boosiebadazz

Fay woo ...

It’s not that impressive. It’s smaller than you think and behind protective glass. It’s pretty meh to be honest. ...

:lol: got me by seconds! ...

The devil is going to be in the official act/ private act details. Maybe they’ll give us some factors to consider. But this will have to be flushed out from this ruling and within the inferior courts over time. SCOTUS may chime in if someone goes out of bounds but this is generally new territory...

Make sure you fortify your trailer park. ...

I think that was the first drop of pigeon shite on the chess board. I’m out. ...

I’ll try one more time because what you and I responded to was the last snippet of the pertinent clause. Here’s the entire thing: [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 prof...

[quote]It’s specifically qualified the eligible party as one who has been convicted.[/quote] Yes, and it says they’re “still subject” to the criminal process. Nothing says they enjoy immunity from the criminal process until they are convicted and impeached. It’s clarifying that impeachment do...

No, it’s speaking of convicted in the Senate and impeached. You have to be indicted before being convicted in a criminal context. It says the convicted party is still subject to indictment, i.e. the conviction is speaking of impeachment. ...

Nothing in that part you quoted reads exclusivity or sequentiality into anything. It plainly states you can be impeached and then also criminally prosecuted. Impeachment doesn’t insulate you from criminal prosecution. ...