- 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 11:24 am to TCO
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:24 am to TCO
quote:
Not a single other President caught on a recording literally asking a state official to “find him votes.”
Totally legit and legal thing to do :/
It was a totally legit thing to say, and I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks otherwise has actually read the transcript of the discussion.
1
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They are differentiating "conviction" in the Senate from "conviction" at trial, to ensure there are no issues with Double Jeopardy
coughcough***bullshite***coughcough
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:40 am to JimEverett
quote:
It was a totally legit thing to say, and I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks otherwise has actually read the transcript of the discussion.
Its plain as day in the call that Trump thought there were votes that were lost that needed to be found. Anyone suggesting otherwise has only heard the CNN soundbites or is a TDS infected loon
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And the DOJ looked into it, which was the proper avenue for this issue to be investigated.
We are talking about 50 different state systems with thousands of precincts.
There is no system set up to properly look into this. The courts are loathe to touch it and want to jump to invoke the political question doctrine, understandably.
It could be that the only solution lies within the Declaration of Independence.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clear separation between impeachment (the political remedy) and prosecution (the criminal remedy).
quote:
but the party convicted
I realize the consensus legal opinion matches what you are saying but the text is not nearly as clear as you pretend.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:50 am to moneyg
quote:
I realize the consensus legal opinion matches what you are saying but the text is not nearly as clear as you pretend.
Again, that line is just saying that a party convicted by the Senate may still face criminal prosecution (following the trend of the clause in separating the two actions).
Nowhere does it make it a requirement. No language states, nor implies, this.
The clear theme and intent of the clause is to separate the two concepts. That's why people keep asking for those trying to link them to find the language doing so.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
To just add
The clause (which separates the 2 concepts) is initially framed around "Judgment in cases of impeachment"
That is the reason why they clarify "the party convicted" can still face criminal prosecution.
Like boosie said, "nevertheless" should make this clear.
The clause (which separates the 2 concepts) is initially framed around "Judgment in cases of impeachment"
That is the reason why they clarify "the party convicted" can still face criminal prosecution.
Like boosie said, "nevertheless" should make this clear.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nowhere does it make it a requirement. No language states, nor implies, this.
They made it a requirement when they qualify the party as one that has been convicted.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 11:59 am to Robin Masters
quote:
They made it a requirement when they qualify the party as one that has been convicted.
How? What language?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
“Convicted party”
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
We are talking about 50 different state systems with thousands of precincts.
There is no system set up to properly look into this.
The DOJ is perfectly capable and situated to do this
Now, to do this on that timeline? Probably not, but that's a different discussion.
quote:
There is no system set up to properly look into this. The courts are loathe to touch it and want to jump to invoke the political question doctrine, understandably.
This doesn't mean the Executive has a role outside of the DOJ or other directed administrative action.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to da prophet
Impeachment is not a substitute for criminal prosecution. They are two
separate things for separate purposes.
SCOTUS will issue a ruling that ensures there will be no trial before the election. They delayed the case in
The manner they took it up. I once admired the Court. Now, they really are just politicians in robes. Alito is an. Embarrassment. Gorsuch is a fraud.
separate things for separate purposes.
SCOTUS will issue a ruling that ensures there will be no trial before the election. They delayed the case in
The manner they took it up. I once admired the Court. Now, they really are just politicians in robes. Alito is an. Embarrassment. Gorsuch is a fraud.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:00 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
“Convicted party”
So are you incapable of answering or intentionally not answering?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
What is a convicted party?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:04 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
What is a convicted party?
In the framing of the clause, a person who was impeached and faced "trial" in the Senate and was "convicted"
Which language creates a requirement that the above "conviction" is required for a criminal trial?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which language creates a requirement that the above "conviction" is required for a criminal trial?
When they say a “convicted party” can be eligible for indictment, ect. Do you think they added “convicted” that just for funzies or do you think it might mean something?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The DOJ is perfectly capable and situated to do this
Now, to do this on that timeline? Probably not, but that's a different discussion.
Legally speaking, yes.
As a practical matter. We got nothing.
The people are on their own. And we see that clearly.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Again, that line is just saying that a party convicted by the Senate may still face criminal prosecution (following the trend of the clause in separating the two actions).
That’s the interpretation that you were taught. It may be the interpretation that the USSC would agree with.
It doesn’t say what you pretend it says.
quote:
Nowhere does it make it a requirement
One could make a real strong argument otherwise. The language limits prosecution to the convicted party.
quote:
The clear theme and intent of the clause is to separate the two concepts. That's why people keep asking for those trying to link them to find the language doing so.
Maybe. I can say for certain you haven’t made a persuasive case for that.
Let’s be honest. You only have that opinion because you were told to. You aren’t interpreting this on your own.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is the reason why they clarify "the party convicted" can still face criminal prosecution.
In this case Trump is a party not convicted.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which language creates a requirement that the above "conviction" is required for a criminal trial?
Why would the following clause be needed at all then?
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News