Trump has been EXONERATED of all charges.

[Faun]

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".

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.

 

[Faun]

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

Yes.

 

[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.

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.

There was no crime committed and Hillary Clinton still turned over her server. I'm not the one with the double standard because Hillary testified before congress, which trump did not
do, people associated with her testified before congress, while trump blocked them from doing so, the 33,000 emails were eventually found and so you can just drop your dumb ass false equivalence.

You fuckers always have a fucking whatabout when trump has fucked up. But the only whatabout is what about mother fucking trump. You are too scared to answer that, you and the rest of the you like how trump butt fucks you faggots.

The motherfucker is guilty. We all know he's guilty. The senators who voted not to convict knows he guilty. The bastard was not exonerated from shit, the decision was not to convict, not that his ass was innocent or exonerated.

They did it to piss you off,IMWrong2.


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.

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

From reading cons' posts on this forum. I don't believe you even realize how hysterical you folks are.

 

[Faun]

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

Sure there were. He was charged with soliciting foreign interference to help with his re-election. That's a crime. And he was charged with obstructing Congress. That's also a crime.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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

LOL

Oh? What did I lose? I said months ago that impeached Trump would never be convicted by this Republican-led Senate.

Because you knew he was being railroaded. So STFU already Nostradamus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ame®icano]

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".

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.

According to Senate vote Clinton was innocent and therefore acquitted. As you said yourself, it's political trial, not criminal.

Lying under oath did have consequences for Clinton: losing law license, not able to practice etc. Unlike Clinton, Trump did not committed crime, otherwise the Articles of Impeachment would stated that.

 

[Faun]

Didn't run from anything. trump proved his guilt by what he did.

So you CAN'T prove it and hearsay is just fine.
You have fine legal mind there Malcolm.

Trumps actions proved his guilt. His blocking witnesses and documents is not hearsay. It is what he did.

So you don't really NEED for evidence a thing IS simply because you say it is....must be a heavy burden being both judge and jury for all things.

I find it rather rich that a bunch of republicans make claims like this while declaring that joe Biden blackmailed Ukraine with no evidence. trumps behavior proved his guilt. This is not about being judge or jury, if trump was innocent he doesn't block any information that proves it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's wrong with threatening to withhold money to a country that's allowing corruption?

"Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?" ~ Impeached Trump

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

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".

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.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

So you CAN'T prove it and hearsay is just fine.
You have fine legal mind there Malcolm.

Trumps actions proved his guilt. His blocking witnesses and documents is not hearsay. It is what he did.

So you don't really NEED for evidence a thing IS simply because you say it is....must be a heavy burden being both judge and jury for all things.

I find it rather rich that a bunch of republicans make claims like this while declaring that joe Biden blackmailed Ukraine with no evidence. trumps behavior proved his guilt. This is not about being judge or jury, if trump was innocent he doesn't block any information that proves it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's wrong with threatening to withhold money to a country that's allowing corruption?

"Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?" ~ Impeached Trump

Nothing, if it’s not having a prosecutor fired who exposed you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

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."

Not guilty means innocent. Watch a trial sometime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In left wing alternate universe accused means guilty and innocent until proven guilty is a dictatorial doctrine.

^^^ another idiot who thinks Bill Clinton is innocent of lying under oath.

 

[Faun]

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

LOL

Oh? What did I lose? I said months ago that impeached Trump would never be convicted by this Republican-led Senate.

Because you knew he was being railroaded. So STFU already Nostradamus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liar. Because I knew Republicans would protect him no matter what crimes he commits.

 

[Faun]

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".

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.

According to Senate vote Clinton was innocent and therefore acquitted. As you said yourself, it's political trial, not criminal.

Lying under oath did have consequences for Clinton: losing law license, not able to practice etc. Unlike Clinton, Trump did not committed crime, otherwise the Articles of Impeachment would stated that.

Clinton only faced legal consequences upon leaving office. We haven't gotten that far with Impeached Trump yet.

 

[Faun]

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".

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.

Too much fun, and too easy fucking with you imbeciles....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clinton was found to be not guilty. You yahoos insist "not guilty" means "innocent."

Now you're trying to show that doesn't apply to Clinton.

 

[Faun]

Trumps actions proved his guilt. His blocking witnesses and documents is not hearsay. It is what he did.

So you don't really NEED for evidence a thing IS simply because you say it is....must be a heavy burden being both judge and jury for all things.

I find it rather rich that a bunch of republicans make claims like this while declaring that joe Biden blackmailed Ukraine with no evidence. trumps behavior proved his guilt. This is not about being judge or jury, if trump was innocent he doesn't block any information that proves it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's wrong with threatening to withhold money to a country that's allowing corruption?

"Why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt?" ~ Impeached Trump

Nothing, if it’s not having a prosecutor fired who exposed you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shokin wasn't trying to expose Joe.

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

 

[it_is_the_light]

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."

Not guilty means innocent. Watch a trial sometime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In left wing alternate universe accused means guilty and innocent until proven guilty is a dictatorial doctrine.

^^^ another idiot who thinks Bill Clinton is innocent of lying under oath.

 

[it_is_the_light]

 

[it_is_the_light]

Exoneration occurs when the conviction for a crime is reversed, either through demonstration of innocence, a flaw in the conviction, or otherwise.

 

[bripat9643]

Then why are you and your cronies constantly blubbering about a "fair trial?" Presumption of innocence is one of the critical components of a fair trial.

Of a fair criminal trial, fucking moron.

Lie

Imbecile, "nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal.

Presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system...

So it is, the point is son that you can't show that it's not a "bedrock principle" of an impeachment. You aren't as "bright" as you think you are.

LOLOL

The only ones saying a principle of our criminal justice system is also applicable outside of our criminal justice system are idiots like you who claim it with zero proof.

You just say it and then believe it's true because you said it.

Still, it's a construct from our Constitution that applies to the law. Impeachments are political procedures, not legal ones. Case in point, get convicted of a crime by our criminal justice system and you can face imprisonment. But get convicted in an impeachment trial, and you don't face imprisonment.

Then why are you constantly whining about a "fair trial?" You just admitted the "trial" wasn't intended to be fair.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What crime did he commit?