Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[JustAGuy1]

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.

Faun stepped in it and he knows it. He will not address it.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Safe space timeout hoping another fact will just blow over.


.

 

[bripat9643]

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....

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of English common law, the code of law our legal system is based on. Despite your ignorance, you managed to disgorge a shit pile of theories that have no basis in reality.

 

[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.

Access to the VP and President of the US

 

[CWayne]

The devil bowed her head
Because she knew that she’d been beat
And she laid that golden pen
On the ground at Donald’s feet.

Donald said, “Nancy, just come on back if you ever want to try again
I done told you once you drunk old bat

I’m still your President!

*********************

Taken from an anonymous poster elsewhere on the interwebs.

 

[Faun]

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.

Soooo .... nothing. Figures.

 

[Faun]

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

So you say. Still, it's the only impeachment trial ever to not allow witnesses to testify.

 

[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.....

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?

I didn't say the Senate trial isn't a real trial. Try harder next time.

 

[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.

Poor, lying fucking moron. The Clinton impeachment allowed witnesses in the trial. This one didn't.

 

[Faun]

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.

I am not responsible for your delusions, dumbfuck. I never said what you falsely attributed to me. But no harm done, it's not like the forum doesn't already know you're batshit crazy.

 

[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.

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

So you say. Still, it's the only impeachment trial ever to not allow witnesses to testify.

Dude, that blatant lie has been debunked numerous times.

Why are you so stupid that you think you can still peddle it?

 

[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?

I didn't say it's in the Constitution, dumbfuck. I also didn't say not calling witnesses is unconstitutional. What I did say is that no Senate has ever denied witnesses from testifying before.

 

[Nostra]

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.

I am not responsible for your delusions, dumbfuck. I never said what you falsely attributed to me. But no harm done, it's not like the forum doesn't already know you're batshit crazy.

Can I assume from your post that a simple yes or no question is beyond your cognitive abilities?

If not, let me try again.............

Does the presumption of innocence apply to impeachments?

Yes, or no?

Simple question dumbed down for a simpleton. I hope it isn't still over your head. Ask for help if you need it.

 

[Bush92]

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...

In order for an acquittal you need to have a trial...in order to have a trial a crime must have been committed. no criminal action charged against Trump.

High crimes and misdemeanors do not require them to be a statutory crime.... that's been proven and every legal scholar that exists, except the President's motley crew, knows the precedent... And the founders specifically state it's a breach of the public trust with the power we give them... an abuse of power.... which can be a statutory crime or simply not honoring their oath of office.....or even something like using his office for cheating in an upcoming election.

So? Trump was EXONERATED of all those bullshit claims.

It was a whitewash by Trumpublicans who simply accept his corruption as their new normal, until the next Democrat President of course.

Complete victory for the undefeated champion of the world President Donald John Trump.

 

[lantern2814]

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.

Poor, lying fucking moron. The Clinton impeachment allowed witnesses in the trial. This one didn't.

Poor lying little yellow coward. There were NO new witnesses allowed in the Clinton impeachment.case. The ONLY witnesses heard from had already testified in the House. You know, where they’re SUPPOSED to. Epic fail.

 

[Nostra]

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?

I didn't say it's in the Constitution, dumbfuck. I also didn't say not calling witnesses is unconstitutional. What I did say is that no Senate has ever denied witnesses from testifying before.

I know you didn't say it was in the Constitution because the Constitution destroys your position.

 

[Bush92]

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?

I didn't say it's in the Constitution, dumbfuck. I also didn't say not calling witnesses is unconstitutional. What I did say is that no Senate has ever denied witnesses from testifying before.

When you bring a partisan bullshit case to the Senate...don't expect them to be non-partisan.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

I didn't say the Senate trial isn't a real trial. Try harder next time.

You didn't. I did.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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

So you say. Still, it's the only impeachment trial ever to not allow witnesses to testify.

You really are dense. He was acquitted without the need of the fake whistle blower to testify, or Biden or his son. They had no witnesses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

Soooo .... nothing. Figures.

Figures? I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. Blab on.