RugbyRebels

gransoporro wrote:Clinton lied under oath. He lied about a bj, yes, but the crime was lying under oath.

I'm aware. It was an attempt at humour.

gransoporro wrote:No double jeopardy. One could be impeached and removed without going to trial, or the other way around, or both.

Thank you - is that known and proven? or assumed but untested?

Which Tyler wrote:

gransoporro wrote:Clinton lied under oath. He lied about a bj, yes, but the crime was lying under oath.

I'm aware. It was an attempt at humour.

gransoporro wrote:No double jeopardy. One could be impeached and removed without going to trial, or the other way around, or both.

Thank you - is that known and proven? or assumed but untested?

Impeachment is a political trial, where a high crime is such because the House thinks so. They have to convince the Senate.
So it is separate from actual justice.

Example: Spiro Agnew was never impeached. judge Porteous was impeached, removed and disqualified but never went under trial.

Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.

It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.

Which Tyler wrote:Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.

It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.

Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.

The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.

gransoporro wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Thank you - I'm aware of the difference between politics and law, and it would seem that double jeopardy doesn't apply.
I was more wondering whether it could potentially be argued that it applies, once escalated to the (Trump appointed) supreme court.

It seems like it hasn't actually been tested.

Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.

The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.

I suppose that he could be charged with any number of feeetal or state crimes but providing he isn’t actually in jail, he can still run for the Republican nomination for the next election.

gransoporro wrote:Nixon (the judge) vs United States: the Supreme Court says impeachment is non justiciable. Therefore no double jeopardy is possible since the two spheres do not intersect.

The SC can still reverse precedent, so it could be argued. Still the SC must opt to hear the case first.

Thank you, tested and decided then - good to know

Sandydragon wrote:I suppose that he could be charged with any number of feeetal or state crimes but providing he isn’t actually in jail, he can still run for the Republican nomination for the next election.

Yes (I think).

In all liklihood, if actually convicted in a court of law, then he (or any other candidate) would be immediately impeached - and that impeachment would be useless, or he wouldn't have made it through the primaries.

Trump may have lost the election but this thread is destroying the Biden thread.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Trump may have lost the election but this thread is destroying the Biden thread.

Well Biden is “presidential” so nothing he does or says matters. Everything is fine now and the US is on an unstoppable upward trajectory.

frickin space lasers man.

Another masterclass in legal preparedness and competence going down.

Not that it will matter.

Acquitted by Senate (53 - 47).
It's been a Witch Hunt - official.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-u ... a-56054136

Jesus. I didn’t think it was even in doubt. I thought he’d be the scapegoat now so many have turned on him.

Absolutely fucking pathetic. Fuck all of them. Fuck them.

Galfon wrote:Acquitted by Senate (53 - 47).
It's been a Witch Hunt - official.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-u ... a-56054136

While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).

Puja

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:Acquitted by Senate (53 - 47).
It's been a Witch Hunt - official.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-u ... a-56054136

While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).

Puja

I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.

Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.

I'd like to think the fat old man will be dead soon, but I had that hope 4-5 years back

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Galfon wrote:Acquitted by Senate (53 - 47).
It's been a Witch Hunt - official.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-u ... a-56054136

While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).

Puja

I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.

Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.

Of the 7, 2 are not running for re-election, 2 have just been re-elected , then there are Murkowsky, Sasse and Romney. Murkovsky is up in 2022.

gransoporro wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
While the Republican Senators are all a bunch of useless fuck trombones, I will note that it's slightly less bleak than you've got it there - it was 57-43 to convict (while needing 67 to actually accomplish anything).

Puja

I’m surprised that 7 Republicans voted to convict. Their fear of the Trumpian base is clouding any sensible judgement for those who feel that Trump is indeed a dangerous idiot.

Whether Trump will run himself for the next election isn’t that clear but he will definitely retain significant influence in the Republican Party for the foreseeable future and I can’t see a candidate gaining the Republican nomination without Trumps blessing.

Of the 7, 2 are not running for re-election, 2 have just been re-elected , then there are Murkowsky, Sasse and Romney. Murkovsky is up in 2022.

Murkowski is also a Senator for Alaska, which is switching to an open system, so she can't be primaried and ruled out of running. She's also personally popular there, so she doesn't give a shit about the GOP's opinion of her.

Puja

I mean, what are they going to campaign on to lock in the nationalist base for another go around? White Grievance II: This time its in the open. Promise to divert all the resources for the Department of Education to a newly formed State Racist Talk Back Radio and Digital Communications Internet Space Laser Arm of the Air Force?

Everything they touched died. Surely the market for angry christian anti-diversity (plugging merchandise, and toxic dietary supplements that cure every illness) is saturated by know?

cashead wrote:Also, literal lol at some mods getting their jimmies rustled at the prospect of offending nazis. Fucking pathetic.

Mate, the rule is literally just don't abuse other posters. You getting banned for telling people to fuck off or calling them cunts isn't proving any point. Argue as you like, offend as you like, just don't call people names or tell them to fuck off - not because it'll offend them, but because it's one of the basic board rules and you're just giving them an open-and-shut case to get you booted again.

Puja

And it’s unbelievably fucking boring.

"Prospect of offending nazis" is quite some take on events, and not one I particularly appreciate, personally.

Can we change the title of this to "The Former Guy"?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Can we change the title of this to "The Former Guy"?

He's transitioned?