Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,962
- 86,297
- 2,635
Of course there was proof of Impeached Trump's crimes. That aside, according to you, "not guilty" equals "innocent." ... Bill Clinton was found "not guilty" of lying under oath... according to you, that means Bill Clinton was innocent.Then he would have been found to be innocent. But he wasn't. He was found to be not guilty.Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."The question was, is Impeached Trump "guilty" or "not guilty" on the articles of impeachment against him. They were not asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent."
Huh.....
not guilty
/ˌnät ˈɡiltē/
phrase of guilty
- innocent, especially of a formal charge.
Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?
According to you yahoos, Bill Clinton was innocent if lying under oath.
Is that really your position??
No, my position is that Senators voted based on question. Again, "not guilty" means - innocent.
Clinton did lie under oath, and Senate's verdict was "not guilty" and he was acquitted.
Voting not guilty, even while lying under oath was proven, speaks more about Senate, than about justice being served. However, his lying under oath did cause him some legal penalties. Unlike Clinton, there was no proof of Trump's "crimes".