Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Nostra]

Exonerated, Simpleton.

Deal with it. You lost.

LOL

According to you, OJ was exonerated.

See how stupid you sound?

Who?

OJ Simpson, ya moron.

When was he President, Fuckwit?

No one ever said he was, dumbfuck. But using your twisted logic, if being found not guilty means one is innocent and exonerated, that means OJ is innocent and exonerated of murdering his wife and Goldman.

Are ya feeling stupid yet??

\

No one ever said he was, dumbfuck.

Well then, what do you mean when you claim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to impeachment?

What the moron tap dance around this one................

 

[WelfareQueen]

poor dumbass rw's

they whine Trump didnt commit a crime for weeks on end - NO EVIDENCE

now the stupid bitches are saying he was acquitted/exonerated ..

f'n idiots beyond compare.

And still....as always you lost. Sad.

 

[Faun]

Aww, you poor deranged TDSer, videos can't questioned.

First and only president ever to not have witnesses called in an impeachment trial.

More lies.

ZERO new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial. They brought in 3 who had already testified in the House to clarify that testimony. That was done behind closed doors, and only parts were made public.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

I didn't say, "new."

Sadly, your TDS affects your ability to comprehend.

List all the witnesses who testified during the Clinton trial...

GO!

LOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck. You said there were 3. If you want their names... Google them yourself.

yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.

That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.

YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

 

[Nostra]

Except...

They weren't legal. Dems should have taken the to the courts for them to decide. But if you read the rules, subpoena power has to be granted to a committee in congress by a full House vote and Nancy just skipped that step.

Soooooo

Yur wrong.

They were legal.

Eastlan v. United States Servicemen's Fund

Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses.

Faun, Please keep up. My point was that Trump's counsel was challenging the validity. It is up to the court to decide. Somewhere in that document (which I've read) the full committee has to sign off on the subpoenas and only the three chairpersons signed off on it. That makes it invalid. The dems needed to challenge it and the didn't cuz they wanted to hurry up and get him out before the election. After wouldn't do them any good. Don't be fooled by the BS.

Please cite the court case Trump filed to fight the subpoenas issued during the House inquiry...

The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.

The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.

Oops!

 

[Nostra]

More lies.

ZERO new witnesses were called during the Clinton trial. They brought in 3 who had already testified in the House to clarify that testimony. That was done behind closed doors, and only parts were made public.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

I didn't say, "new."

Sadly, your TDS affects your ability to comprehend.

List all the witnesses who testified during the Clinton trial...

GO!

LOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck. You said there were 3. If you want their names... Google them yourself.

yeah, 3 that had already provided testimony to the House. They did so behind closed doors to clarify that testimony, and only portions were released.

That's not what YOUR House Clowns were begging for. They wanted the Senate to subpoena new witnesses and start the investigation all over. That isn't the job of the Senate, Fuckwit.

YOUR House Clowns showed up to trial without a case, and got their asses handed to them.

3 witnesses was 3 more than that of Impeached Trump's trial. First time ever witnesses were not allowed at an impeachment trial.

Actually, 3 is 10 less than the House Clowns presented at Trump's trial.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one, loser.

 

[bluzman61]

No one is proved innocent, f******* moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

Your vulgar filth and hatefulness have certainly convinced me, Faun.
I think you arrogant, condescending Leftists call yourselves "rational" and "intelligent." Your post certainly demonstrates such conduct. Why college professors use such language in their classrooms across the country, don't they? It's very convincing and powerful... to other Leftists, I mean. Not to anyone of wisdom.

"Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible

You are profanely angry and belong on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

Fuck off, con.

I can see you agree that Trump's exoneration was wonderful. It was a dagger to the hearts of the Dim Dems. Beautiful to see.

 

[Faun]

This isn't a court of law..... and there are no statutory crimes being charged and tried with punishment.

Exonerated means Proven innocent.....NOT innocent beyond a reasonable doubt....

example: a man was charged, found guilty, and then evidence like DNA that came forward, PROVED without any doubt, that the person was INNOCENT, and a Judge exonerates them, wipes his record clean to where the being charged, indicted and trial is cleared from his record, he was EXONERATED.

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

And while be charged and taken to trial you are assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Therefore if not proven guilty, your back to being innocent. That's how our system works. Once found not guilty - you can only revert to innocent.

LOLOL

a) you do not revert to innocent. You remain not guilty.

b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not.

c) Impeached Trump could still face legal charges once he's out of office.

d) Impeached Trump is still Impeached remains so.

Exonerated forever.

Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."

 

[Ken Mac]

Exonerated, Simpleton.

Deal with it. You lost.

LOL

According to you, OJ was exonerated.

See how stupid you sound?

Who?

OJ Simpson, ya moron.

When was he President, Fuckwit?

No one ever said he was, dumbfuck. But using your twisted logic, if being found not guilty means one is innocent and exonerated, that means OJ is innocent and exonerated of murdering his wife and Goldman.

Are ya feeling stupid yet??

Let me ask you something. If you were charged with a crime and found not guilty, wouldn't you want others to think you're innocent? Especially if you fell you are innocent?

That's the America I know. The one you know and want leads to Totalitarianism.

 

[bluzman61]

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

And while be charged and taken to trial you are assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Therefore if not proven guilty, your back to being innocent. That's how our system works. Once found not guilty - you can only revert to innocent.

LOLOL

a) you do not revert to innocent. You remain not guilty.

b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not.

c) Impeached Trump could still face legal charges once he's out of office.

d) Impeached Trump is still Impeached remains so.

Exonerated forever.

Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."

It sure was fantastic, wasn't it?

 

[Faun]

This isn't a court of law..... and there are no statutory crimes being charged and tried with punishment.

Exonerated means Proven innocent.....NOT innocent beyond a reasonable doubt....

example: a man was charged, found guilty, and then evidence like DNA that came forward, PROVED without any doubt, that the person was INNOCENT, and a Judge exonerates them, wipes his record clean to where the being charged, indicted and trial is cleared from his record, he was EXONERATED.

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

INNOCENT until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, he was EXONERATED.


Innocent.

You lose, Loser. Deal with it.

...applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

Yeah............yeah..............we know you single digit IQ morons think Trump was guilty until he proved his innocence, but that isn't how our system works. You are innocent until proven guilty in any venue, Fuckwit.

LOL

You're ineducable, dumbfuck.

Again... presumption of innocence applies to the justice system, not the Legislature.

 

[JustAGuy1]

No one is proved innocent, f******* moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

Your vulgar filth and hatefulness have certainly convinced me, Faun.
I think you arrogant, condescending Leftists call yourselves "rational" and "intelligent." Your post certainly demonstrates such conduct. Why college professors use such language in their classrooms across the country, don't they? It's very convincing and powerful... to other Leftists, I mean. Not to anyone of wisdom.

"Anger comes from the bosom of a fool." - The Holy Bible

You are profanely angry and belong on my Ignore List.

ciao brutto

Fuck off, con. Maybe in another life you'll be capable of winning a debate without crying like a baby.

Talk about Projection.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

INNOCENT until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, he was EXONERATED.


Innocent.

You lose, Loser. Deal with it.

...applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

Yeah............yeah..............we know you single digit IQ morons think Trump was guilty until he proved his innocence, but that isn't how our system works. You are innocent until proven guilty in any venue, Fuckwit.

LOL

You're ineducable, dumbfuck.

Again... presumption of innocence applies to the justice system, not the Legislature.

Cite your source to back this up please.

 

[Faun]

LOL

According to you, OJ was exonerated.

See how stupid you sound?

Who?

OJ Simpson, ya moron.

When was he President, Fuckwit?

No one ever said he was, dumbfuck. But using your twisted logic, if being found not guilty means one is innocent and exonerated, that means OJ is innocent and exonerated of murdering his wife and Goldman.

Are ya feeling stupid yet??

So, NOW you want to say impeachment is the same as the justice system when just a few posts ago you claimed just the opposite.

Oops!

You are too easy to destroy, Puddinhead.

I never said it's the same, dumbfuck. You 're hallucinating again.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama exerts Executive privilege over one set of documents and you use that as cover for Trumpybear's blanket refusal to for every single document the House investigator asked for.

Trumpublicans have set a dangerous precedent with that. Enjoy.

Not at all, the prescribed method was being followed but the Dems didn't want to go that way because it is time consuming. Oh well

The claim of executive blanket immunity is equal to no accountability. Do you want the next Democrat president to have no accountability?

You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.

The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

The Executive Branch has no standing in the process the House uses to initiate impeachment proceeding and the argument lacks merit. Witnesses can choose to plead the 5th and the Executive can claim privileged over specific answers and documents.

Subpoenas must be valid. They were challenged as being invalid due to the fact Nazi Pelousy didn't hold the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings prior to them being issued.

You really are thick.

There is no such requirement in the Constitution regarding impeachment.

 

[Ken Mac]

Except...

They weren't legal. Dems should have taken the to the courts for them to decide. But if you read the rules, subpoena power has to be granted to a committee in congress by a full House vote and Nancy just skipped that step.

Soooooo

Yur wrong.

They were legal.

Eastlan v. United States Servicemen's Fund

Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses.

Faun, Please keep up. My point was that Trump's counsel was challenging the validity. It is up to the court to decide. Somewhere in that document (which I've read) the full committee has to sign off on the subpoenas and only the three chairpersons signed off on it. That makes it invalid. The dems needed to challenge it and the didn't cuz they wanted to hurry up and get him out before the election. After wouldn't do them any good. Don't be fooled by the BS.

Please cite the court case Trump filed to fight the subpoenas issued during the House inquiry...

He didn't need to initiate. His counsel responded in a letter stating the reasons for non compliance with what they felt was an invalid subpoena. It was the Dems job to take them to court. sigh...

 

[bluzman61]

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

INNOCENT until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, he was EXONERATED.


Innocent.

You lose, Loser. Deal with it.

...applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

Yeah............yeah..............we know you single digit IQ morons think Trump was guilty until he proved his innocence, but that isn't how our system works. You are innocent until proven guilty in any venue, Fuckwit.

LOL

You're ineducable, dumbfuck.

Again... presumption of innocence applies to the justice system, not the Legislature.

His exoneration is just lovely, isn't it? God bless and watch over our wonderful president, Donald J. Trump.

 

[Faun]

Obama exerts Executive privilege over one set of documents and you use that as cover for Trumpybear's blanket refusal to for every single document the House investigator asked for.

Trumpublicans have set a dangerous precedent with that. Enjoy.

Not at all, the prescribed method was being followed but the Dems didn't want to go that way because it is time consuming. Oh well

The claim of executive blanket immunity is equal to no accountability. Do you want the next Democrat president to have no accountability?

You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.

The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

The Executive Branch has no standing in the process the House uses to initiate impeachment proceeding and the argument lacks merit. Witnesses can choose to plead the 5th and the Executive can claim privileged over specific answers and documents.

Subpoenas must be valid. They were challenged as being invalid due to the fact Nazi Pelousy didn't hold the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings prior to them being issued.

You really are thick.

Cite the law that requires such a vote...

 

[Thinker101]

Proven innocent" is the standard of justice used in totalitarian dictatorship. Every time you try to use it, you only demonstrate that you're a goose stepping Stalinist. All you TDS morons want to pretend this is some kind of legal process, but then when it's pointed out how Dims have violated the principles of the legal process, they resort to bleating that it's not a legal process. Anyone who isn't a brain damaged TDS moron can see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No one is proved innocent, fucking moron. In a court of law, you may be found "not guilty." That doesn't mean you're innocent, let alone, exonerated. It means the prosecutor couldn't prove you're guilty under the law.

And while be charged and taken to trial you are assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Therefore if not proven guilty, your back to being innocent. That's how our system works. Once found not guilty - you can only revert to innocent.

LOLOL

a) you do not revert to innocent. You remain not guilty.

b) presumption of innocence only applies to legal cases, which the Senate trial was not.

c) Impeached Trump could still face legal charges once he's out of office.

d) Impeached Trump is still Impeached remains so.

Exonerated forever.

Exonerated implies innocence, but regrettably, Impeached Trump was found "not guilty," not, "innocent."

Terrific, is this where you tell us what the definition of 'is" is?

 

[Ken Mac]

Not at all, the prescribed method was being followed but the Dems didn't want to go that way because it is time consuming. Oh well

The claim of executive blanket immunity is equal to no accountability. Do you want the next Democrat president to have no accountability?

You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.

The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

That lie won't fly. Get a new one.

The Executive Branch has no standing in the process the House uses to initiate impeachment proceeding and the argument lacks merit. Witnesses can choose to plead the 5th and the Executive can claim privileged over specific answers and documents.

Subpoenas must be valid. They were challenged as being invalid due to the fact Nazi Pelousy didn't hold the required vote to initiate impeachment proceedings prior to them being issued.

You really are thick.

There is no such requirement in the Constitution regarding impeachment.

There is more than enough precedent to follow. Nance used the Judicial committee because they had very few rules for subpoenas. The oversight committee is the proper committee for an impeachment inquiry. They have "OVERSIGHT" of the executive branch. That is their sole job. Why don't you go out and do some more reading. Nancy subverted previous precedent and used the wrong committee because she didn't want to deal with courts and hurry the process along. WTFU.

 

[Faun]

They were legal.

Eastlan v. United States Servicemen's Fund

Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in question is a legitimate use by Congress of its power to investigate, and the subpoena power may be exercised by a committee acting, as here, on behalf of one of the Houses.

Faun, Please keep up. My point was that Trump's counsel was challenging the validity. It is up to the court to decide. Somewhere in that document (which I've read) the full committee has to sign off on the subpoenas and only the three chairpersons signed off on it. That makes it invalid. The dems needed to challenge it and the didn't cuz they wanted to hurry up and get him out before the election. After wouldn't do them any good. Don't be fooled by the BS.

Please cite the court case Trump filed to fight the subpoenas issued during the House inquiry...

The House Clowns withdrew the subpoenas. It was on them to challenge the White House's opinion in court. They didn't.

The House pretty much agreed they were invalid by not going to court and getting a ruling.

Oops!

They withdrew the subpoena on Charles Kupperman. They didn't withdraw every subpoena.