- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Robin Masters
| Favorite team: | Alabama  |
| Location: | Birmingham |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 29649 |
| Registered on: | 7/30/2010 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Why would Norm Eisen attend the NYC Alvin Bragg/Trump case?
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 3:55 pm
Actual fascists. ...
0
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 2:23 pm
[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?[/quote]
Maybe he wanted to take his chances with the higher bar of proof at criminal trial which seemed to b...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 2:19 pm
[quote]There are no words in that clause creating any association/requirement between the 2 processes.[/quote]
The colon, homie. The colon.
[quote] colon is a punctuation mark that is used to divide a sentence. The colon resembles two dots positioned vertically (:). The colon has a variety of...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 2:07 pm
[quote]When do they define "the party eligible for indictment" or discuss eligibility specifically? [/quote]
When they qualified the party as being convicted jfc.
No other reason to define them as such.
As written it makes perfect sense. Your interpretation requires inference upon infer...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:49 pm
[quote]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? [/quote]
Why would they clarify the party wasn’t prot...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:46 pm
[quote]What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?[/quote]
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? ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:29 pm
[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.[/quote]
It’s not. It’s clarifying that while the impeachment conviction only carries loss of job the “party convic...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:25 pm
[quote]ell you have refused to answer my question earlier,[/quote]
What question was that?...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:23 pm
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.
...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:18 pm
[quote]It separates the punishments/processes. It doesn't limit either[/quote]
Wrong.
The use of a colon should have tipped you off. ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 1:01 pm
[quote]The one clarifying that "conviction" is not one for criminal matters,[/quote]
lWhere does it clarify that? All I see is that it limits the punishments available. ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 12:38 pm
[quote]Why would the following clause be needed at all then?[/quote]
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 par...
re: New polls today out of Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 12:16 pm
81MM votes. Lulz. ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 12:06 pm
[quote]Which language creates a requirement that the above "conviction" is required for a criminal trial?[/quote]
When they say a “convicted party” can be eligible for indictment, ect. Do you think they added “convicted” that just for funzies or do you think it might mean something?...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 12:01 pm
What is a convicted party? ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm
“Convicted party”
...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 11:58 am
[quote]Nowhere does it make it a requirement. No language states, nor implies, this.[/quote]
They made it a requirement when they qualify the party as one that has been convicted. ...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 11:40 am
[quote]
It was a totally legit thing to say, and I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks otherwise has actually read the transcript of the discussion.[/quote]
Its plain as day in the call that Trump thought there were votes that were lost that needed to be found. Anyone suggesting otherwis...
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 11:38 am
[quote]
They are differentiating "conviction" in the Senate from "conviction" at trial, to ensure there are no issues with Double Jeopardy[/quote]
coughcough***bullshite***coughcough...
re: Joe Rogan Podcast with Bart Sibrel - who here believes the Moon Landing was a hoax?
Posted by Robin Masters on 4/26/24 at 7:57 am
I'm not convinced either way but I do find it strange that we never went back. I feel pretty confident that had we gone once we'd continue to go back until we made the moon a de facto US territory.
...
Popular
20
