Trump Indictments Are Unconstitutional Due to Double Jeopardy, Have No Merit
In any case, the factual grounds upon which President Trump is alleged to have committed a crime or crimes while performing his official duties as president have already been twice considered by the House of Representatives, for which the president—in accordance with Article II, Sec. 4—was acquitted both times by the Senate. This is relevant for the purposes of what is relevant in Jack Smith’s two indictments. All available legal remedies have been used up as a result of the Senate’s decision not to convict President Trump of the alleged crimes he committed. Therefore, continuing to bring charges against the president for the alleged crimes for which he has already been tried is by definition an abuse of judicial power and a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy: “…nor shall any person be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence.”
Notably, Article I, Section 3’s Impeachment Judgment Clause states that “a person convicted upon an Impeachment, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.” A straightforward interpretation of the phrase permits the indictment only after a person has been found guilty. This is in accordance with the long-standing judicial construction principle known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which states that because the relevant clause does not include the word “acquittal,” the framers intended that only officeholders who had already been found guilty of their alleged crimes would be subject to further investigation. As a result, officeholders who had already been exonerated based on constitutional procedure were not subject to further investigation. Wells Fargo Bank v. United States, 485 U.S. 351, 357 (1988).
According to the Supreme Court, “the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Mitchell v. Helvering, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). There is simply no alternative kind of legal redress that is allowable under the Constitution because the president has already been prosecuted—twice—for the alleged crimes supporting both of Jack Smith’s charges.
To sum up, Jack Smith’s allegations are unfounded; to the degree they have any merit at all, they have already been investigated to the utmost extent permitted by the Constitution, and on each count, President Trump has already been cleared of all criminal wrongdoing.