- 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 4/27/24 at 8:51 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:51 am to Robin Masters
quote:
You’re not really a lawyer.
A lawyer knows that a colon is not a word.
2
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
lawyer knows that a colon is not a word.
Does the bar know you struggle to educate laypeople about the law on a chitchat board?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 9:55 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Does the bar know you struggle to educate laypeople about the law on a chitchat board?
I asked you for specific words. You have yet to give me any. I have given you like 5 chances to do so. I can't improve IQ or honesty in laypeople.
Oh, and
quote:
The question is the process, not immunity. Immunity isn't really specifically applicable to this discussion.
If a conviction in the Senate, following impeachment, is required (based on your colon theory) to permit criminal prosecution, how was Hastings tried criminally first?
Are you now going to accept that a conviction in the Senate has no bearing on related criminal prosecution?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
how was Hastings tried criminally first?
justia
quote:
In this case, appellant contends that as an active federal judge he has an absolute right not to be tried in a federal court unless and until he is impeached and convicted by Congress
And he was acquitted
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:37 am to Robin Masters
quote:
And he was acquitted
If your argument was correct, it would have never gotten that far
Did you read the case you linked?
quote:
We find no merit in appellant's argument. Rather, we agree with the seventh circuit that this portion of section 3 was intended "to assure that after impeachment a trial on criminal charges is not foreclosed by the principle of double jeopardy."
*ETA: I hadn't even read that case prior to you posting it. Even double jeopardy was referenced. Oh my.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 10:40 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We find no merit in appellant's argument. Rather, we agree with the seventh circuit that this portion of section 3 was intended "to assure that after impeachment a trial on criminal charges is not foreclosed by the principle of double jeopardy."
Well they charged an innocent man so their opinion is like yours: shite.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 10:41 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ETA: I hadn't even read that case prior to you posting it. Even double jeopardy was referenced. Oh my.
I’m not even a lawyer and my interpretation was the same as the side who won.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:46 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Well they charged an innocent man so their opinion is like yours: shite.
He was still impeached and removed.
Because?
The 2 processes are separated, as the clause explains.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 10:47 am to Robin Masters
quote:
I’m not even a lawyer and my interpretation was the same as the side who won.
Oh wow. Holy shite.
quote:
I’m certainly no lawyer but doesn’t the part about “convicted party” indicate that the criminal indictments needs to be predicated on being found guilty in an impeachment proceeding?
quote:
Point being you have to be convicted during the impeachment proceedings to then be eligible for criminal indictment.
quote:
and to me it makes perfect sense that you must first be convicted in the senate to then be eligible for criminal indictment as opposed to what you say it means.
Update: this is not the interpretation of the "side that won"
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 10:50 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Oh wow. Holy shite.
Hastings lawyers argued immunity and then went on to win the case.
I feel pretty good about my interpretation.
The people who see it your way also moved forward with charging an innocent man. Spiking the football on this is like a supposed lawyer sandbagging on a sports board with lay people and still making a fool of themselves…. Oh wait.
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:07 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:13 am to Robin Masters
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 on 4/27/24 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
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.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:30 am to Robin Masters
quote:
As determined by the same people who allowed an innocent man to be tried.
The appeals court doesn't determine guilt or innocence. That's a question for the jury. It's not their place to judge that.
quote:
The purpose of a colon is to separate things that are related.
Well you may need to read this case again and understand why your theory was wrong.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well you may need to read this case again and understand why your theory was wrong.
Or I can just read the constitution without ignoring basic punctuation while using widely accepted definitions of the words contained therein.
An accomplishment you have failed to achieve.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 12:40 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Or I can just read the constitution without ignoring basic punctuation while using widely accepted definitions of the words contained therein.
An accomplishment you have failed to achieve.
I read it in the same way multiple federal appellate courts read it.
But everyone else is wrong, right?
You're not just melting b/c you got owned in a discussion you were given multiple opportunities to withdraw from, right?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 3:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where does the Constitution clearly list that as a requirement for criminal prosecution?
Hint: it does not.
List for me the criminal prosecutions of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton after leaving office
Hint: You cant
This post was edited on 4/28/24 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 4/27/24 at 6:19 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
As determined by the same people who allowed an innocent man to be tried.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Some guy named Alexander Hamilton seems to agree with me:
quote:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
And here is a federal judge explaining why you’re wrong:
LINK
A bag of dicks, enjoy eating them.
Posted on 4/28/24 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clear separation between impeachment (the political remedy) and prosecution (the criminal remedy).
Correct. But, criminal prosecution can only proceed AFTER impeachment conviction.
Posted on 4/28/24 at 1:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Small, large, ascending, descending, transverse and sigmoid.
A lawyer knows that a colon is not a word.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News