- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:59 pm to Epaminondas
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:59 pm to Epaminondas
quote:
Go back and read the section you quoted:
"but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
Trump was not convicted by the Senate. If he had been, he would have been removed from office.
You are making a 1L mistake reading the language. The language points out that an impeachment/conviction/removal from office are not the sole remedy. It does not, however, state or even imply that impeachment is required for a separate criminal prosecution to be undertaken.
In fact, the ability to have a separate criminal prosecution without an impeachment conviction seems completely logical. There was a vociferous argument by Trump that you can not be impeached once you leave office but the lack of conviction made the issue more or less moot. It is easy to see a situation where a president committed a crime during his tenure in office not covered as a public act which was not discovered until years after he/she left office. It makes little sense in most situations for congress to take up impeachment and trial in such a case.
The problem with either process is that they can be purely political in nature.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:03 pm to Obtuse1
The language in the Constitution about impeachment seems clear to me:
In the case of a SITTING President, impeachment is required before a criminal prosecution can commence. That makes sense practically as well - otherwise a President could be easily hamstrung by various politically charged cases in various states while he is in office.
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
In the case of a SITTING President, impeachment is required before a criminal prosecution can commence. That makes sense practically as well - otherwise a President could be easily hamstrung by various politically charged cases in various states while he is in office.
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 6:24 pm to Obtuse1
re '1L mistake reading the language'. Thats the whole point of Smiths henchman wanting to avoid a clear immunity standard, using a case by case DOJ litmus test that can be used to shutdown presidential power for the next 100 years. Its a power grab, that if you had any geopolitical knowledge was rampant in Pakistan, Venezuela , Ecuador, and most of Africa
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News