- 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 1:47 pm to moneyg
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:47 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? Certainly double jeopardy is applicable to the party who would be acquitted too. Yet, it doesn't address that.
I agree. And you seem to know what you are discussing so - do you think the impeachment is immaterial in Trump's current case?
0
Posted on 4/26/24 at 1:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
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?
Why would they clarify the party wasn’t protected by double jeopardy by not bothering to reference double jeopardy or the 5th? Odd their clarification doesn’t reference any of the things you claim they were written to illuminate.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:02 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
When they define the party eligible for indictment
When do they define "the party eligible for indictment" or discuss eligibility specifically?
quote:
Who else besides someone convicted by the senate would this apply to?
The entire clause is written from the POV of conviction to show the distinction between the impeachment-removal process and criminal process. It's much more effective and efficient that way, as the Senate "conviction" is the only act in the removal process that has any actual effects.
The problem is that you're using to to imply, without any evidence, an exclusivity and association. Your analysis requires a lot of words not in the actual constitution (see above, where you fill in a gap of lacking language by using other language that does not exist in the document)
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:03 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Why would they clarify the party wasn’t protected by double jeopardy by not bothering to reference double jeopardy or the 5th?
That isn't necessary by using the specific "conviction" language re: Senate "trial". That's the entire point.
quote:
Odd their clarification doesn’t reference any of the things you claim they were written to illuminate.
It doesn't need to.
I am having to explain the impact of the clear language to people who are obfuscating the words and adding wording that doesn't exist.
The only question, at this point, is if you're doing it intentionally/dishonestly or out of ignorance.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:06 pm to Robin Masters
Also, I will repeat this since you ignored it:
You do know this clause isn't specific to the President, right? People have been impeached and removed in real cases.
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:
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 this clause isn't specific to the President, right? People have been impeached and removed in real cases.
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?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When do they define "the party eligible for indictment" or discuss eligibility specifically?
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 inference and suggests they are clarifying concepts they don’t even name specifically or implicitly.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:11 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
When they qualified
You are going around in a loop, at this point.
quote:
Your interpretation requires inference upon inference
Says the guy who can't find language and uses this:
quote:
No other reason to define them as such.
as the backbone to his argument.
My argument is purely based on the words. There are no words in that clause creating any association/requirement between the 2 processes.
There are words specifically separating the 2 processes.
I'll give you ONE more chance
quote:
What specific language makes a Senate "conviction" a requirement to future prosecution?
I highlighted the part you've failed to respond with, previously.
*ETA: I'll add again
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?
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are no words in that clause creating any association/requirement between the 2 processes.
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 uses, some of which include introducing a list, introducing an explanation, introducing a quote, and connecting two related sentences.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 2:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
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?
Maybe he wanted to take his chances with the higher bar of proof at criminal trial which seemed to be a good call since he was acquitted.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:27 pm to Robin Masters
Still struggling with basic command of the written word?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
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?
Do judges have immunity from taking bribes?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:07 pm to The Boat
According to Robin Masters, they do until they’re impeached.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:14 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
According to Robin Masters, they do until they’re impeached.
Was he convicted?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:25 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Still struggling with basic command of the written word?
There are lawyers who charge $500 per hour for their advice. Yet you can’t give yours away for free. Take a hint moron.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:26 am to Robin Masters
quote:
The colon, homie. The colon.
so you have nothing. Got it.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:27 am to The Boat
quote:
Do judges have immunity from taking bribes?
No but that question has no relevance because Presidents don't, either, and both follow the same impeachment process.
Again, if your theory is correct. Hastings could not have been prosecuted prior to removal, yet he was...and he was acquitted...and then removed. How?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:27 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Was he convicted?
He was "convicted" by the Senate.
He was not convicted by the jury.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
was "convicted" by the Senate. He was not convicted by the jury.
So your example of a federal judge not having immunity is a federal judge who was acquitted.
I actually feel bad for you.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so you have nothing. Got it.
You’re not really a lawyer.
Posted on 4/27/24 at 8:50 am to Robin Masters
quote:
So your example of a federal judge not having immunity is a federal judge who was acquitted.
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?
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News