Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Faun]

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?

Son your word is shite. PROVE this assertion.

It's been proven. Presumption of innocence is a legal construct...

A bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system is that a defendant accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection comes from the due process guarantees in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. It exists to guard against convictions based on factual error. You may wonder, especially if you are involved in a criminal case, what does it really mean?

The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof work together. Essentially, the presumption transfers to the prosecution the obligation to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that, if you are charged with a crime, you are not required to prove that you did not do it. At least in theory, you can say absolutely nothing at all, and the entire responsibility to prove guilt rests with the defenses.

What Is the Presumption of Innocence?​

Presumption of innocence stems from English common law and is backed up by the 5th & 14th Amendments.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

 

[Faun]

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?

So you admit the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to impeachments, in your warped mind.

once again you are back to “guilty until you prove your innocence”.

Aaaaaand you will now try to deny that is your position....in 3....2.....

LOL

I don't deny you're fucked in the head. Which you are because your limited binary thinking assumes it has to be either presumed innocent or presumed guilty; when in fact, it's neither.

In America you are presumed innocent, Dummy.

In criminal cases, dumbfuck.

 

[Faun]

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.

Other than 13....

None of whom were called in to testify during the trial.

Try harder.

Yes, they were.

Read and get an education, Fuckwit.

Tips for Using Video Testimony at Trial - Magna Legal Services

Also, they 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

^^^ dumbfuck still doesn't understand you can't question videos.

 

[Faun]

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

The Dims called 18 witnesses, moron.

^^^ a fucking moron who still doesn't know the difference between an inquiry/hearing and a trial.

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?

So you admit the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to impeachments, in your warped mind.

once again you are back to “guilty until you prove your innocence”.

Aaaaaand you will now try to deny that is your position....in 3....2.....

LOL

I don't deny you're fucked in the head. Which you are because your limited binary thinking assumes it has to be either presumed innocent or presumed guilty; when in fact, it's neither.

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.

Other than 13....

None of whom were called in to testify during the trial.

Try harder.

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.

Man, it’s amazing you continue to think anyone is buying your bullshit. Do you wonder why not a single one of the other Dimwingers are in this thread trying to defend your idiocy?

And yet, this still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history where not a single witness was called in to testify.

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

I see your meltdown went late into the night, and started again early this morning. Same debunked lies over and over.

Seek help, Fuckwit.

LOL

By "meltdown," you mean beating cons with facts and reality.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sorry, YOUR side has to "prove" his guilt.

Faun thinks you are guilty until proven innocent. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to impeachments.

Poor dumbfuck ^^^ can't post without lying. In reality, I actually said Impeached Trump was not guilty until proven innocent.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[RealDave]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

There was no exoneration.

Most Republican Senators said Trump did it.

Trump tried to bribe a foreign official to interfere with our election process.

This is a fact.

It will always be a fact.

Trump will always be impeached.

No republican senators said he did anything, except that faggot Romney. So suck it dim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liar.

Pat Toomey said this. Similar tyo otrher Republicsns:

"The president’s actions were not “perfect.” Some were inappropriate. But the question before the Senate is not whether his actions were perfect. It is whether they constitute impeachable offenses that justify removing a sitting president from office for the first time and forbidding him from seeking office again."

 

[Faun]

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

Man, it’s amazing you continue to think anyone is buying your bullshit. Do you wonder why not a single one of the other Dimwingers are in this thread trying to defend your idiocy?

And yet, this still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history where not a single witness was called in to testify.

That infuriates you losers, nice [emoji106]!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given some 75% thought witnesses should be called, it probably infuriates a lot of people.

Those 75% should be happy, cuz witnesses did testify.

Read and get an education, Fuckwit.

Tips for Using Video Testimony at Trial - Magna Legal Services

Also, they 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

Poor dumbfuck ^^^ can't stop lying. In reality, zero witnesses were called in to testify at the Trial.

First time ever.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[RealDave]

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.

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

It's SO nice to see you agree that his exoneration was wonderful. Donald J. Trump IS our best president since Lincoln. And I'm glad you acknowledge that as well. Thank you.

Best at lying.

Best at acting like an 8 year old

Best at groping women

 

[RealDave]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

There was no exoneration.

Most Republican Senators said Trump did it.

Trump tried to bribe a foreign official to interfere with our election process.

This is a fact.

It will always be a fact.

Trump will always be impeached.

Most Republican Senators said he did it?

Did what?

Link to these 27 Senators by name?

Oh please.

When they argue that the deed was not impeachable, they are saying he did it, so what.

 

[IM2]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

There was no exoneration.

Most Republican Senators said Trump did it.

Trump tried to bribe a foreign official to interfere with our election process.

This is a fact.

It will always be a fact.

Trump will always be impeached.

No republican senators said he did anything, except that faggot Romney. So suck it dim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liar.

Pat Toomey said this. Similar tyo otrher Republicsns:

"The president’s actions were not “perfect.” Some were inappropriate. But the question before the Senate is not whether his actions were perfect. It is whether they constitute impeachable offenses that justify removing a sitting president from office for the first time and forbidding him from seeking office again."

They should have convicted him and made certain that he cannot get 4 more years to do this again.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

Mitt Romney....Burn In Hell!!!

Not surprising that you consider the one honest Republican in the Senate to be an enemy. Anyone who is honest, decent and who believes in the Founders' vision of America, is an enemy of this President.

 

[Nostra]

Man, it’s amazing you continue to think anyone is buying your bullshit. Do you wonder why not a single one of the other Dimwingers are in this thread trying to defend your idiocy?

And yet, this still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history where not a single witness was called in to testify.

That infuriates you losers, nice [emoji106]!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given some 75% thought witnesses should be called, it probably infuriates a lot of people.

Those 75% should be happy, cuz witnesses did testify.

Read and get an education, Fuckwit.

Tips for Using Video Testimony at Trial - Magna Legal Services

Also, they 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

Poor dumbfuck ^^^ can't stop lying. In reality, zero witnesses were called in to testify at the Trial.

First time ever.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

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?

Son your word is shite. PROVE this assertion.

It's been proven. Presumption of innocence is a legal construct...

A bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system is that a defendant accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection comes from the due process guarantees in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. It exists to guard against convictions based on factual error. You may wonder, especially if you are involved in a criminal case, what does it really mean?

The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof work together. Essentially, the presumption transfers to the prosecution the obligation to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that, if you are charged with a crime, you are not required to prove that you did not do it. At least in theory, you can say absolutely nothing at all, and the entire responsibility to prove guilt rests with the defenses.

What Is the Presumption of Innocence?​

Presumption of innocence stems from English common law and is backed up by the 5th & 14th Amendments.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

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?

So you admit the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to impeachments, in your warped mind.

once again you are back to “guilty until you prove your innocence”.

Aaaaaand you will now try to deny that is your position....in 3....2.....

LOL

I don't deny you're fucked in the head. Which you are because your limited binary thinking assumes it has to be either presumed innocent or presumed guilty; when in fact, it's neither.

In America you are presumed innocent, Dummy.

In criminal cases, dumbfuck.

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.

Other than 13....

None of whom were called in to testify during the trial.

Try harder.

Yes, they were.

Read and get an education, Fuckwit.

Tips for Using Video Testimony at Trial - Magna Legal Services

Also, they 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

^^^ dumbfuck still doesn't understand you can't question videos.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

The Dims called 18 witnesses, moron.

^^^ a fucking moron who still doesn't know the difference between an inquiry/hearing and a trial.

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?

So you admit the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to impeachments, in your warped mind.

once again you are back to “guilty until you prove your innocence”.

Aaaaaand you will now try to deny that is your position....in 3....2.....

LOL

I don't deny you're fucked in the head. Which you are because your limited binary thinking assumes it has to be either presumed innocent or presumed guilty; when in fact, it's neither.

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.

Other than 13....

None of whom were called in to testify during the trial.

Try harder.

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.

Man, it’s amazing you continue to think anyone is buying your bullshit. Do you wonder why not a single one of the other Dimwingers are in this thread trying to defend your idiocy?

And yet, this still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history where not a single witness was called in to testify.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

I see your meltdown went late into the night, and started again early this morning. Same debunked lies over and over.

Seek help, Fuckwit.

LOL

By "meltdown," you mean beating cons with facts and reality.

t

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.

Sorry, YOUR side has to "prove" his guilt.

Faun thinks you are guilty until proven innocent. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to impeachments.

Poor dumbfuck ^^^ can't post without lying. In reality, I actually said Impeached Trump was not guilty until proven innocent.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

The EPIC meltdown and liefest continues. You are losing it Faun

 

[Nostra]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

There was no exoneration.

Most Republican Senators said Trump did it.

Trump tried to bribe a foreign official to interfere with our election process.

This is a fact.

It will always be a fact.

Trump will always be impeached.

Most Republican Senators said he did it?

Did what?

Link to these 27 Senators by name?

Oh please.

When they argue that the deed was not impeachable, they are saying he did it, so what.

I accept the fact you lied about 27 Senators say he did it.

 

[IM2]

We all know trump is guilty. Even the trump butt sniffers.

 

[22lcidw]

Trump is brilliant.

All this silly Ukraine/impeachment shit really accomplish was to increase Trump's approval and knock the Democrat's "Great White Hope" out of being a front runner.

The Democrats got bamboozled in the deal. They thought they could get bad press for Trump that would hurt him for reelection. However, what it did was expose Biden's corruption and make the Democrats look like assholes.

"All this silly Ukraine/impeachment shit really accomplish was to increase Trump's approval"

His RCP average was 45.3% before this and it's 45.1% now. To the brain-dead cultists, that's an increase.

"and knock the Democrat's "Great White Hope" out of being a front runner."

G'head, tell the forum how Biden isn't a political rival of Impeached Trump's...

They were mocking, demeaning and hanging the guy before the election. Before the primaries. Although it is preferred that the two parties would work to get things done, this impeachment means nothing. Its more important to Clinton. For he was and is a lifetime political politician. Trump can give good speeches while Nancy can't even get out sentences and she has been around for over 50 years in politics plus her younger years with her corrupted family.

 

[Nostra]

We all know trump is guilty. Even the trump butt sniffers.

Lies.

Exonerated.

Innocent.

 

[JustAGuy1]

We all know trump is guilty. Even the trump butt sniffers.

Yup, he is guilty of making you Progs lose your minds and chasing your tails.

 

[bripat9643]

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

Your lie has been debunked

LOL

And still -- only impeachment trial in history to not call a single witness.

The Dims called 18 witnesses, moron.

^^^ a fucking moron who still doesn't know the difference between an inquiry/hearing and a trial.

What happens in the Senate is not a trial in the legal sense. It's a political process.

Someone who claims to understand this shit should understand that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Man, it’s amazing you continue to think anyone is buying your bullshit. Do you wonder why not a single one of the other Dimwingers are in this thread trying to defend your idiocy?

And yet, this still remains the only impeachment trial in U.S. history where not a single witness was called in to testify.

That infuriates you losers, nice [emoji106]!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given some 75% thought witnesses should be called, it probably infuriates a lot of people.

The witnesses they wanted to be called were Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Adolph Schiffless and the so-called whistleblower.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Now it's over, and you are losers.

Mitt Romney....Burn In Hell!!!

Not surprising that you consider the one honest Republican in the Senate to be an enemy. Anyone who is honest, decent and who believes in the Founders' vision of America, is an enemy of this President.

If Romney was honest he would resign from the Republican party.