Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Nostra]

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.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

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

And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.

13 did, liar. Their under oath testimony was played.

EPIC MELTDOWN BY FAUN!

 

[bripat9643]

Suck it, Dimwingers. Your clusterfuck has blown up in your faces.

Now it's over, and you are losers.

Was OJ Exonerated when his jury voted unanimously to acquit him?

Trump got an average of 48.5 votes to convict - that does not show anything near vindication.

Grow up hack, you bother me - as do all trump supporters who continue to put the United States at risk by supporting this Plutocratic fascist. Putin should fire you, you are too incompetent to serve the Kremlin and the Russian effort to destroy our democracy.

Grow up child, he was aquitted. Time for the next fake scandal

How much did you pay for your brainwash? Reading a couple of your posts suggests that you could have saved money; its clear you only needed a lite rinse. That said, there was noting fake about the indictment of The President, even some Republicans who vote to acquit him said so. Those Senators who vote to acquit trump, did so to keep their job, not his.

Let's hope the people in Red States wake up and realize DJT is corrupt to his core, and a danger to all of us.

A danger?



Got any evidence? Please share.

Sure, one data point should suffice.

Trump killed an Iranian General; Iran responded by sending missiles into one of our bases; trump claimed no one was killed or hurt; when that lie was exposed, he claimed a few only had headaches.

Last I heard, over 50 had to be hospitalized, and then nothing else has been reported, by the White House or anyone else. trump cannot be trusted, he lies constantly, attacks the character of everyone who won't kiss his ass, only hires yes men (maybe a woman or two, and a token minority or two who kiss his ass daily).

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"Obamacare will save you $2500/yr."

"I don't know the Whistleblower."

"I never spoke with the Whistleblower.'

 

[Faun]

... 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.

It shows it's a legal construct.

Do you find that deflection works for you?
It won't work me. You got caught lying son

Spits a gump.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a fucking idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

It appears that Fauny has finally gotten tired of professing his love for our president.

 

[Faun]

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.

They withdrew their subpoena on Bolten, also.

So? They didn't with withdraw them all.

 

[Faun]

... 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.

It shows it's a legal construct.

So you are back to "you are guilty until you prove you are innocent" in impeachment trials.

Sure is hard to keep up with your flip-flops.

Nope, never said that, dumbfuck. You're hallucinating again.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is more than enough precedent to follow.

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 delegate the Impeachment authority to. The Constitution gives the House the Sole Power or Impeachment.

That is correct. But each committee establishes it's own requirements for subpoenas. The rules for subpoenas on the Oversight committee are more limited in power than the Judiciary Committee. This is Nancy's subversion. She used the wrong committee cuz she wanted full subpoena power.

Please read again, you seem to not be picking up what I'm putting down.

There is no specific committee that the Constitution delegates the Impeachment authority to. With the Sole power resting in the House, the President, the Senate, nor the Courts have a say in which committee can or should be used for an impeachment inquiry.

 

[Nostra]

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.

No court ruled they were valid, Fuckwit.

You lost, Loser. Deal with it.

The Supreme Court had already done that years ago, dumbfuck. Try and keep up, will ya?

They ruled YEARS ago the subpoenas issued in Dec were valid?

Your meltdown if becoming hilarious beyond belief.

 

[Dick Foster]

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

'sOK....House Impeachment by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler didn't mean proven 'Guilty'. They ADMITTED this was always a biased, political, partisan coup attempt initiated by Obama before Trump ever won the 2016 election and finally carried out as promised back then.

One of my favorite snowflake comments about Impeachment came yesterday when some Trump-hating snowflake declared, "Acquittal is just exoneration ON PAPER'.....Yeah, and House Impeachment was just 'Impeachment' ON PAPER as well.

Bwuhahahahaha........

It was partisan because the Repuicans CHOSE to WHIP their caucus in to voting in one republican block with threats if they strayed. Democrats were allowed to be impartial and vote their conscience based on the actual evidence thatt was allowed to be presented.....

As Mitch clearly and unquestionably stated before the trial began, the FIX WAS IN to acquit him...

Not allowing new pertinent evidence and witnesses in the SHAM trial sealed the FIXED DEAL....

Yes, he was acquitted, on paper only.... but for your side, it was better to have a SHAM trial with no witnesses than to follow their oath of impartiality and truth and the constitution.... And more important than our Nation and all the eyes watching their SHAM SCAM....

at least you could then keep crooked cheating Donald around....

ITS SHAMEFUL!!! imo

I suggest you look up the word hypocrisy and all of its derivatives. Then commit them to memory.
It would be advisable you do this before posting again.

 

[Faun]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a fucking idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

Zero witnesses were called to testify in the trial. Stop lying.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

They only need one reason. And it's a reason that keeps getting brought up here as a disservice to America. They are representing their constituency. Last I checked that's their fucking job. They work for the people and the people they represent. If they aren't representing their constituency then they aren't holding up their oath or end of the bargain. It's what America was built on and it's viewed here by the liberals as something bad.

Not , it's not bad, it's just "Orange man is bad, must impeach".

 

[Nostra]

"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.

It shows it's a legal construct.

So you are back to "you are guilty until you prove you are innocent" in impeachment trials.

Sure is hard to keep up with your flip-flops.

Nope, never said that, dumbfuck. You're hallucinating again.

Yes, you did. When you claimed the presumption of innocence doesn't apply outside a court.

MELTDOWN ON STEROIDS.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a fucking idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

It appears that Fauny has finally gotten tired of professing his love for our president.

Oops, posted too soon. Refer to posts #558 and #563 in this thread. He just can't hold back his unbridled love for Donald J. Trump. SO wonderful to observe!

 

[Nostra]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a fucking idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

Zero witnesses were called to testify in the trial. Stop lying.

Read and get an education, Fuckwit.

Tips for Using Video Testimony at Trial - Magna Legal Services

 

[Faun]

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.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

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

And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.

13 did, liar. Their under oath testimony was played.

EPIC MELTDOWN BY FAUN!

LOL

And still, for the first time in U.S. history, zero witnesses were called in to testify.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump was charged with what the Dems felt were impeachable offenses but the court said No.
The only thing Trump ever was and always will be was “charged”

The court didn't have all the information necessary to make a decision. 70 percent of the people wanted witnesses. This trial was a sham. trump has been impeached. He will forever be impeached. What he was not was convicted.

If they didn't have enough evidence, then why did Adolph Schiffler refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate?

Nadler claims Dems have a 'rock solid' case and a jury would convict Trump in 'three minutes flat' | Daily Mail Online​

Jerry Nadler asserted Sunday that Democrats in the House have a 'rock solid' case to impeach Donald Trump.

'We have a very rock solid case,' the House Judiciary Committee chairman said on CNN's State of the Union Sunday morning.​

 

[Nostra]

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.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

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

And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.

13 did, liar. Their under oath testimony was played.

EPIC MELTDOWN BY FAUN!

LOL

And still, for the first time in U.S. history, zero witnesses were called in to testify.

13 testified.

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

FUCKING HILARIOUS MELTDOWN IN PROGRESS.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

13 were called by the House Clowns. Over 120 clips of their testimony were played.

You can post that lie another 100 times and it will still be a lie, Fuckwit.

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

And none were allowed to testify in the trial. First time evah in U.S. history.

13 did, liar. Their under oath testimony was played.

EPIC MELTDOWN BY FAUN!

LOL

And still, for the first time in U.S. history, zero witnesses were called in to testify.

Wow, your love for our president can't be contained! SO nice.

 

[Dick Foster]

So you don't question why trump refused witnesses, he's just exonerated despite the fact that evidence of his guilt or innocence was hidden from all investigators.

We all lost because of this, fool. We all have to follow the law. The only person that doesn't is trump.

Please show us all this "hidden" evidence, moron.


Innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty, therefore Trump is INNOCENT.

Shove up up your ass moron. We did not hear from anyone directly involved with the president because trump blocked them from testifying. So don't ask me to show a mother fucking thing. Ask trump why he was scared to let pompeo, pence, giuliani, mulvaney, bolton, parnas, fruman and himself testify. Innocent until proven guilty you say? Why does that only seem to apply when republi9cans are breaking the law?

Oh, I see. Your claim that there is hidden evidence of his guilt was a lie.

Got it.

And yes, innocent until proven guilty. This is still America. If you don't like it hike your ass down to Venezuela.

LOL

Dumbfuck, presumption of innocence is a legal construct; while impeachment is a political parliamentary procedure, not a legal one involving the criminal justice system.

their shell of partisanship horseshit is uncrackable

This is very true of both parties and it is a very real problem for ALL Americans today.
This political party bullshit needs to be ended before it kills this nation.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

I love the way you use words to twist an spin an argument. It wasn't a refusal. They voted that it wasn't necessary. Completely different reason.

Again, the only time that witnesses were called in to the senate for an impeachment trial was to get clarification of testimony by witnesses in the house impeachment They didn't want nor need any clarification from the 13 witnesses. There was over 5 fucking hours of witness testimony used in the senate trial. To say there were none is not only disingenuous. It makes you look foolish trying to pass that shit off as a reason for needing to call NEW witnesses. Completely different shit. New witnesses NEVER have been called in ANY impeachment. Tell the fucking dems in your side of the House of illrepute to get their shit together and do their fucking job.

They didn't vote it wasn't necessary. There was no reason given. It simply put to a vote and it was voted down.

This still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history to not allow witnesses to testify.

13 witnesses testified, liar.

You really don't care how much of a fucking idiot you look like on this board, huh?

Your meltdown is epic!

Zero witnesses were called to testify in the trial. Stop lying.

OMG. You still want to use that as a reason for why the impeachment outcome was BS. You have got to get a grip.