ive been to a few events where its clear who are homesteaders and who are anti govt nutter preppers. by this time i can smell them a mile off. yuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_7:_Judgment_in_cases_of_impeachment;_Punishment_on_conviction




The Constitution makes it very clear that impeachment is the political recourse for a POTUS, VP or civil officer committing treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, but that further criminal prosecution is possible when and if applicable.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 11 2024 12:42pm

im jumping in here mid way, but the statute reads that the CONVICTED, presumably meaning a president who faced and lost impeachment, is then subject to trial. trump was impeached, and it failed.

it seems illogical that a president would have forevermore immunity for his/her actions while president, if they were not impeached and removed, but that's how the law reads. likely because those who framed it doubted someone would face impeachment and not be removed. it was clearly meant as a big red button, not a political tactic.

like i said, these hive minders possessed by the spirit of deranged animals need targets to throw their stones at.

kagaruuuuuuu courts. yikes, the wages of sin is - that kind of stupidity LOL, including making up random sh1ezer for TV people to trance out to.


.

so what about clinton, *scoffs*.




imagine not knowing the government once told you to prep for 6 months and now persecutes that prepping, treason is merely a matter of dates. wouldnt expect you to see past it.


This post was edited by lodd222 on Jan 11 2024 02:01pm

Impeachment was meant to remove people from office and explicitly not as a criminal method. The language says specifically that impeachment can't extend further than removal from office but does not say it is required for later criminal accountability.

You can be tried and convicted by different bodies for the same crime. You can be criminally convicted by a state and still be charged and convicted by the federal government for the same act. Similarly, you can be convicted by the senate in a political process and then be charged judically and convicted in a criminal process. The idea of not being found guilty twice has only ever extended to the same body doing the same conviction.

If that weren't the case a second term president could steal secrets and sell them for personal gain then face zero reprecussions because the house and senate couldn't convene fast enough to convict them, or if the investigation simply wasn't completed before their term expired they couldn't be held accountable either.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 11 2024 02:06pm

laws especially old ones, often have loopholes. its possible, because there's zero precedent im aware of, that the way the law reads means a president is immune to conviction of crimes they commit.

now that's obviously not morally correct, or even the intention of those who wrote the law, but its potentially a loophole. and it makes sense, because impeachment itself was meant as a way to remove a president for doing something illegal. that's not the only reason to impeach, but its clearly one reason the proceedings exist. and the logic would follow that the unseated president would then be charged. with the obvious path being remove, then charge.

and of course we have to remember that despite the differences the jeffersonian and hamiltonian founding fathers had, they both deeply hated tyranny and agreed any sitting president who acts illegally and tyrannically against the checks and balances they clearly laid out would be charged for his crimes. it would be unconscionable to them that a president would break the law and not face consequences political then criminal, in that order.

the only precedent in semi modern times was Carter's choice to not pursue charges against Nixon when he left office. even though the statute of limitations allowed for it.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 11 2024 02:38pm

In formal logic, A => B does not imply that ¬A => ¬B.
Specifically: "convincted => open to further prosecution" does not logically imply "not convincted => immune from further prosecution".


The article defines the scope of the punishment resulting from conviction in an impeachment trial, particularly that impeachment is a political process designed to provide the political resolution to an office holder committing crimes. Against this backdrop, I would read the sentence as "successful impeachment does not grant the convicted immunity from further prosecution", i.e. that the double jeopardy clause does not apply since impeachment only covered the political, but not the criminal dimension of the case.

I mean it's pretty explicit. Nothing in the constitution says he can't be criminally charged after he's out of office. This loophole only exists if you really really squint at the specific use of the word "convict".

its possible, but its also destined for the SCOTUS, who already settled this as an absolute immunity in civil cases for presidents during and after office. and once that is put on paper its nasty precedent if the current scotus extends immunity to criminal misdeeds. i think its possible that phases of the DOD have refused to pursue charges just to avoid that after the Nixon ruling on civil liability.

we can theory craft how important "convicted" is, and all agree its not a morally correct legal process, but it could still be ruled that way.

SCOTUS already declined to take this before the appeals court. IMO that indicates this is such a batshit crazy idea that they don't feel the need to take the case. It's so obviously wrong there is no real controversy that warrants their involvement.



Civil immunity for officical acts does not expand to complete criminal immunity for illegal private acts, like selling secrets for personal gain.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 11 2024 02:51pm