- 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 9:06 pm to TrueTiger
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:06 pm to TrueTiger
The constitution does say that impeachment is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution, but rather the inquiry does not stop at impeachment and a person may also be subject to criminal prosecution. You can have criminal prosecution without an impeachment inquiry.
0
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:08 pm to Eurocat
Dumb question by dumb judge.
Proper answer
Proper answer
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:12 pm to udtiger
quote:
Dumb question by dumb judge.
It sure was.
The premise that Seal Team 6 would carry out such an order is ridiculous. That would never happen.
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
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 1/10/24 at 9:42 pm to Eurocat
When do we arrest Obama for all the people he droned?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:50 pm to TrueTiger
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.
All that is showing is distinguishing between an impeachment conviction and a criminal conviction. One does not eliminate the possibility of the other.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:58 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
If he is successfully impeached, then he can be prosecuted.
Impeachment conviction lifts immunity.
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.
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7
You are not even making it as eloquently as Sauer did.
The law is often like a one-way valve it doesn't work if you argue in the negative.
What this passage conveys is an impeachment conviction having the sole remedy of removal and prevention from holding office again does not negate the party from being tried and convicted in a court where the penalties are separate from those of an impeachment conviction. It is designed to prevent a President from arguing he was impeached and convicted, received the maximum penalty from that conviction therefore he can not be subsequently tried, convicted and punished in another court. Without the passage it would effectively allow a President to shoot his VP in the head and the sole penalty be removal from office and inability to hold office later.
What the passage does not do is provide blanket immunity to a President if he was not impeached and convicted by Congress.
I think this is an interesting argument when combined with his former attorneys arguing he could not be impeached once leaving office. This one leave a situation where a president could poison his SOS a minute before his term needed and be immune from any prosecution.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 9:58 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Then you agree that criminal punishment is possible after a successful impeachment.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:07 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Then you agree that criminal punishment is possible after a successful impeachment.
Of course it is. Criminal punishment is also possible without impeachment. The two are not related.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:08 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The two are not related.
Maybe, but it's never been decided so neither you or I know.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:15 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Should Obama have been prosecuted for murder for ordering the drone strike on an American citizen?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:18 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Maybe, but it's never been decided so neither you or I know.
Neither has prosecution following a successful impeachment, but you seem a little more sure of that one.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:19 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Biden had best hope that Trump's argument holds.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 10:20 pm to Bourre
quote:
Should Obama have been prosecuted for murder for ordering the drone strike on an American citizen?
Yes
Posted on 1/11/24 at 4:54 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Maybe, but it's never been decided so neither you or I know.
Since you and I differ on the plain reading of the clause of the Constitution let's drop back and punt to good old intent.
If you think a moment you will see that you are arguing the intent of the framers was to remove the judicial branches check on the executive branch or at least make it subortinate to the legislative branch. Without the executive branch using their check and being effective at conviction the judicial branch's check on executive power evaporates. Being early and not willing to spend the day doing research to prove a negative I will make the argument that the framers never did this anywhere else in the Constitution and it would be an anathema to them.
[img]Biden had best hope that Trump's argument holds.[/img]
The question is what does the Constitution say and in ambiguity what should America best hope for. The limits on presidential immunity have never been really defined. Short sighted tinkering could produce a monarchy. If Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, and Carter all need to be sacrificed to prevent this then so be it. I don't expect that outcome nor do I think it is good for the country but it is still miles better than the alternative.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 5:02 am to Eurocat
Seeing Trump take out some of his enemies in the middle of 5th Avenue? I'd totally support that.
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.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 5:50 am to Mickey Goldmill
It’s absurd you people think a podunk prosecutor can indict the president, have him hauled into court, and imprisoned upon conviction.
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News