D.C. Court of Appeals made a horrible ruling against Trump

a reply to: frogs453

So we are arguing both double jeopardy and as seen on page 41 that Trump ascertains he can only be charged if he was found guilty in the impeachment trial? So double jeopardy does not apply if found guilty but does apply if acquitted?

This makes zero sense.

a reply to: JinMI


You responded to Matafuchs regarding double jeopardy and referred to page 37 of the opinion.

I referred to page 41 and Trump's claim that to be criminally charged he must be found guilty during impeachment.

So we're arguing both points? If we are then it could only be argued that if acquitted during impeachment it's double jeopardy if criminally charged as Trump claims again he can only be criminally charged if found guilty during impeachment.

You are right, it makes zero sense.

a reply to: JinMI

Please point out where in the Impeachment Clause it gives Congress the authority to do anything other than remove someone from office?

Since the impeachment vote against Mayorkas just failed does that mean he now can't be charged for any crimes you believe him to be guilty of?

a reply to: frogs453

It makes zero sense because your applied reasoning is flawed, as I believe the judges are.


If Trump is to be criminally charged while the actions happened in office then he needs be impeached first.

Then he can perhaps be charged criminally.

You're saying that if he was found guilty and removed, that the double jeopardy would apply if they charged him thereafter.

What you're missing is that this is a POTUS, with all the protections and powers vested in them by the people. Which by a measure by and of the people is forcibly removed in order for the criminal proceeding to happen.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Please point out where in the Impeachment Clause it gives Congress the authority to do anything other than remove someone from office?

Please point out where this is even relevant. Who sits on the senate impeachment trials? The answer proves that the judiciary has a specific role.

Since the impeachment vote against Mayorkas just failed does that mean he now can't be charged for any crimes you believe him to be guilty of?

No one voted for Mayorkas. He doesn't have the same protections and authority as a POTUS or ex POTUS.

Keep digging though.

a reply to: Threadbarer

So the 1/6 Committee is a farce and all of the evidence they may have obtained cannot be used in other cases...like Georgia and DC.

a reply to: JinMI

Thomas McClintock was the lone GOP rep from CA that stopped the Mayorkas impeachment. Sad....but, since Congress has no power according to some who cares.

a reply to: JinMI

You're the one arguing that an impeachment is enough to trigger double jeopardy. Mayorkas' impeachment failed, so why would double jeopardy not trigger in his case?

a reply to: matafuchs

I'm entirely unsurprised that Mayorkas wasn't impeached.

The R's are claiming it was some sort of strategic maneuver so they can do it again next week.

It's still incompetence from my view.

a reply to: matafuchs

There were four Republicans that voted against impeachment.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

You're the one arguing that an impeachment is enough to trigger double jeopardy. Mayorkas' impeachment failed, so why would double jeopardy not trigger in his case?

Are you missing the fact that Mayorkas was not impeached and that Trump was?

a reply to: matafuchs

If the investigative bodies responsible for those cases decide the evidence obtained by the 1/6 Committee is relevant then they're free to use them.

Congress are not the ones that are charging those crimes.

a reply to: JinMI

I wasn't the one who brought up double jeopardy at all.

The judges which you think are "flawed" cited the reasoning to rebut the numerous claims. He can appeal to the higher court by Monday. Then they can decide to hear the case or reject it. I can't argue whether it's flawed or not as I certainly don't have the legal knowledge of a judge.

As you believe it's "flawed", you may wish to provide relevant info and case precedent to Trump’s attorneys.

a reply to: frogs453

I can't argue whether it's flawed or not as I certainly don't have the legal knowledge of a judge.

Yea, it's a problem.

When you make a habit out of regurgitating talking points and court filings of a one sided allegations, it directly inhibits your ability to think critically or clearly.


I'm sorry that you've not been directed to the proper opinion. I'm sure it will change soon when the news makes the rounds...

a reply to: JinMI

Oh I have an opinion. You just don't like it. However I do not have the hubris to claim I'm more knowledgeable about the law than a Supreme Court judge.

As I said, you should certainly impart your legal knowledge to Trump's team, they keep getting eviscerated in rulings, so they must not be able to think "critically" and "clearly" as well.

a reply to: frogs453

Oh I have an opinion. You just don't like it. However I do not have the hubris to claim I'm more knowledgeable about the law than a Supreme Court judge.

That's exactly the problem. You have an opinion, I disagree then instead of fully exploring the opinion via discussion and debate, your excuse is that you don't have the knowledge of a judge.

As I said, you should certainly impart your legal knowledge to Trump's team, they keep getting eviscerated in rulings, so they must not be able to think "critically" and "clearly" as well.

Your attempted dig at me just highlights your inability to form your own opinions based on available evidence. But I'll take it as a compliment regardless.

And yes, they keep getting ruled against. Even in the face of common sense. Yet, we have demonstrable and rampant corruption. Which you somehow reversed your opinion on....

a reply to: JinMI

Why do you think you are more knowledgeable than the trial judge or the three judges on the appeal panel? If SCOTUS concurs with the lower courts are you going to claim you know more than them as well?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Do you and Frogs agree that abortion should be relegated to states?

My uninformed opinion is that its a bad precedent if it doesnt get overturned at higher levels.

Do we really want a president being bogged down in the court system in the future, or worried about being bankrupted in the courts after he gets out.

Should have remained in the realm of impeachment, this is going to make our govt even more useless before people shock GREAT, they do a lot of stuff that helps the states that dont get press.

IF they had an actual serious crime, it wouldnt bother me, J6 has so much shady stuff around it I discount it out of hand now.

His real estate stuff... I am still waiting to hear who the victim of his claims is.

The files at MAL nothing different than any other president and VP in my lifetime (or senator joe biden at the time hint: he didnt have legal authority).

So what actual CRIME has he committed that should allow presidents to be run through the court system?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Threadbarer

Do you and Frogs agree that abortion should be relegated to states?

Oh boy
You got them scrambling for their talking point cue cards with that question.