Started By
Message

re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity

Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:13 am to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424260 posts
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:13 am to
quote:

Hastings lawyers argued immunity and then went on to win the case.

He lost his immunity argument, though, which is all that matters for this thread.

We all know he was acquitted. I included that in my original questions to you. If he was immune, it would have never reached the point to permit him to be acquitted.

quote:

I feel pretty good about my interpretation.

Are you changing it? I quoted you several times. All were proven wrong in this case.

quote:

The people who see it your way also moved forward with charging an innocent man.

Criminal innocence in a criminal matter has no bearing on the political determination of an impeachment proceeding. Again, that is the entire point of the clause. There is no relationship between the two (and there certainly isn't a "colon" requirement that the conviction in the Senate occur prior to the criminal prosecution).

Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
30077 posts
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:25 am to
quote:

He lost his immunity argument, though, which is all that matters for this thread.


As determined by the same people who allowed an innocent man to be tried.


quote:

There is no relationship between the two (and there certainly isn't a "colon" requirement that the conviction in the Senate occur prior to the criminal prosecution).


The purpose of a colon is to separate things that are related.


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram