- 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: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:43 am to Robin Masters
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:43 am to Robin Masters
quote:
If he isn’t first impeached can he be a party convicted? No.
Right…..
What is it that you think that means? Because it doesn’t mean that no impeachment means no criminal prosecution, if that is what you are going for. The clause simply makes plain that impeachment conviction does not preclude criminal prosecution. It does not make impeachment a prerequisite for criminal prosecution.
It’s right there for you, in very plain English.
1
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:58 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s right there for you, in very plain English.
Then “convicted” is superfluous because according to your interpretation I can remove it and it means the same thing.
I’m going to assume it’s there to ensure that only parties convicted by impeachment are liable for indictment since that is, you know, what it actually says.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News