Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Faun]

LOLOL

It's a principle of our criminal justice system, ys moron. It doesn't apply to impeach
Impeachment is still not a criminal procedure nor is it tried by our criminal justice system. One can even be Impeached without committing a crime.

I post a direct contradiction to your claims and you respond with "Nuh-Uh". You're getting bitch slapped here kid.

LOLOL

You're fucking brain-dead, con. You refuted nothing. You posted a link to wikipedia stating impeachment is a procedure of our legislative branch to charge civil officers of a crime.

Not only does your link fail to show laws or principles of the criminal justice system apply to Impeachments, it even cites examples of how it doesn't. You posted...

In impeachment proceedings, the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. According to the Constitution, the only penalties allowed to be imposed by the Senate are removal from office and disqualification from holding any federal office in the future." ​

Get charged with a crime in our criminal justice system and you may risk forfeiture of life -- that doesn't apply to impeachments.

Get charged with a crime in our criminal justice system and you may risk forfeiture of liberty -- that doesn't apply to impeachments.

Get charged with a crime in our criminal justice system and you may risk forfeiture of property -- that doesn't apply to impeachments.

You posted that but you're too stupid to understand what you posted.

I understand it completely son. You're getting bitch slapped here. You're too stupid to understand that it is talking about impeachment. You aren't even a worthy opponent kid.

LOLOLOL

I used your own link to prove you wrong and you're still ignorant.

Sorry son, I understand your need to perform intellectual gymnastics, it hurts when a perceived "inferior" continually bitch slaps you. I have slapped you down on every single contention you've made.

LOLOL

This is just like your claim that Impeached Trump was entitled to presumption of innocence -- you believe it because you say it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Trump was determined...

INNOCENT.

Oops.

Uh, no, he was determined to be "not guilty," not "innocent"...

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

 

[Faun]

trump is guilty. You can make all the excuses you want to rationalize this joke of a trial because you're a republican, but trump is guilty. I lost nothing. But we all lost because trump still has a job.

Trump was determined...

INNOCENT.

Oops.

Uh, no, he was determined to be "not guilty," not "innocent"...

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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."

OK, we're getting somewhere.

Based on the question Senators voted 47 - guilty, and 53 - not guilty, and Roberts confirmed the count.

According to your logic, he should have said... Senator votes are: 47 - not innocent, 53 - innocent?

Come on, stop threading the needle, even you're better than that.

Again, he was found "not guilty," not "innocent."

 

[IM2]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

 

[Faun]

Uh, no, he was determined to be "not guilty," not "innocent"...

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

Then he would have been found to be innocent. But he wasn't. He was found to be not guilty.

According to you yahoos, Bill Clinton was innocent if lying under oath.

Is that really your position??

 

[Ame®icano]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

Something is seriously wrong with you.

 

[IM2]

Uh, no, he was determined to be "not guilty," not "innocent"...

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

Let's presume the vote was secret and trump would not be informed of the result. How would they have voted then?

 

[JustAGuy1]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

Something is seriously wrong with you.

He has 2 rules.
1) No Dem is EVER guilty
2) NO Conservative is ever innocent

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Dims got their gay asses handed to them. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? We knew he was going to be acquitted. He's still forever impeached. His name will always be mentioned along with Johnson, almost impeached Nixon and Clinton when anyone talks about how there's been 3 presidents impeached.

The impeachment that had no more significance that a ticket for jaywalking.

LOL

It's an asterisk next to his name for as long as the U.S. is a country.

The asterisk will denote the day that impeachment become no more significant than a parking ticket.

Nah. It will denote the day that an entire party decided to participate in a criminal cover up.

And when more information comes out about the people who have had it out for him, it will only lend to his credibility. Polosi showed how looney she is, in front of the world. Shitt has zero credibility, and schrumer can’t even say anything. They, and the entire dim party have been bitch slapped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

These yahoos are nothing if not entertaining.

At the same time they declare the House had to go to court to enforce subpoenas to get witnesses and documents, they also declare Hillary is guilty of ignoring a subpoena even though the House didn't go to court to enforce that subpoena.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

So you really want to make the case that NOT turning over subpoenaed email is NOT a crime? Nothing has ended, you simply have a double standard son.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

These yahoos are nothing if not entertaining.

At the same time they declare the House had to go to court to enforce subpoenas to get witnesses and documents, they also declare Hillary is guilty of ignoring a subpoena even though the House didn't go to court to enforce that subpoena.

It’s over. You lost. Go home. If you don’t like it, contact your senators. But you won’t because you’re weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IM2]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

Something is seriously wrong with you.

No, it's you that has the problem.

 

[Ame®icano]

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

Then he would have been found to be innocent. But he wasn't. He was found to be not guilty.

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".

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Dims got their gay asses handed to them. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? We knew he was going to be acquitted. He's still forever impeached. His name will always be mentioned along with Johnson, almost impeached Nixon and Clinton when anyone talks about how there's been 3 presidents impeached.

The impeachment that had no more significance that a ticket for jaywalking.

LOL

It's an asterisk next to his name for as long as the U.S. is a country.

The asterisk will denote the day that impeachment become no more significant than a parking ticket.

That's also not true. Impeached Trump can still face criminal prosecution over this when he leaves office.

Like little Willy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ame®icano]

Please remind us, what's the question that Senators voted on?

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

1. innocent, especially of a formal charge.

Defendants are found to be "not guilty," not "innocent." If they were found to be innocent, then the verdict would be "innocent."

Let's presume that Senator were asked to vote "guilty" or "innocent", what would final verdict be?

Let's presume the vote was secret and trump would not be informed of the result. How would they have voted then?

Let's presume that... 80 would vote not guilty.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Since you brought her up here.....using your logic her not turning over the 33000 emails makes her guilty.

Wrong. She testified before the committee several times. One for 11 hours. Trump refused to testify. Again, when you try arguing with me, your ass better know all the facts.

You aren't even in my league son. She refused to turn over subpoenaed emails and your "logic" dictates she is guilty.

Wrong. Number one, what she did was not a crime or violation. So that ends your false equivalence right there.

These yahoos are nothing if not entertaining.

At the same time they declare the House had to go to court to enforce subpoenas to get witnesses and documents, they also declare Hillary is guilty of ignoring a subpoena even though the House didn't go to court to enforce that subpoena.

You don't even realize the hypocrisy of your position. How did you ever get such a high opinion of yourself?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Dims got their gay asses handed to them. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How so? We knew he was going to be acquitted. He's still forever impeached. His name will always be mentioned along with Johnson, almost impeached Nixon and Clinton when anyone talks about how there's been 3 presidents impeached.

The impeachment that had no more significance that a ticket for jaywalking.

LOL

It's an asterisk next to his name for as long as the U.S. is a country.

The asterisk will denote the day that impeachment become no more significant than a parking ticket.

That's also not true. Impeached Trump can still face criminal prosecution over this when he leaves office.

There were no charges. They wasted about a hundred million so far. Even if it could happen, it’s not. Why don’t you write the president a letter, expressing your feelings. I’m sure you’ll receive a response. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LuckyDuck]

GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP!


GOD BLESS ALL PATRIOTS!!!!

A recent poll (guvpoll) has shown that 70% of millennials want a socialist government and 30% want a communist government. Personally, I think the poll is a bit skewed, as there are also a good number of millennials that are pro-republican. Just the same, the only way to counteract this brainwashing of students is to get rid of pro-communist/socialist instructors, as well as get rid of such classes as "gender studies," in favor of pushing for more in the way of school/university credits towards business and science cores.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

trump is guilty. Period.

Huh, can you prove it with real evidence or do you insist that hearsay is all you need?

trump proved it by blocking witnesses and documents. trump is guilty.

That's like saying I am guilty in a trial for refusing to talk to cops. Ridiculous...

Trump had nothing to prove, it was the job of the democrats to prove him guilty. They failed...

Nope it's not. If you were requested subpoenaed by the court and refused you go to jail. If you are being investigated for a crime and tell all witnesses not to testify and you defy court orders to turn over documents you go to jail. Trump did both. He did have something to prove. He refused to do so. He blocked witnesses and documents critical to the case and that's because doing so would have proven his guilt. trump is guilty. Your argument is a load o9f crap. Furthermore, you know he is guilty.

They held the trial according to the rules.

Trump was acquitted.

You lost, Trump won.

Winning![emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk