Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[IM2]

The best part is now the House has the time to hand out all those subpoenas even if they are challenged in court.

And I'm very prayerful that they will continue down that road. Cuz boy is it helping out Trumps approval rating. He'll be a shoe-in.

Thanks. You made my night!

Actually trumps approval rasting [probably won't get much higher.

Yeah - that 12 point increase was pretty large during his failed impeachment. He's 5 points above Obama's rating at the same time of his presidency. It's not over though. Hell Clinton hit 70%, I heard, after his impeachment. We'll see.

Obama was presiding in a nation that was pulling itself out of a depression. trump has a healthy economy and still more than half of the country can't stand him. trump won't hit 70 percent.

 

[IM2]

The best part is now the House has the time to hand out all those subpoenas even if they are challenged in court.

And I'm very prayerful that they will continue down that road. Cuz boy is it helping out Trumps approval rating. He'll be a shoe-in.

Thanks. You made my night!

Actually trumps approval rating probably won't get much higher. He's at 49 percent only because 95 percent of republicans approve of him. If he gets 49 percent on election night, he loses. Why you guys act like 49 percent is a majority shows the low intelligence level of the trump supporter.

so you're saying Hillary didn't have a majority when she ran against Trump? Interesting....

False equivalence. We are talking about approval ratings not votes. There is no third party being asked about in presidential approval ratings.

 

[IM2]

t

The subpoenas were valid.

Umm. Are you a judge? Didn't think so. You can say that til you're blue in the face, but it's up to the courts to decide.

The subpoenas were valid. If trump was innocent he doesn't challenge subpoenas. He lets the people testify the prove his innocence and he releases the documents to prove his innocence also. Your excuses don't work.

You also don't know anything about how lawyers defend their client. Boy, you'd be poor if you were a lawyer.

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence. Your excuses don't work.

It's not an excuse. He looked to his counsel for them to take care of it. They guided the defense - not him. *eyeroll*

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence.

 

[IM2]

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 House had testimony from 13 of their witnesses, and submitted thousands of documents. They got witnesses.

They showed up with what they claimed was an "overwhelming" case, and immediately cried that the Senate needed to do the job of the House by starting another investigation. That isn't the Senate's job, Dopey. The Senate votes on the case the House brings.

The trial wasn't a sham, they used the same rules as they used in the Clinton trial. The only part that was a sham was the bullshit case YOUR House Clowns showed up with.

You lost. Deal with it, Loser.

EXONERATED FOREVER!

The trial was a sham. Clinton had witnesses. Clinton di8d not bl0ock all information. So just face the fact that you will be getting this in your face until trumps ass is gone. I don't care when it is, the mother fucker is guilty, he scammed the system with McConnell and the senate trial was a sham with an outcome that was determined before the house was done with its inquiry. I didn't lose anything. And you didn't win anything.

Your house had 18 witnesses, presented testimony of 13 of them at trail.

Your lie won't fly. Get a new one, liar.

INNOCENT!

If trump was innocent he doesn't block witnesses and documents.

Period.

GUILTY!

Sorry. That is not evidence of guilt. Do you know anything about American Law? Or Brittish law? or any law? Apparently not.

Adverse inference says it is.

 

[Ken Mac]

The best part is now the House has the time to hand out all those subpoenas even if they are challenged in court.

And I'm very prayerful that they will continue down that road. Cuz boy is it helping out Trumps approval rating. He'll be a shoe-in.

Thanks. You made my night!

Actually trumps approval rating probably won't get much higher. He's at 49 percent only because 95 percent of republicans approve of him. If he gets 49 percent on election night, he loses. Why you guys act like 49 percent is a majority shows the low intelligence level of the trump supporter.

so you're saying Hillary didn't have a majority when she ran against Trump? Interesting....

False equivalence. We are talking about approval ratings not votes. There is no third party being asked about in presidential approval ratings.

Actually the 49% was comprised of Dems (7% approval) Independents (42%) and Republicans (94%)

Nice try.

Do you live in a bubble? Is most everyone you deal with in the day a liberal? Cuz you got it bad. You need to get out more often. Read some opposing views besides this place (my guess is you use this place to spit out every dim talking point you hear during the day - much as lemmings do.)

 

[Ken Mac]

t

Umm. Are you a judge? Didn't think so. You can say that til you're blue in the face, but it's up to the courts to decide.

The subpoenas were valid. If trump was innocent he doesn't challenge subpoenas. He lets the people testify the prove his innocence and he releases the documents to prove his innocence also. Your excuses don't work.

You also don't know anything about how lawyers defend their client. Boy, you'd be poor if you were a lawyer.

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence. Your excuses don't work.

It's not an excuse. He looked to his counsel for them to take care of it. They guided the defense - not him. *eyeroll*

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence.

He didn't block the witnesses. You really don't know how the system works? The senate voted to not have anymore testimony. They all felt there was enough information. And you know what? The republicans were right. He was acquitted.

 

[Faun]

"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.

LOL

Didn't realize I was that important to ya, putz.

Regardless, I didn't bother with it because it's the opinion of someone who also said...

In U.S. law, decisions in many civil and criminal trials are made by a jury. Considerable power is vested in this traditional body of ordinary men and women, who are charged with deciding matters of fact and delivering a VERDICT of guilt or innocence based on the evidence in a case.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law - PDF Free Download​

... which is obvious nonsense on its face since no jury in America delivers a verdict of guilt or innocence. If a verdict is reached, the choices are "guilty" or "not guilty."

• Acquittal

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent.​

• What's the Difference Between an Acquittal and a "Not Guilty" Verdict?

What's the Difference Between an Acquittal and a "Not Guilty" Verdict?

A verdict of not guilty constitutes an acquittal. In other words, to find a defendant not guilty is to acquit. At trial, an acquittal occurs when the jury (or the judge if it’s a judge trial) determines that the prosecution hasn’t proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.​

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

Yutz, I addressed that post.

 

[Ken Mac]

The House had testimony from 13 of their witnesses, and submitted thousands of documents. They got witnesses.

They showed up with what they claimed was an "overwhelming" case, and immediately cried that the Senate needed to do the job of the House by starting another investigation. That isn't the Senate's job, Dopey. The Senate votes on the case the House brings.

The trial wasn't a sham, they used the same rules as they used in the Clinton trial. The only part that was a sham was the bullshit case YOUR House Clowns showed up with.

You lost. Deal with it, Loser.

EXONERATED FOREVER!

The trial was a sham. Clinton had witnesses. Clinton di8d not bl0ock all information. So just face the fact that you will be getting this in your face until trumps ass is gone. I don't care when it is, the mother fucker is guilty, he scammed the system with McConnell and the senate trial was a sham with an outcome that was determined before the house was done with its inquiry. I didn't lose anything. And you didn't win anything.

Your house had 18 witnesses, presented testimony of 13 of them at trail.

Your lie won't fly. Get a new one, liar.

INNOCENT!

If trump was innocent he doesn't block witnesses and documents.

Period.

GUILTY!

Sorry. That is not evidence of guilt. Do you know anything about American Law? Or Brittish law? or any law? Apparently not.

Adverse inference says it is.

Can only be used in civil cases. Not criminal. Is is an extreme sanction and cannot be given lightly.

I can read.

Go find something else. That's not going to work.

 

[Ken Mac]

t

Umm. Are you a judge? Didn't think so. You can say that til you're blue in the face, but it's up to the courts to decide.

The subpoenas were valid. If trump was innocent he doesn't challenge subpoenas. He lets the people testify the prove his innocence and he releases the documents to prove his innocence also. Your excuses don't work.

You also don't know anything about how lawyers defend their client. Boy, you'd be poor if you were a lawyer.

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence. Your excuses don't work.

It's not an excuse. He looked to his counsel for them to take care of it. They guided the defense - not him. *eyeroll*

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence.

Because the assertion that Trump was using a quid pro quo the evidence to convict would be someone that says - "yes I heard him say that". The only other thing they could say was "no I didn't hear him say that". The only way to "Prove" innocence would be to subpoena every person that Trump came into contact with and spoke with in the last year. There is no witness that can "Prove" his innocence. Nice try.

Go find something else

And it really doesn't matter, because even if he did use a quid pro quo - it's not an impeachable offense.

 

[easyt65]

The official verdict is in: not guilty.

No crime.
No evidence.
No witnesses.
'No Constitutional Violation'
'No Broken Laws'
'No Abuse of Power'
'No Impeachable Offense'
'Admitted political partisan Impeachment'

Pelosi, Schiff, & Nadler should be indicted for:
Conspiracy
Perjury
Obstruction
Providing False/Fake Evidence
Sedition
Espionage
Treason

At the very least they should be brought up on and found guilty of Ethics violations.

Trump refused to allow witnesses and documents. You try that and see if you haven't broken any laws.

You are such a mentally-twisted, reality-denying, Democrat traitor lie-parroting, toxic snowflake dwarf there is almost no use even acknowledging your continued led.

There were 17 witnesses called by the Democrats...
- NONE of them witnessed anything, and NONE of them could name a crime or Impeachable offense when directly asked to do so.

President Trump claimed the same Executive Privilege Barak Obama did during his Fast and Furious scandal.
- The Democrats refused to acknowledge it and refused to take it up in the Judicial Branch's court system, thereby - according to Democrat Constitutional law expert Jonathon Turley - denying the President of his Constitutional Right to DUE PROCESS.

THIS, according to Turley, is only ONE example of how the DEMOCRATS abused THEIR power.

Instead of referencing actual Constitutional experts, established precedence and arguments, you ignorantly parrot the debunked false claims made by the very proven liars and criminals who attempted and failed to carry out this coup.

It is over.

The Senate dismissed the illegitimate Un-Constitutional Impeachment the Democrats admitted was the 1st politically partisan, crimeless Impeachment in IS history.

Accept it or not - what you do or do not choose to accept is insignificant to the fact that the Impeachment failed ... that Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler face possible Censure and / or ethics violations for their dishonorable criminal misconduct...and Pelosi will probably be forced to vacate the Speaker position.

This was one massive historic embarrassing failure for the Democrats...

....followed immediately by the DNC's disastrous Iowa Caucus scandal / meltdown.

Bwuhahaha!

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

You'll find out what you lost on November 8th, 2020

Trump will be officially removed on 1-20-2001.

And if he isn't you'll kill yourself.

No, but I will watch our country crumble and die because we were stupid enough to give this fool a second term.

Dude get some MEDS. You are like a hysterical child

Wrong. If you support trump, you have the problem.

Maybe you should run. I would like to see you debate Don. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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 House had testimony from 13 of their witnesses, and submitted thousands of documents. They got witnesses.

They showed up with what they claimed was an "overwhelming" case, and immediately cried that the Senate needed to do the job of the House by starting another investigation. That isn't the Senate's job, Dopey. The Senate votes on the case the House brings.

The trial wasn't a sham, they used the same rules as they used in the Clinton trial. The only part that was a sham was the bullshit case YOUR House Clowns showed up with.

You lost. Deal with it, Loser.

EXONERATED FOREVER!

The trial was a sham. Clinton had witnesses. Clinton di8d not bl0ock all information. So just face the fact that you will be getting this in your face until trumps ass is gone. I don't care when it is, the mother fucker is guilty, he scammed the system with McConnell and the senate trial was a sham with an outcome that was determined before the house was done with its inquiry. I didn't lose anything. And you didn't win anything.

Your house had 18 witnesses, presented testimony of 13 of them at trail.

Your lie won't fly. Get a new one, liar.

INNOCENT!

If trump was innocent he doesn't block witnesses and documents.

Period.

GUILTY!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

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.

No, it doesn't. Again, for the reading impaired, presumption of innocence applies to criminal cases. How many more times need I say that until it penetrates your armor of ignorance?

 

[Faun]

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.

But there were witnesses who were called in to testify, Twinky. There were none in Impeached Trump's trial.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

My position is this is the first impeachment trial in U.S. history to not call any witnesses. Where do your hallucinations lead you to believe there's something in the Constitution which proves that wrong?

 

[Faun]

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.

don't even know what the hell you are talking about.

Well at least one of us does.

 

[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.

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.

There was VIDEO of WITNESS TESTIMONY. That is Witness TESTIMONY. You're being obtuse or willfully ignorant. Enough of your bullshit.

Witnesses are called in to testify so they can be questioned. That never happened in Impeached Trump's trial. First time evah.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

You are lying again. They didn't make a claim of blanket executive immunity.

The subpoenas were challenged on the basis they were invalid due to the refusal of Nazi Pelousy to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings.

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

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.

The subpoenas were valid.

Umm. Are you a judge? Didn't think so. You can say that til you're blue in the face, but it's up to the courts to decide.

The subpoenas were valid. If trump was innocent he doesn't challenge subpoenas. He lets the people testify the prove his innocence and he releases the documents to prove his innocence also. Your excuses don't work.

Nancy? Is that you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

t

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.

The subpoenas were valid.

Umm. Are you a judge? Didn't think so. You can say that til you're blue in the face, but it's up to the courts to decide.

The subpoenas were valid. If trump was innocent he doesn't challenge subpoenas. He lets the people testify the prove his innocence and he releases the documents to prove his innocence also. Your excuses don't work.

You also don't know anything about how lawyers defend their client. Boy, you'd be poor if you were a lawyer.

An innocent man does not block witnesses that can prove his innocence. Your excuses don't work.

That’s it. You are banned from voting for Don!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk