re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity

quote:

---

When they qualified

---

You are going around in a loop, at this point.

quote:

---

Your interpretation requires inference upon inference

---

Says the guy who can't find language and uses this:

quote:

---

No other reason to define them as such.

---

as the backbone to his argument.

My argument is purely based on the words. There are no words in that clause creating any association/requirement between the 2 processes.

There are words specifically separating the 2 processes.

I'll give you ONE more chance

quote:

---

What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?

---

I highlighted the part you've failed to respond with, previously.

*ETA: I'll add again

quote:

---

How was Hastings removed by the Senate AFTER he was acquitted in criminal court, if your stance is that a conviction by the Senate is required first prior to criminal prosecution?

---