quote:
It says nothing about acquittal, which means the amendment was adopted with the framework of advising that acquittal or conviction of impeachment by Congress and the Senate have no bearing on a subsequent criminal prosecution after the impeachment process has concluded.

Ignore the "party convicted" wording all you want. If a politician doesn't first have to be removed from office to lose immunity they wouldn't have included the "convicted party" wording. But you have esq in your username so it's safe to say you're an intellectually dishonest dumbass.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

425080 posts

Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:28 pm to The Boat

quote:
If a politician doesn't first have to be removed from office to lose immunity they wouldn't have included the "convicted party" wording.

It's a clarification of Double Jeopardy, basically. That's why only the "convicted party" side was discussed.

There are no words to justify this connectivity between impeachment and criminality, and plenty to distinguish the 2 concepts.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by CreoleTigerEsq

Noneya

Member since Nov 2007

642 posts

Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:02 pm to The Boat

quote:
If a politician doesn't first have to be removed from office to lose immunity ...

So, you're saying that a decision on whether presidential immunity exists is contingent on whether he is removed from office after conviction for an impeachment?

He does enjoy immunity from prosecution while in office. Here's the catch ... he's not in office right now, and any decision regarding his immunity to prosecution for decisions made while in office will hinge on whether the acts in which he engaged are within the scope of the Constitutional authority provided to the Executive.

This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 4:11 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board