- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
flownthecoop
| Favorite team: | Texas A&M  |
| Location: | Republic of Texas |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12 |
| Registered on: | 2/29/2024 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/5/24 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
Another mishmash of words making zero sense in response to what I posted.
Nothing further to discuss. My posts remain accurate and clear. Peace out.
Nothing further to discuss. My posts remain accurate and clear. Peace out.
0
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/5/24 at 2:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
It is somewhat interesting that you seem obsessed with taking what I inform you of, quoting me, and then adding notes agreeing with me and then somehow conclude that I have no idea what I am talking about.
I’ve come across your type before. Quit trying to confuse the facts and the subject matter in an attempt to confuse others. My words were and are clear. Maybe not for you, but for the generally educated.
What you quote says that the impeachment process ends at acquittal or conviction. Agreed.
What is unclear is how it interrelates to criminal proceedings. I agree that if convicted by the Senate then the individual is then subject to criminal proceedings.
What is unclear is whether the accused can be subject to criminal proceedings from official acts if the accused as been “acquitted” by the impeachment process. That is the heart of the immunity case to be heard next month.
At least try and make an effort to keep up.
I’ve come across your type before. Quit trying to confuse the facts and the subject matter in an attempt to confuse others. My words were and are clear. Maybe not for you, but for the generally educated.
What you quote says that the impeachment process ends at acquittal or conviction. Agreed.
What is unclear is how it interrelates to criminal proceedings. I agree that if convicted by the Senate then the individual is then subject to criminal proceedings.
What is unclear is whether the accused can be subject to criminal proceedings from official acts if the accused as been “acquitted” by the impeachment process. That is the heart of the immunity case to be heard next month.
At least try and make an effort to keep up.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/5/24 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Double jeopardy was brought up in the post I replied to that mentioned the impeachment and acquittal following Jan 6th.
Do your own research. I have a plane to catch but if I desire to provide it that is a courtesy and not a requirement.
The Constitution is not clear on the interrelations of impeachment vs criminal which is why there is debate on the topic in the first place. It has long been held / assumed that someone convicted under the impeachment process can be subject to criminal prosecution.
What has not been litigated is whether acquittal through impeachment prevents further criminal prosecution on the same charges, particularly when the accused has immunity protections arising from the office they held whilst they were impeached.
We are well beyond 5th grade interpretation of the US Constitution and there is little to no precedent to go on.
Do your own research. I have a plane to catch but if I desire to provide it that is a courtesy and not a requirement.
The Constitution is not clear on the interrelations of impeachment vs criminal which is why there is debate on the topic in the first place. It has long been held / assumed that someone convicted under the impeachment process can be subject to criminal prosecution.
What has not been litigated is whether acquittal through impeachment prevents further criminal prosecution on the same charges, particularly when the accused has immunity protections arising from the office they held whilst they were impeached.
We are well beyond 5th grade interpretation of the US Constitution and there is little to no precedent to go on.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/5/24 at 8:02 am to bluedragon
quote:
The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection. The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss.Feb 13, 2021
Congress has already made their attempt and lost .....
Democrats were told not to step on their dicks and they ignored all reason .....
Next SCOTUS decision will cover Double Jeopardy.
I actually do not think double jeopardy would apply here, but that is due more to SCOTUS showing an aversion to any actual protections under double jeopardy.
Now the quick MSM and DemLib response is that the courts have already ruled that impeachment v criminal does not result in a double jeopardy situation. That is misleading. The court did rule that an acquittal in criminal courts did not preclude a subsequent impeachment charge due to double jeopardy.
What has not been ruled on and what remains a question is whether an acquittal on impeachment charges precludes subsequent criminal prosecution. That has not been answered (based on my knowledge) and in this instance would have to blend in immunity.
tl;dr dems are evil scum who will stop at nothing to bastardize our justice system in order to "get Trump".
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 3:29 pm to Dday63
You are trying to talk around yourself.
ANy reference I made to impeachment applies to questions of immunity, which were not the subject of this case.
SCOTUS said to Congress "do your job, its up to you to establish how the 14 is enforced."
The question SCOTUS answered was not whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. There is some discussion they could have addressed this. The only question they answered was that it was not up to a state (in this instance Colorado) to disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th.
It was a crafty limited answer in order for Roberts to get the 9-0 decision he desired in order to hopefully put an end to the 14th nonsense going on in various states.
ANy reference I made to impeachment applies to questions of immunity, which were not the subject of this case.
SCOTUS said to Congress "do your job, its up to you to establish how the 14 is enforced."
The question SCOTUS answered was not whether Trump engaged in an insurrection. There is some discussion they could have addressed this. The only question they answered was that it was not up to a state (in this instance Colorado) to disqualify a candidate for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th.
It was a crafty limited answer in order for Roberts to get the 9-0 decision he desired in order to hopefully put an end to the 14th nonsense going on in various states.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 2:37 pm to Dday63
quote:
That is not what the Opinion says. They said it was up to Congress to enforce Section 3. Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress gave Enforcement power to federal prosecutors. That portion of the 1870 Act was not carried forward into Title 18, so now it is up to Congress to decide how to enforce the Act.
This obviously won't happen with a Republican House, but in theory Congress could pass an Act before election day granting power to another body to reject elected officials who engaged in insurrection.
Seriously, I think this issue will return after Trump wins. SCOTUS did not address whether Trump was an insurrectionist, nor whether Section 3 can apply to POTUS. Only 5 Justices said that Congress is the only body in charge of Enforcement, and that might not hold up should the question return.
Trying to follow what you are saying. You indicate that is not what the Opinion says then for right back and say that is what it says?
The question regarding whether or not Trump was an insurrectionists was not put before the court. If it were, that is an easy question to punt back to Biden's DOJ and Jack Smith who declined to charge Trump with insurrection.
They know better than to try that route as Trump has multiple defenses against the ludacris idea he started, participated, observed in any "insurrection".
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 2:13 pm to BigPerm30
quote:
This gets you banned on TD. On Reddit they send you flowers. fricking scum.
I would contend that the more appropriate order from Biden in this scenario would be to use the military or possibly a cocaine fueled Hunter to do Trump in.
And I would also contend that Biden would be immune if he could make the case that he was acting in his official duties and "saving Democracy from MAGA" during his impeachment. Given the corrupt goons in the Senate on the left plus folks like Mitch and Mittens, the vote would be 52-48 to acquit Biden.
Don't give the libs any ideas...
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 2:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
SCOTUS is not known to add in other thoughts on pending cases when ruling on a particular case.
I happen to be using not just logic but knowledge & expertise with SCOTUS rulings to indicate that when they ultimately rule on the immunity case they will tell Congress that it is up to them to determine if POTUS immunity applies.
I clearly indicated I am making a supposition of how they will rule on the pending immunity case based on how they ruled today on the Colorado nonsense. :rolleyes:
I happen to be using not just logic but knowledge & expertise with SCOTUS rulings to indicate that when they ultimately rule on the immunity case they will tell Congress that it is up to them to determine if POTUS immunity applies.
I clearly indicated I am making a supposition of how they will rule on the pending immunity case based on how they ruled today on the Colorado nonsense. :rolleyes:
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the court was trying to rely on the impeachment argument, why didn't they, you know, rely on the impeachment argument?
Echo chamber content creators have tried to force that into both cases. Why didn't the USSC even address that for a minute in this case?
This may stem from my post, and if so let me try and clean up any confusion.
I believe SCOTUS's ruling today with clear indication that it is up to Congress to make a 14th Amendment Section 3 determination regarding a candidate for federal office.
I further believe that in regards to Executive Immunity for POTUS they will similarly kick it back to Congress that it is up to them, via the impeachment process, to determine if immunity applies.
The rationale being that it is not up to Fulton County DA's and their lovers nor is it up to the DOJ to determine if immunity applies.
Based on Separation of Powers, it would be up to Congress to hold a POTUS accountable. Period.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 10:24 am to LSU5508
I am sure some legal beagles may not agree, but I contend that the disposition of what is and is not an official act of POTUS can only be decided by impeachment.
The determination cannot be made by a Fulton County DA, by a jury of mindless "peers" in a DC court, nor should it be the purview of SCOTUS.
The FFs included impeachment as a means to address POTUS getting outside the lines of official acts & responsibilities. All other processes would lead to utter chaos and a POTUS unable to govern.
The determination cannot be made by a Fulton County DA, by a jury of mindless "peers" in a DC court, nor should it be the purview of SCOTUS.
The FFs included impeachment as a means to address POTUS getting outside the lines of official acts & responsibilities. All other processes would lead to utter chaos and a POTUS unable to govern.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 10:20 am to bluedragon
Romney would be the exact sort to try and make some Section 3 claim when certifying the electoral votes.
McConnell will likely be silenced by the Chicoms before he makes it to Jan 06, 2025 - they are already working on loose ends within his family in preparation for Trump's return to 1600 Pennsylvania.
McConnell will likely be silenced by the Chicoms before he makes it to Jan 06, 2025 - they are already working on loose ends within his family in preparation for Trump's return to 1600 Pennsylvania.
re: Supreme Court Rules for Trump
Posted by flownthecoop on 3/4/24 at 10:10 am to KiwiHead
New poster here, so be gentle. SCOTUS got this one absolutely right and even took it a step further by appearing to tell Congress that if Trump is elected in November, they should not use Section 3 as a way to not properly count the electoral votes on Jan 06, 2025 in favor of Trump.
That is at least my early understanding and seems appropriate as there is already buzz growing around that scenario.
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Regardless, great day for team Trump and great day for America.
That is at least my early understanding and seems appropriate as there is already buzz growing around that scenario.
I also believe this provides some insight into how they will consider the immunity for POTUS and will again tell Congress that if you want to remove immunity for POTUS actions whilst POTUS is in office, then that begins with impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Regardless, great day for team Trump and great day for America.
Popular
16
