As had been discussed a lot...impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
The President, if convicted in an impeachment, is removed from office. It has no bearing on his culpability in a criminal case.
Let’s say a sitting President murders someone. They are impeached to get them out of office. Is it your argument that they would not stand trial for the murder? Of course they would.
Simply because the two processes use similar language doesn’t make them the same thing.
The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on this because there is a clear legal quandary in this type of scenario where the President murders someone and is NOT convicted in his impeachment trial (see my previous post on this topic).
The other problem here is that the whole discussion on the subject of "acquittal immunity" is that it's taking place in the context of a modern political and legal landscape that didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Specifically, it should be pointed out that any question about the legal exposure to criminal prosecution for an acquitted President in the 1790s would mainly focus on prosecution in a state court, not Federal court. That’s because there were hardly any Federal crimes listed in the U.S. criminal code at the time. The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t even exist until 1870, and the U.S. Attorney General and the various District Attorneys worked mainly in civil matters under the Treasury Department before that.
“Is it your argument that they would not stand trial for the murder?”
No, my argument is that Trump’s January 6th political speech is protected by his 1st Amendment protections, his Presidential immunity, and that the POLITICAL question of whether Trump incited a riot that day was tried during an impeachment where he was acquitted by those most affected by the riot.
The only one talking about murder is you, keep your words and absurdities to yourself.