quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
It kind of makes sense.

If you were impeached and removed, your conduct was so egregious that your protections by being in office are removed. Therefor you are now criminally liable.

Of course, this line of reasoning means that it is reasonable to have impeachment proceedings after a person has left office.

Killing people in a declared war is not murder or conspiracy to murder.

But if you are no longer protected by virtue of office, aren’t you now liable for those charges?

I get that there should be immunity for elected officials who are performing their duties as best they can.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If you don’t get the argument, it’s not my fault.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Was he charged with crimes that occurred while he was in office or charged during his term?

Those would have bearing on privilege.

If he’s being charged for crimes that occurred before he was in office, I’m not buying that he has privilege.

I doubt that SCOTUS will return that he has due to double jeopardy. He was not charged with a crime in impeachment, he was being impeached.

His lawyers are trying anything to get him off, like lawyers are supposed to.

I’m just stating that privilege exists and for a reason. The reason for the statement of you no longer have privilege if you are removed from office seems pretty logical… you have privilege while in office, and for acts occurring while you were in.

I suspect the founders never expected the electorate to elect a known problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers become judges and the height of stupidity would be a judge who agrees with trump

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Was he charged with crimes that occurred while he was in office or charged during his term?

Those would have bearing on privilege.

If he’s being charged for crimes that occurred before he was in office, I’m not buying that he has privilege.

I doubt that SCOTUS will return that he has due to double jeopardy. He was not charged with a crime in impeachment, he was being impeached.

His lawyers are trying anything to get him off, like lawyers are supposed to.

I’m just stating that privilege exists and for a reason. The reason for the statement of you no longer have privilege if you are removed from office seems pretty logical… you have privilege while in office, and for acts occurring while you were in.

I suspect the founders never expected the electorate to elect a known problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

I'm sure the other aspect is the notoriety/publicity. I promise you that Ms. Habba will have all the work she can handle for many years to come. If she's not made the head of trump's DOJ

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

I'm sure the other aspect is the notoriety/publicity. I promise you that Ms. Habba will have all the work she can handle for many years to come. If she's not made the head of trump's DOJ

Yeah, it's worked great for Giuliani and Sydney Powell...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

I'm sure the other aspect is the notoriety/publicity. I promise you that Ms. Habba will have all the work she can handle for many years to come. If she's not made the head of trump's DOJ

Yeah, it's worked great for Giuliani and Sydney Powell...

Well, typically, legal representation does not include joining in potentially illegal activity. Giuliani and Powell became a part of the narrative and not in a representative capacity.

I'm not sure what you're saying? trump isn't entitled to counsel?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

I'm sure the other aspect is the notoriety/publicity. I promise you that Ms. Habba will have all the work she can handle for many years to come. If she's not made the head of trump's DOJ

Yeah, it's worked great for Giuliani and Sydney Powell...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
There are lots of incompetent lawyers out there making a marginal living doing simple bankruptcies and no-fault divorces, but nowhere in the legal world are worse lawyers to be found than those Donald Trump hires.

Right now they have an Appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that claims, in part, that prosecuting Trump for criminal acts that were included in his second Impeachment, which Republicans were too cowardly to vote for despit clear evidence, constitutes "double jeopardy", or being put at hazard twice for the same offense.

If we turn our Constitutions to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, discussing the Senate's role in the Impeachment of Federal officials to include the President, we find:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis mine)

Does that leave anybody wondering what the original intent of the Founders was? Any way to read that to mean if you are convicted and removed from Office you are still liable to criminal prosecution but if you aren't removed you magically acquire immunity?

Special Counsel Jack Smith just escalated the question to the Supreme Court.

I'm not really sure he does get bad lawyers.

trump doesn't really give his lawyers much to work with. He acts like an idiot and does idiot shit. He doesn't listen. He lies literally every time he opens his mouth. He publicly disparages the judge who is going to decide how much money he'll have to pay in the NY case in just a few days. I'm not sure what you do with all that as his lawyer.

What most lawyers do, embrace plague monkeys rather than represent him.

It's actually a step down for Alina Habba from representing parking garages.

I'm sure the other aspect is the notoriety/publicity. I promise you that Ms. Habba will have all the work she can handle for many years to come. If she's not made the head of trump's DOJ

Yeah, it's worked great for Giuliani and Sydney Powell...

~Ann

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

It would be interesting to know how much do Americans PAY lawyers every year!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

It would be interesting to know how much do Americans PAY lawyers every year!

. . . not nearly enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Of course he wouldn’t. You see, Jefffive is a liar.

https://www.politifact.com/fac...-with-a-girl-on-jef/

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Of course he wouldn’t. You see, Jefffive is a liar.

https://www.politifact.com/fac...-with-a-girl-on-jef/

Deleted, I have no desire to spread false anything.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
He wasn’t found guilty of sexual assault. He was found liable for damages related to a claim of sexual assault.

It’s a subtle distinction, but the level of proof is very different.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
He wasn’t found guilty of sexual assault. He was found liable for damages related to a claim of sexual assault.

It’s a subtle distinction, but the level of proof is very different.

Ok, thank you for pointing that out. Could you clarify why he was ordered to pay damages if he wasn’t “guilty” - not arguing with you, just want to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Thx Lane