- 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 4/26/24 at 12:38 pm to moneyg
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:38 pm to moneyg
quote:
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
It wouldnt. In fact the only reason it exists is to define what the party convicted by the senate might face. Thats why they use a colon and then start the clause with “but” (because they are explaining what happens once the party is convicted).
Another way to say it would be:
Impeachment can only result in loss of your job BUT once you are impeached you can be prosecuted for your crimes.
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:41 pm to moneyg
quote:
In this case Trump is a party not convicted.
And?
Clearly he's not facing double jeopardy, then.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:42 pm to moneyg
quote:
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
The one clarifying that "conviction" is not one for criminal matters, ie, double jeopardy does not apply?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The one clarifying that "conviction" is not one for criminal matters,
lWhere does it clarify that? All I see is that it limits the punishments available.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:13 pm to VOR
quote:
SCOTUS will issue a ruling that ensures there will be no trial before the election.
Why is it so necessary that the trial be help before the election?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:13 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
lWhere does it clarify that?
by explaining the "conviction" in the Senate doesn't preclude future criminal litigation.
quote:
All I see is that it limits the punishments available.
Then you're reading it wrong.
It separates the punishments/processes. It doesn't limit either.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It separates the punishments/processes. It doesn't limit either
Wrong.
The use of a colon should have tipped you off.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clearly he's not facing double jeopardy, then.
What do you mean?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:22 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
The use of a colon should have tipped you off.
Well you have refused to answer my question earlier, but it's clear the result is the same either way.
You can argue dishonestly elsewhere.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:23 pm to moneyg
quote:
What do you mean?
If he's not facing double jeopardy, why would a clarification regarding the impacts of a Senate "conviction" on double jeopardy matter to him? It doesn't apply to him either way.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
And if what you’re saying is true the entire impeachment process is superfluous.
Just let the courts handle it and anyone convicted will be ineligible.
Just let the courts handle it and anyone convicted will be ineligible.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ell you have refused to answer my question earlier,
What question was that?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:28 pm to GumboPot
exactly,
considering he has a responsibility to protect the Constitution ....all State actions to violate Federal and state Constitutions makes all his actions perfectly legal.
Every state that allowed courts to change voting laws, violated their Constitutions and those of the Federal Government.
considering he has a responsibility to protect the Constitution ....all State actions to violate Federal and state Constitutions makes all his actions perfectly legal.
Every state that allowed courts to change voting laws, violated their Constitutions and those of the Federal Government.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he's not facing double jeopardy, why would a clarification regarding the impacts of a Senate "conviction" on double jeopardy matter to him? It doesn't apply to him either way.
It’s not. It’s clarifying that while the impeachment conviction only carries loss of job the “party convicted” can be tried criminally. Thats why there is a colon, because the latter defines an exception to the former.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The one clarifying that "conviction" is not one for criminal matters, ie, double jeopardy does not apply?
If that clause was meant to address double jeopardy, why would it reference the party convicted instead of the party impeached? Certainly double jeopardy is applicable to the party who would be acquitted too. Yet, it doesn't address that.
Why do you think they referenced the "party convicted". You haven't explained that in a meaningful way yet.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:33 pm to Robin Masters
What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?
You do know that we have impeachment examples outside of POTUS, right?
Look at Alcee Hastings.
1. Acquitted at criminal trial in 1983
2. Impeached and removed in 1989 for overlapping behavior to the 1983 trial
If your system is correct, how in the hell did THAT happen?
You do know that we have impeachment examples outside of POTUS, right?
Look at Alcee Hastings.
1. Acquitted at criminal trial in 1983
2. Impeached and removed in 1989 for overlapping behavior to the 1983 trial
If your system is correct, how in the hell did THAT happen?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:36 pm to moneyg
quote:
If that clause was meant to address double jeopardy, why would it reference the party convicted instead of the party impeached?
Think about that for a second.
quote:
Certainly double jeopardy is applicable to the party who would be acquitted too.
Sure, but the example of a prior conviction is better for clarify.
It's the same argument for both.
Again, Hastings literally argued double jeopardy at his Senate trial
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If that clause was meant to address double jeopardy, why would it reference the party convicted instead of the party impeached?
Think about that for a second.
How about you just answer it.
quote:
Sure, but the example of a prior conviction is better for clarify.
That's your answer? quote:
Again, Hastings literally argued double jeopardy at his Senate trial
and? Explain how that is relevant.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:43 pm to moneyg
quote:
How about you just answer it.
The 2 are related but conviction is the disqualifying action. Why would they write a discussion about the differences in a criminal prosecution/conviction and a Senate prosecution/conviction by referencing the HOR impeachment process?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?
When they define the party eligible for indictment, ect as the “party convicted”. Who else besides someone convicted by the senate would this apply to?
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News