On msnbc, former usa unwittingly reveals what totalitarian democrats are up to vs. the President

By Nicholas Stix

This afternoon, Katy Tur interviewed former u.s. attorney Chuck Rosenberg on msnbc.

Rosenberg said that although the President has been indicted, the investigation is not over. He emphasized, among other things, that there are “unindicted co-conspirators.”

What Rosenberg didn’t say, but was an inescapable consequence of what he said, is that his democrat allies seek to hit the President with an unlimited number of additional indictments, both through their continuing “investigation” and through the further political persecution of what he called presently “unindicted co-conspirators,” whom Rosenberg’s allies will coerce into making incriminating statements against the President. (Note the violation of the presumption of innocence in the phrase “unindicted co-conspirators,” a violation which goes back to the democrats’ Watergate conspiracy.)

When you bring charges against someone, that means the investigation of him is over. Claiming that the investigation is not over, while one continues charging him with crimes, is an abuse of power.

In the dialogue between Hamilton, Madison, and Jay that issued in The Federalist Papers, the writers formulated the prohibition on double jeopardy that went into the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Hamilton, Madison, and Jay understood perfectly well that without a constitutional double jeopardy clause, the government would wage endless lawfare (a term yet to be coined, but whose meaning was perfectly clear) on subjects whom it deemed to be its enemies, until it destroyed them, as the Crown was known to do.

In recent years, supporters of double jeopardy have come up with a sophistic ruse to get around it, the “dual sovereignty” theory, whereby state and federal governments each has the power to separately prosecute someone for the same crime. But that’s the quintessential exercise in double jeopardy.

No double jeopardy means no double jeopardy!

Changing the name of the alleged crime on the federal or state docket does not change the nature of the constitutional violation.

I once had a conversation with a prominent attorney in a murder case that was being prosecuted at both the state and the federal level, who confirmed that “dual sovereignty” theory is unconstitutional, because it rationalizes double jeopardy. Not long thereafter, I had a conversation with one of his paralegals. She insisted that “dual sovereignty” theory is perfectly constitutional. I didn’t bother to inform her that her boss disagreed with her.

A prominent Boston lawyer, Brad Bailey, whose opinions are promoted by google writes,

“A provision of the Fifth Amendment, the double jeopardy clause protects criminal defendants from being tried twice for the same crime. It attaches when the government puts the defendant in ‘jeopardy’ and ends when the case concludes. The clause applies to both state and federal governments. Still, a defendant can be prosecuted for the same crime under both jurisdictions because they are considered separate sovereigns.”

The last sentence contradicts the one which immediately preceded it. If state and federal jurisdictions can both prosecute you for the same crime, then the double jeopardy clause does not apply to any level of government!

That would require the repeal of the Fifth Amendment.

Getting back to Chuck Rosenberg, in addition to his humorless mien, Rosenberg assured viewers that congressional investigators are not doing this for fun. Apparently he thinks that if people believe that his allies are serious, they will support their crimes.

America was a constitutional republic. “America” (GRA) is a totalitarian country.