Quote from: suchmoon on October 18, 2019, 02:06:38 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 18, 2019, 01:39:38 AM

Hey look who is here to try to help save their dumb pals save face

https://i.imgflip.com/3dmtor.jpg

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 18, 2019, 01:39:38 AM

unsourced

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 18, 2019, 01:39:38 AM

You still aren't addressing the constitution itself.

Both the "shall nevertheless be liable" clause and the double jeopardy clause are in the Constitution of the United States as well, but I keep forgetting that you're a Zerohedge law school graduate so you get to cherry-pick your own constitution.

From your source:

"The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes."

Perjury and conspiracy you say? What is perjury and conspiray? Oh that's right, crimes, crimes independent of the original charges. In this context, you have essentially just proved my point, because a double jeopardy argument would only be valid if they were both criminal proceedings for the same crime (but the crimes were independent), so thanks for that. Of course this is a district judge anyway and not a presidential impeachment, so they aren't the same thing anyway. This is just a fumbled attempt at pulling a Hail Mary out of your ass.

What is important here is a syntax typo resulting from an edit, and some tertiary non-precedent, not the constitution itself, directly quoted, of course. If you will notice you didn't actually refute what I said, you just repeated yourself and made a series of personal attacks. P.S. Zero Hedge focuses on economics, not law.