Posted on 08/24/2023 9:57:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
See post #18.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean?
I already conceded the point you’re making.
Sorry. Late to the party on my end
It is late. And I’m off to eat a late dinner and watch an old movie. :)
Pathetic.
Y'all are captured and you are looking like clowns. I'm looking forward to when you aren't.
I miss having a reason to donate to this site. I miss Freepathons reaching their goals in days and not weeks. Judging by the pace of donations, I'd bet a lot of other people feel the same way. If your mindset is the prevailing one on this forum. By all means, embrace it and keep going. I want this forum to succeed.
Garland is playing Final Jeopardy.
uhmmm....NO
Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial.
Only way to get there is Supremacy Clause and I don’t think that works either...
Because the President has already been prosecuted—twice—for the asserted crimes underlying both of Jack Smith’s indictments, the legal remedy has already been applied
To your point: The Salem Witch Trials of both impeachment proceedings were under the jurisdiction of The House and not Federal or State violations of law
The second one really demonstrated they mentally hollow and morally corrupt since he was already out of office, they could not possibly have held a legitimate trial, as impeachment is only for those currently holding office, who can be removed upon conviction.
Bread and Circuses...
If the constitutional provision for impeachment only relates to suitability to hold office and is completely separate from any considerations for criminal acts, then there would be no legal impediment for a state prosecutor to bring criminal charges against a sitting President.
I would have no problem with that on principle, but it’s an absurd scenario because it means the U.S. doesn’t really have a federal government.
What’s amazing is that you have to repeatedly answer what is wrong to begin with, impeachment is a political process and and has nothing to do with criminal proceedings, it seems like every day we have a couple of articles posted that offer a new perspective on defending Donald Trump regardless of how ridiculous they are people on FR fall for them completely and then get offended when confronted with evidence that proves the article is false
Yes, the criminal charges against Trump are wrong but the impeachment trials in the Senate have no bearing whatsoever on criminal charges with respect to double jeopardy
So why is it called a trial in the Senate?
.
Facing 717 years, if convicted on all counts - maybe they will give him a century or two off for good behavior?
UnConstitutional in a postConstitutional nation such as the Disunited States is just a word.
There is that pesky “Trump Clause” that gives anyone the right to charge him with anything, deny him the attorney-client privilege, lie about him to get warrants allowing him to be spied on, and just about anything else they want to do to “get Trump”.
Notably, the Impeachment Judgment Clause of the Constitution, Art. I Sec. 3, reads as follows: “a person convicted upon an Impeachment, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” A plain reading of the clause allows for the subsequent indictment after a person is convicted and convicted only. This is in agreement with the longstanding judicial canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “the expression of one is the exclusion of others,” which provides that because the text excludes the term “acquittal” from the relevant clause, the framers’ intent was that only convicted officeholders would be open to additional prosecution, and not officeholders that were already acquitted based on constitutional procedure for their alleged crimes, therefore exhausting the constitutional remedy in toto.
Tile guy ties himself in a knot trying to make a nonsensical point. Impeachment is procedural and civil, NOT criminal. His entire argument smacks of desperation.
This would be something if we had a judicial system that was following law.
What would Professors Dershowitz and Turley have to say about this?
If he had been “convicted” by the Senate would he have been subject to any punishment *other than* removal from office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.