Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Ame®icano]

obama fast and furious subpoenas - Google Search


Cocksucker Obama tossed the subpoenas in her CLOSET, and YOU CHEERED when she did.....

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?

Fast and Furious is a false analogy. It was a govt operation gone awry. But there was no assertion that Obama didn't have the authority to use executive power to try and hurt drug cartels. He did. His admin just screwed up. And tried to hide it. W's admin tried to hide the facts about bogus Niger uranium. I'd hazard a guess, that all adminsitartions have similar fuckups

But the reason for Trump holding up the aid was ITSELF a violation of his office - because he was trying to benefit himself personally.

Imagine if Obama had said the House has no right to investigate his actions in the F& F case and denied all document requests and told everyone involved to ignore the House subpoena's. Do you think House Democrats would have cried foul, or just the Republicans?

He couldn't say that because House followed procedure with issuing subpoenas. Barry also followed the procedure too, and invoked EP, which is his right as president. His EP got challenged by House in court, which is proper way to do it.

 

[bripat9643]

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 - ?

Pole vaulting to Burisma and the Biden huh? The allegations of corruption stem from 2010 - 2012 while the Ukraine was still aligned with Russia. Specifically what crimes are you suggesting Hunter committed in accepting the job offer? Don't rely on the he was making money because of his name, no crime there.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

 

[Ame®icano]

Not Guilty does not mean exoneration

 

[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 - ?

Pole vaulting to Burisma and the Biden huh? The allegations of corruption stem from 2010 - 2012 while the Ukraine was still aligned with Russia. Specifically what crimes are you suggesting Hunter committed in accepting the job offer? Don't rely on the he was making money because of his name, no crime there.

That's all I need to rely on. That Hunter job looks fucking sleazy. If you don't see that, you're blind.

And - yes - I agree that was the issue Trump wanted them to look in to. I'm ok with that. If you think no other president hasn't done the same thing or worse, you're delusional.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Being that libs can’t top their previous absurdities right now they are safe spacing with their feelings that this one is not over.

It's not over! There is more corruption to be exposed, and more witness to testify under oath; more documents to be read and more lies to be exposed, as has occurred immediately after his SOTU speech.

 

[Ken Mac]

Being that libs can’t top their previous absurdities right now they are safe spacing with their feelings that this one is not over.

Nadless just announce he will subpoena Bolton.

Too funny.

Let him issue the subpoena. Maybe he learned the procedure this time. Then invoke EP, just to drive him nutz.

I am so hoping he does. They'll drive up Trumps approval numbers to over 50%.

Nadless is an idiot. So is Shiftless.

 

[bripat9643]

Being that libs can’t top their previous absurdities right now they are safe spacing with their feelings that this one is not over.

Nadless just announce he will subpoena Bolton.

Too funny.

Let him issue the subpoena. Maybe he learned the procedure this time. Then invoke EP, just to drive him nutz.

I am so hoping he does. They'll drive up Trumps approval numbers to over 50%.

Nadless is an idiot. So is Shiftless.

Adolph Schiffler and Nadless won't be able to go anywhere without people throwing tomatoes and rotten eggs at them.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

By the way, what happened to the 18th witness testimony?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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.

Because they threw it out. It was bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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.

Because it was the weakest case ever brought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ame®icano]

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

House didn't follow procedure, and didn't do their job. That is NOT Senate's problem.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Prove it applies to impeachment.....

You keep saying how "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to criminal justice and doesn't apply to Senate trial.

Well, can you prove that trial in Senate is real trial?

 

[Nostra]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

You must be very frightened or you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself that Trump has won anything here. His crimes have been exposed and his brazen disregard for the Constitution and the laws of the land cannot be denied, even as most of the Republicans Senators are lying to themselves that he's been chastened or he now knows better.

We always knew that Trump would be acquitted in the Senate, but now the Republican Party's lies of being the party of law and order have been exposed. Power at all costs, will cost them power.

Hey Dummy, he wasn't even charged with a crime.

You are an ignorant asshat.

 

[Ame®icano]

Trump may have been exonerated by the GOP senate, but he is still an incompetent asshole. He always will be.

I'll take that kind of "incompetent" any day over "competent" Barry.

 

[Care4all]

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."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

why isn't the verdict ''innocent''?

 

[bripat9643]

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."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

why isn't the verdict ''innocent''?

That's English common law, moron.

 

[Nostra]

Being that libs can’t top their previous absurdities right now they are safe spacing with their feelings that this one is not over.

It's not over! There is more corruption to be exposed, and more witness to testify under oath; more documents to be read and more lies to be exposed, as has occurred immediately after his SOTU speech.

The 1400th time is the charm, right Dimwit?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

You must be very frightened or you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself that Trump has won anything here. His crimes have been exposed and his brazen disregard for the Constitution and the laws of the land cannot be denied, even as most of the Republicans Senators are lying to themselves that he's been chastened or he now knows better.

We always knew that Trump would be acquitted in the Senate, but now the Republican Party's lies of being the party of law and order have been exposed. Power at all costs, will cost them power.

If Trump hasn't won anything, then what are all you TDS morons blubbering about?

 

[Ame®icano]

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."

"Not guilty"?

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

INNOCENT!

why isn't the verdict ''innocent''?

Because question was "is he guilty?"

 

[Dick Foster]

Trump may have been exonerated by the GOP senate, but he is still an incompetent asshole. He always will be.

Incompetent? I doubt you even know the definition of the word. Maybe you should look it up so you don't display your ignorance in future.