Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[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.

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.

And that just in their own homes.

 

[bripat9643]

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

He's obviously more competent than the douchebag you voted for.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

Graft?

 

[Ame®icano]

Hey lefties, does this triggers you?

 

[bripat9643]

Hey lefties, does this triggers you?

Who is he with?

 

[Nostra]

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 you are already presumed innocent, Dummy.

Once you fail to prove guilt, innocence is confirmed.

 

[Ame®icano]

Hey lefties, does this triggers you?

Who is he with?

Kid Rock.

 

[Nostra]

Hey lefties, does this triggers you?

Who is he with?

Kidd Rock. I want that shirt!

 

[Faun]

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.....

Once again you are claiming Trump was guilty until proven innocent. Do you even know what country this is?

And again, I never said any such thing. You're hallucinating again.

 

[Faun]

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.

The House is where witnesses are called and cross examined.

Both chambers call witnesses.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

I knew that one day on one issue Faun and I would be in agreement
You are correct, the Senate did not do the Houses work for them. The responsibility and competency
thing is really tough for all Democrats

 

[WEATHER53]

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!

They didn't have to.

They did not want to and chose not to even if compelled to do so .

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The House is where witnesses are called and cross examined.

Both chambers call witnesses.

The Senate used the same rules as the Clinton impeachment.

Your whining is irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

Sorry, but he's still impeached.
He's still #3 in the history of the country.
AND he's the FIRST president to be impeached in his FIRST term.

AND of course he goes to the National Prayer Breakfast to whine about it.
He's a big fucking baby.
Bill Clinton makes him look like the whiny little bitch that he is.

.

The public understands that this impeachment was a sham. Trump is going to lambast the Democrats until the end of his second term. Get used to it.

 

[Care4all]

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.

what's english common law?

Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

or

Guilty vs not guilty verdict?

instead of Guilty vs Innocent verdict?

Honestly, I could not give a flying hoot on this topic and it is petty, each side claiming their view.....

including myself.

But, I believe the verdict is NOT GUILTY vs "Innocent" because a criminal trial in America requires the juries to bring a guilty verdict only if it is beyond a reasonable doubt of innocence .... so in the case of OJ as an example, they gave him the verdict of Not Guilty, because they had "reasonable doubt" of guilt, with the shenanigans that went on with law enforcement.

They could not have a verdict of found Innocent, but they could have a verdict of Not Guilty, because to be a verdict of guilty, it had to be BEYOND a reasonable doubt.



Impeachment is NOT a criminal trial...

If it were a criminal trial, the Judge would have struck down the hours of "Hunter/Joe Biden is a bad guy" testimony that was immaterial to the charges.... The court trial would have been forced to have material witnesses if either side wanted them.... there would be no negotiating or even talking to the jury members by the prosecution, OR BY THE DEFENDANT'S lawyers and team... there would have been no deal with the Jury to acquit a defendant BEFORE the trial even started....

 

[Nostra]

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.....

Once again you are claiming Trump was guilty until proven innocent. Do you even know what country this is?

And again, I never said any such thing. You're hallucinating again.

Yes you did. You are claiming the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to impeachment, right?

That's a yes or no question.

 

[Nostra]

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.

The House is where witnesses are called and cross examined.

Both chambers call witnesses.

Link to that requirement in the Constitution?

 

[Nostra]

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.

The voted against ADDING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, Dummy. To ADD witnesses there has to already BE witnesses.

You lose again...............

WASHINGTON – A razor-thin majority of Senate Republicans on Friday voted against a Democratic proposal to admit additional witnesses and documents into President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.


Senate votes against calling new witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial

I'm LMFAO at how Faun has ignored this post about ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

 

[Nostra]

"Not guilty."

Not guilty ≠ innocent.

OJ Simpson was also found to be not guilty.

And again, Impeached Trump is still impeached.

Bump for a response from Faun

Ya know, since he has ignored this post.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The claim that no witnesses were allowed is obviously false.