Does the Constitution prevent the President from being indicted for a criminal act?

[Wry Catcher]

My response is, no man is above the law. And no where in the Constitution is there any clause excusing criminal conduct being investigated and indictable.

A ham sandwich can be indicted by a competent District Attorney. The issue is can the indictment be served and the President be forced to appear before a court.

I would say the President would have to be impeached and removed from office before he could be forced to appear before an inferior court, for the simple fact that any other method would allow abuse by State governments to indict federal officials for decisions they did not like.

So If Colorado and California have a water dispute and Colorado wins California can't go and indict the Secretary of the Interior to try to force the issue.

Your reasoning is flawed. The facts are:

• No one knows for sure what would happen if the President of the US is served with a subpoena
• Clinton went before a Grand Jury voluntarily
• Nixon resigned before a vote was taken to impeach him;
• Agnew made a deal, and plead to lesser included offenses.

Mark Twain was said to have written: In CA., Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting.

In your example, the Supreme Court would be the court of jurisdiction (See Art III, Sec 2) and their ruling will be final.

However, if a conflict of interest could be proved, that the Sect. of the Interior provided false testimony which gave Colorado the win, it would be possible to sue the Sect. in Civil Court. If the St. of CA wins its case, it would be possible for them to appeal the decision.

 

[JWBooth]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

I read nothing there that supports a claim that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted while holding office. However, there is an immense amount of constitutional case law relying on all kinds of silly shit that isn’t there, so......

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, actually, I definitely don't see any legal protection for the Secretary of the Interior.

And you can SAY that should be the case, because you think it's the best plan, but what you can't do is show where the law specifies that.

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

I addressed this, and lost the post via the website timing out while I was busy doing other stuff. So I will have to recreate the post when I'm at home and have more time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

no where does it say he can. right?

But that wasn't the claim I asserted, as anyone but a moron troll would not have to be told.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

I read nothing there that supports a claim that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted while holding office. However, there is an immense amount of constitutional case law relying on all kinds of silly shit that isn’t there, so......

"SO..." Trump is counting on his packing of the Courts, which will allow him to be the one and only living American to be above the law.

Trump is setting up a constitutional crisis, anyone who has studied the rise of Mussolini and is watching Trump's act sees the future; unless good men and women speak up and stop the slow destruction of our republic, the United States of America will devolve into an autocracy.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.

If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.

Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.

Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

 

[martybegan]

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.

Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Using it for political purposes like the Dems want to does not make the process political.

Hell, even using it against Clinton was political, but Clinton was dumb enough to actually get caught committing a real crime.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

I addressed this, and lost the post via the website timing out while I was busy doing other stuff. So I will have to recreate the post when I'm at home and have more time.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.

Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Using it for political purposes like the Dems want to does not make the process political.

Hell, even using it against Clinton was political, but Clinton was dumb enough to actually get caught committing a real crime.

Pres. Bill Clinton was not convicted by the Senate.

 

[martybegan]

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.

Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Using it for political purposes like the Dems want to does not make the process political.

Hell, even using it against Clinton was political, but Clinton was dumb enough to actually get caught committing a real crime.

Pres. Bill Clinton was not convicted by the Senate.

Since we were talking about impeachment, why did you feel the need to bring that up? Did I ever say he was convicted by the Senate?

He lied under Oath, that wasn't in dispute. what was disputed by the Senate was if it constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors"

They didn't think so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again, indictment and impeachment are two different things that you're trying to conflate. You can't do that.

Impeachment is analgous to "employment termination". Getting fired is not a crime.

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.

If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.

Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.

Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

 

[martybegan]

What else is an impeachment but an indictment of a sitting President for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's implicit in the Constitution that the President has to be accused of something criminal to be impeached.

What else is the Senate Trial but a trial with a jury of 50 and a 2/3 rule for conviction?

You have to remove the office from the person before you try the person on the crime at the actual level of jurisdiction. Anything else leads to chaos.

Look at what is going on in Israel with Netanyahu, he can be indicted, and on trial while still PM. That is crazy.

Just because a process bears resemblance to another process, doesn't make it the same process. If you have a string of guys playing home run derby, you may have baseballs, bats and a field but you don't have a baseball game.

If a Congress impeaches a POTUS, chances are there's a crime involved, but that's a separate and distinct process. What's been established in Section 3 is simply that the impeachment results only in removal and ban from office, and not in a criminal penalty. That ---the criminal penalty --- derives from the legal process.

Impeachment does not convict, and conviction does not impeach.

Which also means a sitting POTUS could be convicted of something and NOT be impeached. Or the other way 'round: Andrew Johnson was impeached for something that could not have been an indictment --- defiance of the Tenure of Office Act passed the year before (which Johnson regarded as unConstitutional). He could have been removed from office had that impeachment succeeded, but he could not have been convicted.

STFU with your oogly boogly blah blah blah. You're not going to faux intellectualizingly weasel your way out of this. You're wrong.

It's amusing that you think you can Romper Room your fake fantasy into some world of reality but it ain't gonna happen on this planet. Maybe you'd better stick to telling us how Congresscritters can't be arrested. Oh wait, that didn't work out either did it.

Congress is different than the executive branch, and especially the president. Congress can get by with 1 or even a dozen members under indictment, not so much with the executive branch.

Also the constitution is kind of vague about congress, i.e. the whole "is a congressperson an "officer" of the United States or not. Most people think no, that it is reserved for either elected or Senate approved members of the executive branch.

"...not so much the executive branch"? Why not? Can't the swamp be a corrupt organization? Do you believe all people are equal, but republican members or the Trump Administration and the President himself are more equal?

It's about the office, not the person. Nothing in this scenario prevents the person from being indicted and tried after they are removed from office, or their term expires. Reading the constitution, however, it does seem to imply that the impeachment/removal should happen before the subsequent trial at the lower jurisdiction.

This does apply more to the two elected spots, President and VP, but "Officers of the United States" is usually seen to mean senate approved members of the cabinet, so they may get the same protection.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.

Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Using it for political purposes like the Dems want to does not make the process political.

Hell, even using it against Clinton was political, but Clinton was dumb enough to actually get caught committing a real crime.

Pres. Bill Clinton was not convicted by the Senate.

Since we were talking about impeachment, why did you feel the need to bring that up? Did I ever say he was convicted by the Senate?

He lied under Oath, that wasn't in dispute. what was disputed by the Senate was if it constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors"

They didn't think so.

Your claim that he committed a real crime. Impeachment is an allegation, and the allegation was not proved.

 

[Faun]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

Actually yes, yes it does.

"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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

You have an Op-Ed, I have the actual Constitution.

That’s only about cases of impeachment. The OP is about a president facing criminal charges while in office. I don’t see why not, especially since the Supreme Court has said the president can face civil charges while in office. They’re clearly not shielded from justice.

 

[martybegan]

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time.

Why? Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.

It is a legal process as it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Using it for political purposes like the Dems want to does not make the process political.

Hell, even using it against Clinton was political, but Clinton was dumb enough to actually get caught committing a real crime.

Pres. Bill Clinton was not convicted by the Senate.

Since we were talking about impeachment, why did you feel the need to bring that up? Did I ever say he was convicted by the Senate?

He lied under Oath, that wasn't in dispute. what was disputed by the Senate was if it constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors"

They didn't think so.

Your claim that he committed a real crime. Impeachment is an allegation, and the allegation was not proved.

He wasn't removed from office over it, he did admit to it to prevent criminal proceedings.

FACT CHECK: Bill Clinton was Fined, Disbarred Over the Monica Lewinsky Scandal

On his last day in office in 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license in order to head off any criminal charges for lying under oath about his relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton has been eligible to seek reinstatement of his license since 2006, but as of 2013 he had not applied to do so.

Shortly after Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court suspended Clinton from presenting cases in front of the highest court (which he had never done) and gave him 40 days to contest his disbarment (which Clinton did not do). Instead, he resigned from the Supreme Court bar:

 

[Marion Morrison]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

Actually yes, yes it does.

"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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

You have an Op-Ed, I have the actual Constitution.

That’s only about cases of impeachment. The OP is about a president facing criminal charges while in office. I don’t see why not, especially since the Supreme Court has said the president can face civil charges while in office. They’re clearly not shielded from justice.

Of course you don't, because you're obtuse.

You might as well be Wry Catcher deaux.

 

[Faun]

Well, actually, I definitely don't see any legal protection for the Secretary of the Interior.

And you can SAY that should be the case, because you think it's the best plan, but what you can't do is show where the law specifies that.

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

 

[Faun]

Or, is the President of the United States above the law?

What say you?

Here's an Op-Ed:

Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the President

And other written opinions:

Can a president be indicted while in office?

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

Another Problem with the Constitutional Argument Against the Indictment of a President

Actually yes, yes it does.

"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."


A president would have to be successfully impeached before being indicted.

You have an Op-Ed, I have the actual Constitution.

That’s only about cases of impeachment. The OP is about a president facing criminal charges while in office. I don’t see why not, especially since the Supreme Court has said the president can face civil charges while in office. They’re clearly not shielded from justice.

Of course you don't, because you're obtuse.

You might as well be Wry Catcher deaux.

Ok, cite the law that says a sitting president can’t be prosecuted.....

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution lays out the rules for impeachment for the President, Vice President and all Civil officials. What this actually means has never been really sorted out by the courts. To me it means any official appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

So civil service people can be just indicted, but to gun for someone part of the cabinet you need to go through congress.

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

 

[Faun]

Note the phrase "to me". Denotes a personal opinion, based on nothing but personal viewpoint, and irrelevant to the actual laws.

What impeachment means is actually pretty clear to the courts and everyone else. It means, "Enough people don't want you in office anymore." And it has exactly squat to do with criminal indictment and prosecution, because it has never been tested.

Just because someone has to be impeached to be removed from office doesn't automatically mean that that person has to be removed from office before they can be prosecuted.

The issue is having an indicted president, vice president or senior cabinet member fighting an indictment while trying to perform their duties of office. Allowing this would create a political free for all.

I said "to me" because I know the courts haven't fleshed this out yet, but when they do I would think they would fall in line with my views on it, to prevent absolute chaos in our federal government.

No, actually, the issue is what the law actually IS, rather than what it would be convenient for current political positions for the law to be. I've never been a fan of a "living Constitution" that's interpreted according to preferences before, and I'm not going to start now. It says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. "Emanations from penumbra" don't impress me.

And I would definitely hope that the courts don't "fall in line" simply because it's convenient. If they decide in that direction, then I would like to think they will do so with solid legal reasoning for it.

The constitution talks about high crimes and misdemeanors, and that Congress impeaches (indicts) and the Senate Removes.

Just as you can't have two court systems indict a person for the same crime, you can't really both indict and impeach at the same time. You then have dueling jurisdictions.

Of course you can have two cases at the same time for the same crime, depending on the two jurisdictions. Such as state and federal. Regardless, impeachment is not a criminal charge anyway. It’s merely a process to remove a civil officer from the office they hold. They still face prosecution by the Justice system.

Not for the same exact crime, because there should be no overlap of Federal and State laws. When you get 2nd prosecutions it's usually for another charge, i.e. denying civil rights or something like that. You can't be charged for murder (as a charge) at both levels, because only one level has sovereignty in the specific case.

Yes, people can be charged at the state level and the federal level at the same time for the same charge because the U.S. and the states share concurrent jurisdiction and either, or even both, can charge people accordingly.