Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Nostra]

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.

The didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.

LOL

I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....

Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.

How does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Hint: It doesn't.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

So you are saying that you are guilty until proven innocent. Make up your feeble mind, you can't keep your story straight.

I never said that either, dumbfuck. You're hallucinating again.

What a wonderful exoneration! Donald J. Trump WILL be re-elected in November. It will be glorious!

 

[Faun]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

 

[JustAGuy1]

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."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

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

Prove this little man

Run Forestttttt

 

[bluzman61]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

What a deserving exoneration! I'm glad you agree with this.

 

[Nostra]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.

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

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course I would want that. That doesn't make it so.

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...

Letters can't alter Congressional oversight. The Congress does not have to respond to letters. If Impeached Trump wanted to contest the validity of the subpoenas, he should have filed a case to that.

That's not how it works Faun. If you want something and someone won't give it to you, you have to initiate a court case. It's up to the requestor not the requested.

False. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled Congressional subpoenas must be observed by relevant witnesses in investigationd. If Impeached Trump wanted to contest that, the onus to file suit was on him unless he could get the House to withdraw the subpoenas; which he didn't.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

Not my problem if you can't understand the meaning of "not guilty."

Yep, not my problem either. As long as the court (in this case Congress) understands the meaning...dumbass.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

Of course I would want that. That doesn't make it so.

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...

Letters can't alter Congressional oversight. The Congress does not have to respond to letters. If Impeached Trump wanted to contest the validity of the subpoenas, he should have filed a case to that.

That's not how it works Faun. If you want something and someone won't give it to you, you have to initiate a court case. It's up to the requestor not the requested.

False. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled Congressional subpoenas must be observed by relevant witnesses in investigationd. If Impeached Trump wanted to contest that, the onus to file suit was on him unless he could get the House to withdraw the subpoenas; which he didn't.

It's SO wonderful to observe your love of our fantastic president, Donald J. Trump. SO nice to see!

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

 

[deanrd]

Donald Trump tried to shake down a foreign leader to subvert an American election. He doesn’t understand why that’s bad.

He doesn’t understand why trump university was a scam and cost thousands of people their savings.

He doesn’t think he did anything wrong making a fake charity calling it a foundation and using it as a slush fund for his family.

And sadly, many Republicans don’t understand either.

And that’s why it was so easy for Donald Trump to corrupt the Senate. Because Republicans just don’t understand why a scam and an illegal organization and shaking somebody down are bad. It’s just not in their lexicon of morals.

so we need to just agree to disagree and let it go and in the future when Donald Trump commits another high crime or a crime leave it to us to follow the law.

 

[Faun]

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."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

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

Prove this little man

presumption of innocence

 

[BlindBoo]

There is more than enough precedent to follow.

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.

The precedent use to be the full House had to vote to authorize any committee, including an impeachment inquiry, to have subpoena power. That precedent was changed in 2015, by Republicans wanting to fast track the continuing investigations into Obama. There is no specific committee that the Constitution delegates the Impeachment authority to. The Constitution gives the House the Sole Power or Impeachment.

 

[Faun]

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.

The didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.

LOL

I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....

Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.

How does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Hint: It doesn't.

LOLOL

They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.

 

[Faun]

Exonerated forever.

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

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

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

Prove this little man

Run Forestttttt

LOL

You posted that to yourself. At least you know you're a Gump.

 

[Faun]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

The House had 13 witnesses provide testimony, liar.

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

No witnesses were called, dumbfuck. First time in U.S. history.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

The didn't go to court on any of them, as our system requires.

LOL

I already posted a link to the Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund case....

Have someone explain to you the implication of Eastland's name appearing first in that case.

How does that have any bearing on the invalid subpoenas the House issued due to the fact they didn't have a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Hint: It doesn't.

LOLOL

They're not invalid because you say they are. You're hallucinating again.

It's SO nice to see your love for our president, Donald J. Trump!

 

[Faun]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Exonerated forever.

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

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

... presumption of innocence still applies to the justice system, dumbfuck.

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

Prove this little man

presumption of innocence

Son that proves our point, not yours. You need to show that (as you claimed) it does not apply to impeachment.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

OF ALL the witnesses brought before the senate to testify at an impeachment trial, there were exactly ZERO that were brought in that didn't already testify in the House. They were brought in to clarify previous testimony. So your point isn't valid. AT ALL. It's a Democrat talking point.

So what? There were still witnesses called to testify and be subject to questioning. Impeached Trump needed the Republican-led Senate to disallow any witnesses from being called, for the first time in U.S. history, in order to find him not guilty.

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses. They brought a weak ass case in which they claimed they had overwhelming evidence. Please think about that real hard. It's easy to see why the senate said no more witnesses are needed. The dem's said they had overwhelming evidence, they reviewed it, found it to be lacking merit and voila - Exonerated forever.

Regardless of their excuses, for the first time in U.S. history, the Senate held an impeachment trial and refused to let witnesses testify.

You keep professing your love for our president. Nice!