Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Faun]

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.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, SCOTUS rulings don't expire.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nope. The Dims called 18 witnesses.

 

[Ken Mac]

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

You are clearly drinking the kool-aid.

 

[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.

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".

Again... there was no reason given. It was put up for a vote and all 100 Senators voted for their own reasons. The reason you're giving is your reason not necessarily theirs.

 

[bluzman61]

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.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, SCOTUS rulings don't expire.

And your love for our great president keeps shining on. Thank you.

 

[BlindBoo]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.

More than enough to prove the failed Ukraine Shakedown.

They were all in on it and we all know it! But he got close......

 

[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 the court lacked information it was because the prosecution failed to provide it.
Neither the court nor the defense provides it for the nor allows more time to see if something can fall in their lap

No, it was because trump blocked witnesses and documents. The motherfuckers is guilty as sure as my name here is IM2. We all know it. You know it. The only reason you are using this infantile argument is that he has an R beside his name.

The official verdict is in: not guilty.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because it's a legal construct. You're the one claiming, without proof, it also applies to impeachment.

 

[Ame®icano]

GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP!


GOD BLESS ALL PATRIOTS!!!!

Look at all these fools celebrating how the senate has allowed trump to be above the law.

What law was he accused of violating?
Statute please.

Fuck you. Trump violated laws, you know it and we all know it. The only reason you play stupid about it is because trump is a republican. If he was not, you'd damn sure know.

What laws he violated?

 

[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.

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".

Again... there was no reason given. It was put up for a vote and all 100 Senators voted for their own reasons. The reason you're giving is your reason not necessarily theirs.

If they didn't vote with the desires of their constituency on this, then they most likely be removed at their next election cycle.

 

[Nostra]

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.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, SCOTUS rulings don't expire.

The House should have referenced that ruling when they took the WH to court then. They didn't.

Oops!

 

[bripat9643]

He was exonerated, Sport.

Deal with it. You lost, again.

No, he was not exonerated, he was acquitted.... just a technical difference between finding a person not guilty, vs them being innocent.

Two different meanings.... acquitted is a finding that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt...

An exoneration is when evidence is presented that PROVES innocence...

As example, if DNA evidence was found that completely exonerated a person of a crime, like DNA evidence that shows a man accused of raping a victim, could not have been the rapist etc...

He was innocent until proven guilty. He was found Not guilty therefore - innocent. Exonerated.

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.

What are you shouting at me about it for? I just said "proven innocent" is the standard of justice in a police state. Yet, that's what you and your fellow TDS douchebags are demanding.

 

[bluzman61]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.

More than enough to prove the failed Ukraine Shakedown.

They were all in on it and we all know it! But he got close......

And thank YOU for professing YOUR love for our president. It's wonderful to see!

 

[Ken Mac]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.

More than enough to prove the failed Ukraine Shakedown.

They were all in on it and we all know it! But he got close......

I actually like the fact that he wanted Burisma investigated. I'm definitely on the anti-corruption bandwagon. That is some sleazy shit going on there. I'm also in agreement with going after Biden and his son. I, personally don't want someone running for president if they aren't clean. Let's check it out and if he's clean then so be it. But this impeachment scam is the same thing in different clothing.

Trump - Exonerated
Biden - ?

 

[Nostra]

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.

Because it's a legal construct. You're the one claiming, without proof, it also applies to impeachment.

It does apply to impeachment. Why would it be any different than any other venue where you are accused of something in America?

Man, you really need to get a grip. You are about to blow a gasket with this meltdown.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

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?

We did not hear from anyone directly involved with the president


Perhaps next time YOUR House Clowns won't try to overturn an election on hearsay and feelings, Sport.

Perhaps next time the president will honor legal subpoenas, Sport.

"legal subpoenas"

LOL

 

[BlindBoo]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.

More than enough to prove the failed Ukraine Shakedown.

They were all in on it and we all know it! But he got close......

And thank YOU for professing YOUR love for our president. It's wonderful to see!

No prob. I love you too. You make me laugh. Thanks.

 

[Faun]

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.

Nope. The Dims called 18 witnesses.

Not in the trial, they didn't. The Senate voted against allowing any witnesses to testify.

 

[Nostra]

Ima give Faun some time to collect a coherent thought. My foot is getting sore from kicking his ass.

Get a grip, Son. I'll check back later.

 

[bluzman61]

No - the Senate determined that there was no need for ADDITIONAL witnesses

Because they already made up their mind that no matter what evidence was presented they were willing to accept this type of corruption. Why bother bringing in more damning evidence of the corruption, that would be just piling on wouldn't it. That's so unfair to old Trumpybear.

Because the articles were weak ass sauce and weren't impeachable offenses.

More than enough to prove the failed Ukraine Shakedown.

They were all in on it and we all know it! But he got close......

And thank YOU for professing YOUR love for our president. It's wonderful to see!

No prob. I love you too. You make me laugh. Thanks.

You're QUITE welcome. And please continue to show your unbridled love for one Donald J. Trump.