Blatter hand you an envelope full of cash?" You say: "Not to my recollection." Now the government introduces a videotape of you receiving and counting the money, and a thank-you note you wrote to Blatter saying "Thanks for the awesome bribe!" You can defend yourself from perjury charges if you can convince the finder of fact that you had forgotten all of those things...but it's not very likely, is it? "I don't recall" isn't a magic bullet. It's like any other statement: it's perjury unless it's true.
A quick answer: your analogy isn't quite right. The Constitution gives the House "the sole power of impeachment." So unlike you, their work is never "going to court." No judge is ever going to look at the evidence they used and say, "You only used notes, not a final report. That isn't good enough, or admissible." A longer answer: impeachment is not a legal process. It is a political process. The only binding requirements are those found in the Constitution. These cover who can be impeached and tried, for what, how punished and by whom. All other matters of procedure are decided by each house. There are several sets of rules and precedents that cover impeachment. But if the House or Senate decides to ignore these rules and make up new rules, they can. After all, Article I of the Constitution gives each house "sole power" over impeachment and trial. It also gives each house the power to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings." You might ask, why, if impeachment is a political process, do so many people talk about it as if it was a legal process? The answer is simple: Both sides are busy trying to put their spin on what is going on in the House. If either side believes they will get more support by talking about impeachment in legal terms, that is how they will talk about it. But this spin should not hide the reality: impeachment is political. That impeachment is political does not mean that it should not be guided by the same values that guide legal processes. Of course, the hearings should be fair, the President should get due process, and so on. But because they are political, no court is going to step in and assure that they are fair. The only guarantee that the President will get a fair hearing and due process is also political. If enough Americans think he did not get treated fairly, or was denied due process, or what impeached unfairly, they can vote the Democrats out of office. Politics is the key to understanding much of what has gone on so far in the impeachment process. For instance, for a long time, Speaker Pelosi refused to hold a vote on whether to formally start impeachment proceedings. She offered a variety of explanations for this, but the truth was that she did not want to force Democrats from close districts to have to openly vote against the President. Similarly, Republicans, who wanted to force Democrats from close districts to vote against the President, argued that it was unfair, illegal or unconstitutional to have any hearings on impeachment without such a vote. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans in the House, Democrats got to decide when that vote was held. Of course, if the House does impeach, and the Senate has to try the President, since Republicans control the Senate, they will control the rules, etc.
There is no constitutional provision which grants the President such power. I am not aware of any provision of federal law which grants such power, nor of any case where a real president has exercised such a power. Of course, the President is a citizen, and any citizen may make a Citizen's arrest Particularly for a felony. (See also this FindLaw page on the subject.) And of course, as the head of the executive department, the President could order someone who clearly has powers of arrest to make an arrest, although such an order would not be valid in the absence of legal cause to make an arrest. A comment called atention to 10 USC §252 which provides: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. The history for this section dates from 1861. A note indicates that a prior version was the basis of Executive order 10730, sending federal forces into Little Rock, AK in 1957 to enforce school integration there. However, this section does not explicitly increase the arrest powers of anyone, and does not grant the President personally any power of arrest.
Yes, this is plausible. To be doctrinally precise, "jeopardy" attaches when the jury is sworn in. Once jeopardy attaches, there can only be a second trial if: The defendant is convicted of a charge that is reversed on appeal or in a collateral attack on the conviction. There is a mistrial that is attributable to the defendant or the defendant's counsel's conduct (e.g. the defendant is observed by the bailiff trying to bribe a juror with cash in exchange for voting to acquit), or is requested by the defendant or his counsel (who has not been "goaded" into doing so by the government). There is a mistrial that is not attributable to the conduct of either the prosecution or the defendant. As explained here: Mistrials are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause. If a judge dismisses the case or concludes the trial without deciding the facts in the defendant's favor (for example, by dismissing the case on procedural grounds), the case is a mistrial and may normally be retried. Furthermore, if a jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial and order a retrial as was addressed in United States v. Josef Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824). When the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, even if the prosecutor or judge caused the error that forms the basis of the motion. An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in bad faith. In Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982), the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion."
What are the factors in weighting whether to disclose substantive evidence vs. using it for impeachment at trial? In an adversarial system (such as that in the jurisdictions in the U.S.) the surprise factor is disallowed on trial. I am not knowledgeable on the procedural exceptions, but generally speaking the documentary evidence (including deposition transcripts) has to be filed during the discovery stage of proceedings. A discovery deadline is set up during case scheduling, and extensions of that deadline have to be requested via motion. There is the slightly related concept of sequestration of witnesses whereby inconsistencies may serve to impeach a witness's testimony, but that is different than withholding from the jury any pre-existing evidence that a plaintiff would like to be considered on trial (whether for impeachment or otherwise). Also, it is in the injured party's best interest that the jury get to see the evidence rather than have it merely rely on a witness's reaction of surprise. The wrongdoer's lawyer will try to confuse the jury and thus outweigh the jury's perception of a "surprised witness", but that attempt is likelier to fail if the jury has the evidence with which to compare the witness's testimony at trial.
Yes... whether the judge will grant the subpoena is another matter and one that it is to premature to speculate on. With what I have seen of the indictment, Pence was not named as a witness in the investigation, which will call into question why he is being asked to testify to events that were not used to indict Trump (if he saw something, that should come out in the investigation prior to trial.). Without some show that the testimony was material to the investigations findings and the charge I doubt it would be granted... but there's nothing stopping the prosecution for requesting the subpoena.
I am presuming at this point that no one is &quot;the President elect&quot; in the eyes of the Constitution until the electoral college votes in December. In the 20th amendment, the beginning of the sentence is : If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died... So, that means January 20th, according to section 1 of the same amendment. At that time, not only have the electors already voted since at least a month, but Congress supposedly has certified the election of the dead guy and his running mate 14 days prior. That's the time when someone is or isn't president-elect in regards to this amendment. That's for your first sentence. Now for the rest, and taking your example of the 2020 election, if Biden had died between November and December, the options available to the Electors in each state are different. Some will be able to vote for someone else than Biden for president, possibly someone named by the DCCC, but many Electors in different states will not have that option. The way I see it, there's two options. Either there are no (or almost no) faithless Electors, then the Biden/Harris ticket gets certified on January 6th (what could possibly go wrong 👀), then pursuant to the 20th amendment Harris gets sworn in as the President on January 20th. Or, a lot of the Electors who can legally be faithless, get faithless, then the democratic electoral votes are split, no ticket gets to 270, which triggers a contingent election by the House of Reps (and the Senate selects the VP). Who they elect is anyone's guess. So, if you allow me a bit of presumption as to what you meant, you seemed to imply that Electors voting for a dead guy would be absurd, but in fact it seems like it would be the safest scenario for their party.