DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

Catch 22.

The Republican Senate would not convict because they said it was up to the courts

Understood.

But Trumps lawyers admitted in a theoretical that a President could be charged with a crime if he ordered the seals to take out a political opponent. But this would only be possible if he were impeached and convicted first.

How the hell is that not double jeopardy?

It’s almost like Trumps lawyers went to Trump University.

I think the argument for dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds is that Trump was charged, tried, and acquitted in the Senate, so any subsequent criminal prosecution would be double jeopardy to that Senate trial and therefore barred.

Then, with presidential immunity, Trump is arguing that one reason we know immunity exists with respect to criminal prosecution in federal court is that the Constitution sets forth a different procedure (Senate trial) so that is evidence the Constitution prohibits federal court prosecution.

I think I summarized that correctly. So there is some nuanced way that Trump's lawyers can make the two competing arguments. But I agree that they are crossing themselves up a lot, and that is going to get pointed out at the SCOTUS.

Lawyers: Does double jeopardy EVER apply to (failed) non-judicial punishments?

And gee, let me wonder if Trump and his lawyers would argue that an ex-president SHOULDN’T be punished AGAIN judicially if already convicted by the Senate? Up to and including murdering political rivals. Cuz, you know, losing your job is sufficient punishment for that.

from google

The most basic understanding of double jeopardy is that it refers to prosecuting a person more than once for the same offense.
Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Many states have codified a similar prohibition on double jeopardy into their constitutions. However, even those that have not done so around bound by this clause of the Fifth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has ruled also applies to the states. The Court held in Benton v. Maryland (1969)that:
"The double jeopardy prohibition of the Fifth Amendment, a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment."
Legally speaking, the concept is somewhat narrower than this simple explanation alone might suggest to those of us who are not deeply involved in the legal profession.
For instance, if you are convicted of car theft, the prohibition on double jeopardy does not mean you can't be prosecuted in the future for theft of another car. It does not mean you cannot be prosecuted for another instance of theft of the same car again in the future. It does not mean that you cannot be prosecuted for violating additional laws at the same time as a result of the exact same actions that put you in violation of the law against car theft.
Once you are acquitted or convicted of a specific instance of violating the law against car theft, however, you cannot be prosecuted (or punished again, if convicted) on that same charge by the same government for that same instance of violating that law.

Trump is not a stain, not by a long shot. He is a far better person than Biden and a better President by a great margin. Trump Derangement Syndrom is a dangerous condition and you have got a bad case.

Trump's argument is more Constitutional text-based than your broad suggestion above. Here is what Trump is saying in his appeal brief:

"That follows from the text of the Clause. It says that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Id. (emphasis added). By specifying that “the Party convicted” is subject to criminal prosecution, the clause “implies” that the Party who is not convicted is not subject to criminal prosecution."

I don't think it's a very good argument, but it isn't frivolous.

I believe Trump is arguing that a President must first be convicted in the Senate before criminal prosecution can happen. So I think the whole SEAL Team 6 thing is Trump arguing that such a president would be immune unless convicted in Senate first.

Anyway, I'm betting this DC Appeals Court working at lightning speed hands down a ruling by Friday, hoping to get this to SCOTUS quickly.

Two things:

1) Aren’t impeachment and criminal charges fundamentally different? To include the former having much more limited punishment options? If yes, were the founders not smart enough to realize that the limited punishments of impeachment should not foreclose the option of criminal charges and additional potential punishment? Again, who would believe that simply losing your job is sufficient punishment for your average felony (not to mention a political murder).

2) I’ll answer my own question: If Trump had been convicted by the Senate, his lawyers WOULD be claiming that he can’t be convicted in court again for anything related to that impeachment.

I’m sorry, regarding #1, the more pertinent question regarding the founders is whether a FAILED impeachment conviction should foreclose, because of double jeopardy, criminal charges? (that could result in potentially far more proportional punishments)

Not to mention the fact that the failed impeachment conviction would be courtesy of politicians, rather than the arguably more rigorous and fair judicial system.

The whole impeachment double jeopardy argument paired with absolute immunity is contradictory and self defeating. If the president has total immunity he can take “official acts” to remove any unfavorable lawmakers that would vote to impeach. Thereby ensuring he can never ever be impeached.

You know, the more we explore the possibility the more we are talking about governments that already exist in the world. North Korea, Russia etc,etc.

We call them crackpot authoritarian governments

I like a president that does not cause us to have these constitutional crises type discussions over their many corrupt actions.

Trump's rise in the polls shows that Russia, N Korea, China or Guatemala is how many Americans want to be. These dictatorships are all as "American as apple pie".

One would think that an impeachment charge in the Senate is such a different proceeding that a criminal charge in court that double jeopardy would not apply. But judging from the briefs, it looks more complicated than that.

One thing that I believe Trump absolutely loses on, even if such type of double jeopardy applies, is that he is not being charged in federal court with the same crime he was being charged with in the Senate. In the Senate, he was charged with Incitement of Insurrection and he has not been charged with Insurrection in federal court. In fact, the prosecution may have decided not to charge him with insurrection because they were worried about double jeopardy with respect to impeachment. (If they get a favorable ruling from SCOTUS on this, the prosecution might even add that charge with a superceding indictment, although it is getting late to add charges).

It is very painful to admit that your (bolded) text is correct.

Indeed, more than one Trumpette has posted on these boards statements along the lines of "Maybe we need a bit of authoritarianism to fix our problems."

People will point to Trump's charisma over his flock as the main reason people will toss aside democracy in 2024 for Trump.

But I think a bigger ingredient is fear. Fox news and then later the entire right wing ecosystem have for 20 years stoked fear into the right wing voter. Yes, fear of absolutely nothing that they need to fear. Many that support Trump are scared to death of all sorts of harmless stuff. Immigrants, CRT, Migrant caravans, Gay people, Wokeism, Disney, books about slavery and equality, someone coming to take their guns, the state of California.

These people honestly view Trump as a savior against all this scary stuff. If you listen to any of Trump's rallies you will see that Trump knows this and works it 24/7. What Trump tweets is insane to normal people but to these people it is like catnip.

Agreed 100%

Irrational fear (leading to anger and hatred) is absolutely the foundation of the Trump movement.

What Trump is doing - and successfully - is exactly the same that led to Hitler's rise to power in the early 30's; he plays on fears and prejudices and presents himself as the "saviour" of the people. The US is now poised where Germany was in 1933. The consequences of the wrong decision by the American people will be catastrophic, as they were then.

Wow. I invite you to watch this video. What trump says is certainly despicable as he excuses his own sexual exploitation no doubt. But take a close look at his demeanor. This is a different Trump. He is angry. He simply does not care about turning on the charm. He simply does not care about spinning anything to make anyone happy or winning anyone over. This is a man under threat of prison for very serious felony charges and he is already on a mission of Payback. At this point, he can only deliver payback with anger, words, names and despicable talk.

Trump knows he has some 30% of the electoral base the he can get to do whatever he wants and does not care about winning any other percentage. I think an argument can be made that Trump is even MORE dangerous than history's despotic dictators as the rose to power. They at least pretended to be for all people and for the good of everyone. Trump is done pretending. He is about staying out of prison and delivery blows to anyone that he does not like.

Forgot the clip

We have had a judge who says he was found to be a rapist, which is a fact Trump cannot dispute in his forthcoming case about the determination of damages awarded to his victim. But Republicans and white evangelicals don't care about that. They are ok with their guy being a rapist - and whatever else he is found guilty of.