A better question is why can't you?
"...Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence"...."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimin...between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html
You do know that OJ Simpson wasn't being tried for murder in the civil case?
Do you people just say **** and hope the weight of idiotic numbers will make you right? :lamo
Sorry, that's entirely bull****.
I'll qualify the statement you highlighted:
No one is interested in taking him down for no good reason, as the reasons for wanting to take him down are significant, and justified.
You are welcome to refute that, if you can.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/Perhaps you think this is poetic justice for Hannity, who is not above using flimsy evidence to lambaste political opponents and Trump critics. But as a very wise federal judge once admonished me, courts “don’t do poetic justice, they do prosaic justice” — the routine, workaday adherence to the principles and standards on which the rule of law depends.
Under that kind of justice, courts protect uncharged people from being identified in public proceedings in connection with criminal investigations. The failure of the court and the government lawyers to enforce that standard just adds fuel to the fiery contention that, where President Trump is involved, investigations are driven by politics, not law enforcement.
Some people dont agree with you.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/sean-hannity-outing-violates-legal-standards/
I'm not seeing the national review quote in conflict with my point. NO one is suggesting taking him down without well reasoned arguments, evidence, hearings of those for and against, etc.
Well then, since Trump and his buddies couldn't possibly be guilty, then there is nothing to worry about...Uh, cause the only reason they are trying to do this is to make it so that if Trump "gets" away at a federal level New York can charge him or his associates with crimes. You can't honestly be this blind.
Yes, it's called "double jeopardy". It's in The Constitution where it says a person can't be tried for the same crime twice.
Checks and balances.
I assume you meant six words. Nice job with the counting. Almost as poor as your ability to form an argument. But I understand. Another person that can't form a coherent argument so they run away.
A better question is why can't you?
"...Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's death by a "preponderance of the evidence"...."
https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimin...between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html
Your simple lack of understanding of basic English and basic ideas of law is frankly sad. It makes sense that you tend to be on the far left of ideas. You simply don't understand much of anything regarding logic, truth, or better yet general comprehension of ideas.
Ewww. I highly suggest you stop trying to make this personal.
Uh, cause the only reason they are trying to do this is to make it so that if Trump "gets" away at a federal level New York can charge him or his associates with crimes. You can't honestly be this blind.
There's no way that's constitutional. The 5th Amendment says "same offense" not "same statute".
I gave you the answer on this, and SCOTUS ruled on it. It is legal, it is not unconstitutional. Time to grasp the reality of your Supreme Court ruling. I posted it in reply to your utter and repeated nonsense.
Note that a Canadian has schooled you on your Constitution. LMAO
Here it is again
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2018/01/16/17-646_gamble_opp.pdf
And another.
Dual Sovereignty Doctrine Definition
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?