re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.

quote:

---

Clinton lied under oath, and obstructed justice. Criminal offenses. Was impeached, and was acquitted. Faced no other criminal indictments to this day

Andrew Johnson willingly and opened violated a statute. He also made threats against the Congress. He was impeached and acquitted. And faced no more criminal indictments from that time forward

---

quote:

---

The Constitution also clearly states, only IF CONVICTED is the person subject to further legal action

---

quote:

---

There is no ambiguity to that statement.

---

quote:

---

In this case, appellant contends that as an active federal judge he has an absolute right not to be tried in a federal court unless and until he is impeached and convicted by Congress. Like the right secured by the speech or debate clause in Helstoski or the right secured by the double jeopardy clause in Abney, the right asserted by Hastings is the freedom from the obligation to endure a criminal trial which would be wholly deprived of meaning if he were forced to undergo trial before he could assert it. See United States v. Brizendine, 659 F.2d 215, 219 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

---

quote:

---

We find no merit in appellant's argument. Rather, we agree with the seventh circuit that this portion of section 3 was intended "to assure that after impeachment a trial on criminal charges is not foreclosed by the principle of double jeopardy." United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d at 1142.8 Read in this light, section 3 represents an attempt by the framers to anticipate and respond to questions that might arise regarding the procedural rights of the accused during the impeachment process. Like article III, § 2, cl. 3 which provides that the right to trial by jury does not extend to impeachment proceedings,9 section 3 serves to clarify the rights of civil officers accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, not to limit the jurisdiction of article III courts.

---