.
.
In defending our Constitution’s adopted unique due process procedure, specifically designed to deal with a public servant of violating his/her office of public trust and engaging in acts considered to be “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” while in office, Hamilton confirms our ordinary judicial system is not the proper venue to try government actors of such offenses. He writes (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."

So, the question is, under what constitutional authority has the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, assumed authority to preside over a trial of former President Trump for charges alleged to have been committed while he was in office, and are essentially the same as those he has already been acquitted of by the Senate?

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."

Article II; Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment.”

Article II; Section 4:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury … "

Considering the above stated facts and documentation, should the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia be put on “judicial notice”, that the Court is trying a case in which it lacks jurisdiction because Trump was acquitted by the Senate of essentially the same charges found in the D.C. Indictment, and not being “convicted” of those offenses is therefore not “…liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" as stated in Article I; Section 3, Clause, 7?

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?