- 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
0
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:49 pm to GumboPot
quote:
You have to admit, it’s an interesting theory.
It’s dumb. It’s the kind of thing a 1L would try to bring up
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:50 pm to GumboPot
This is the hill the dummies will die on…then regenerate and…find the next dumb maga hill to die on.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 8:56 pm to GumboPot
Clever argument. Let’s take it to the Clarance Thomas Supreme Court.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:00 pm to GumboPot
They are simultaneously trying to eliminate certain members of the supreme court, so they've got that bit covered.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:09 pm to cwill
quote:
This is the hill the dummies will die on…then regenerate and…find the next dumb maga hill to die on.
Sounds like something someone that believes impeachment means removal would say.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:14 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Sounds like something someone that believes impeachment means removal would say.
Sounds like word salad. Broken brained gumbro.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:16 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
You think they care about the law?
Posted on 8/2/23 at 9:25 pm to GumboPot
My initial reaction was to dismiss this as silly but:
...this does suggest that the framers saw enough of a double Jeopardy issue to address it for the convicted but then pointedly ignore it for the acquitted.
quote:
One of the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses, in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, does say that a person who has been convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial can still face a federal criminal trial: “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” It does not say that a person who has been acquitted by the Senate can still be subject to the criminal process. Arguably, the Constitution intended to protect an acquitted official.
...this does suggest that the framers saw enough of a double Jeopardy issue to address it for the convicted but then pointedly ignore it for the acquitted.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:08 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It’s a stretch, to say the least.
And the last thing a DEM wants to do is "stretch" the truth or the narrative or the optics
nope - DEMs always stick to hard facts that have no rebuttal at all
or not ----
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:15 pm to FriscoTiger1973
quote:you don't really know that.
Nixon, had he been removed, could still face criminal trial.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:25 pm to GumboPot
Rules of law do not apply to DJT.
The difference is democrats use special council and go for blood Republicans do it and refuse to ruffle feathers 3 years after it started.
Republicans lack the nuts to lead with power
The difference is democrats use special council and go for blood Republicans do it and refuse to ruffle feathers 3 years after it started.
Republicans lack the nuts to lead with power
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:28 pm to GumboPot
no it’s not, it’s idiotic and the only thing it hinges on is if the reader (you) are dumb enough to go along with it
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:32 pm to GumboPot
The indictment is bs, but this argument is horrible.
Also worth noting that the Senate passed a resolution before the faux trial proceedings acknowledging that it was not constitutional, which also doesn’t help the OP’s argument for double jeopardy.
Also worth noting that the Senate passed a resolution before the faux trial proceedings acknowledging that it was not constitutional, which also doesn’t help the OP’s argument for double jeopardy.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:38 pm to TerryDawg03
quote:
Also worth noting that the Senate passed a resolution before the faux trial proceedings acknowledging that it was not constitutional
Wait, so after the house impeached Trump then the senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial, they proceed to hold the trial but before they start they pass a resolution that the trial is not constitutional?
Do you have a link to this resolution?
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:48 pm to GumboPot
This is absolutely laughable and I would be nonplussed if I found out an attorney wrote that garbage.
The trial in the Senate does not impose any criminal jeopardy because there are no criminal penalties available to the Senate which is what the double jeopardy clause is there to prevent. There is simply no criminal jeopardy attached to an impeachment conviction.
This is akin to saying if someone is fired for stealing they can't be tried for stealing and sentenced to fines and/or jail time.
The trial in the Senate does not impose any criminal jeopardy because there are no criminal penalties available to the Senate which is what the double jeopardy clause is there to prevent. There is simply no criminal jeopardy attached to an impeachment conviction.
This is akin to saying if someone is fired for stealing they can't be tried for stealing and sentenced to fines and/or jail time.
Posted on 8/2/23 at 10:52 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
And the last thing a DEM wants to do is "stretch" the truth or the narrative or the optics nope - DEMs always stick to hard facts that have no rebuttal at all or not ----
Posted on 8/2/23 at 11:21 pm to GumboPot
It’s bout tying trump up with so much legal problems, it will severely hinder trumps election chances to win , biden even admittec that was the plan
Posted on 8/2/23 at 11:25 pm to shinerfan
quote:
this does suggest that the framers saw enough of a double Jeopardy issue to address it for the convicted but then pointedly ignore it for the acquitted.
Or they were simply drawing the distinction that an impeachment has nothing to do with a criminal proceeding.
Posted on 8/3/23 at 3:39 am to GumboPot
Thanks for sharing. This is not a unique issue. It has been reviewed in the reverse, that is whether an acquittal in court bars a Senate impeachment, and was an issue with Agnew based on tax evasion
The DoJ has addressed the issue in more detail, and their memorandum appears here K. It’s a good analysis snd interesting read if you are interested in the topic
The DoJ has addressed the issue in more detail, and their memorandum appears here K. It’s a good analysis snd interesting read if you are interested in the topic
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News