And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[progressive hunter]

Except they acted on the plan by trying to get Pence to engage in the corrupt and illegal scheme.

If they just sat around talking about this theory, that’s one thing. They actually tried to carry it out.

nothing illegal about presenting alternate electors,,

its happened before,,

 

[Foxfyre]

Except they acted on the plan by trying to get Pence to engage in the corrupt and illegal scheme.

If they just sat around talking about this theory, that’s one thing. They actually tried to carry it out.

Trying to convince somebody of something is not a crime. Believing what you are trying to convince the person of is not a crime. Most especially when you have legal advice, however bad, that what you want is legal.

 

[Marener]

nothing illegal about presenting alternate electors,,

its happened before,,

Fake electors. Not alternate electors.

 

[Marener]

Trying to convince somebody of something is not a crime. Believing what you are trying to convince the person of is not a crime. Most especially when you have legal advice, however bad, that what you want is legal.

First of all, having “legal advice” doesn’t provide immunity for you to commit crimes.

Trying to convince someone to carry out an illegal and corrupt scheme is actually rather illegal. This was all part of a conspiracy to defraud.

 

[Lesh]

But the power to hold the President accountable rests with the people via their elected representatives and is not given to any other power or any subsequent administration to do. And the issue of double jeopardy is also at play so that a strongly partisan congress should not be able to impeach and remove a president for something a previous congress tried but didn't get done. I hope that is how the SCOTUS justices will see it.

Double jeopardy has no bearing on that. It only means that an individual cannot be prosecuted for the same crime twice.

And just in case you were wondering , impeachment is not a prosecution it is simply removal from office

 

[BlindBoo]

I doubt this is accurately reported in full context but even if it is, holding a wrong legal opinion is NOT a crime. Holding wrong opinions about ANYTHING is protected by the U.S. Constitution via the First Amendment. Asking for something or believing something or even insisting on something when you have no power to enforce it is NEVER a crime!

The Defendant's Attempts to Enlist the Vice President to Fraudulently Alter the Election Results at the January 6 Certification Proceeding.

As the January 6 congressional certification proceeding approached and other efforts to impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function failed, the Defendant sought to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results. The Defendant did this first by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to convince the Vice President to accept the Defendant's fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than count them. When that failed, the Defendant attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D.C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election results.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

pp 32

 

[BlindBoo]

nothing illegal about presenting alternate electors,,

its happened before,,

The forged and fraudulent slates of electors claimed to be duly elected from their respective states.

Only two of the states put in the caveat that they were merely contingency electors. They are not being charged either.

 

[BackAgain]

Double jeopardy has no bearing on that. It only means that an individual cannot be prosecuted for the same crime twice.

And just in case you were wondering , impeachment is not a prosecution it is simply removal from office

Impeachment and removal appear to have been intended as prerequisites to any possible criminal prosecution of a President.

While you aren’t required to agree, at leas the claim itself is buttressed by the very words of the Constitution.

• Section 3 Senate​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • 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.

 

[Marener]

Impeachment and removal appear to have been intended as prerequisites to any possible criminal prosecution of a President.

Trump isn’t president.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump isn’t president.

Wow. You’re so smart.

He was when he was impeached (twice) and never convicted, you idiot. And that’s the point.

 

[progressive hunter]

Trump isn’t president.

it still applies,,

 

[Marener]

Wow. You’re so smart.

He was when he was impeached (twice) and never convicted, you idiot. And that’s the point.

Since he’s not president, there is no prerequisite to impeach him before pursuing criminal charges.

 

[Marener]

it still applies,,

The constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential immunity.

 

[BackAgain]

Since he’s not president, there is no prerequisite to impeach him before pursuing criminal charges.

Wrong. Since he got impeached and was not convicted, the implication is that he is therefore not subject to criminal prosecution, you utter simpleton.

Not that there is any crime to be validly charged anyway.

 

[BlindBoo]

Impeachment and removal appear to have been intended as prerequisites to any possible criminal prosecution of a President.

While you aren’t required to agree, at leas the claim itself is buttressed by the very words of the Constitution.

Benedict Donald was acquitted because he was no longer president at the time of the Senate Trial. Nothing in the Constitution gives the office holder immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.

 

[BackAgain]

The constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential immunity.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

 

[BackAgain]

Benedict Donald was acquitted because he was no longer president at the time of the Senate Trial. Nothing in the Constitution gives the office holder immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.

Wrong, you idiot.

He was impeached twice.

 

[progressive hunter]

The constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential immunity.

but it does speak on impeachment,,first they have to be impeached and convicted,,

 

[Marener]

Wrong. Since he got impeached and was not convicted, the implication is that he is therefore not subject to criminal prosecution, you utter simpleton.

Not that there is any crime to be validly charged anyway.

The “implication” is a fabrication. Completely on your own making.

 

[Marener]

but it does speak on impeachment,,first they have to be impeached and convicted,,

It doesnt say that either.