- 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: Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:27 pm to TrueTiger
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:27 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
It says he's fair game if successfully impeached.
It does not say a failure to impeach is immunity from criminality. An impeachment proceeding isn’t a criminal trial, it is only for removal. And what an absurd reading generally and what a terrible precedent to set. I’m fairly confident this ridiculous argument fails at every court level.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 9:30 pm
3
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:40 pm to cwill
The other part of the test is whether or not the activity is related to an official duty of the office.
It would be strange that assassinating a political rival would be. But not impossible, especially if we go down the path of ridiculous scenarios like this judge likes to dream up.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:40 pm to cwill
quote:
I’m fairly confident this ridiculous argument fails at every court level.
And when it doesn’t, you’re going to cry like little bitch aren’t you
Posted on 1/11/24 at 5:30 am to cwill
quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
That the statement specifically mentions IF the person is convicted(impeached) THEN they are "subject to indictment" in a criminal court would imply the opposite is true if not convicted(impeached).
Or...... maybe the founding fathers assumed that if a person was not impeached successfully no reasonable person would attempt to indict for the same charges for which they had already faced during impeachment and not convicted of.
These corrupt fricking Democrats can't even spell reasonable.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News