Trump Not Guilty (1 Viewer)

[haymarket]

Those aren't crimes.

They are far more serious reason to impeach a president.

 

[mrjurrs]

Trump has judged been cleared and acquitted of all false impeachment charges against him. The verdict will stand forever.

You're right, because when I think of President Johnson and President Clinton I think of acquitted.

 

[OpportunityCost]

In four more years the State Department will not just be demoralized and weakened but perhaps destroyed for all practical purposes.

In four more years the Defense Department will not just be demoralized and hollowed out but perhaps weakened to endanger the security of the United States.

In four more years our collective Intelligence Agencies will see an exodus of talent rivaling Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt.

And the source of all this devastation will be Donald Trump who has shown no respect for checks and balances and seeks to create his office to that rivaling the power of his buddy Putin in Russia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you predict Hillary would crush Trump? I don't think we can put much stock into your ability to predict the future.

 

[haymarket]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you predict Hillary would crush Trump? I don't think we can put much stock into your ability to predict the future.

Clinton won the vote of the American people by over 2.8 million votes. If we were still not slaves to a feudal system from the 1700's when our nation was radically and significantly different, Trump would not be President today.

 

[Samwise]

Clinton won the vote of the American people by over 2.8 million votes. If we were still not slaves to a feudal system from the 1700's when our nation was radically and significantly different, Trump would not be President today.

You're criticizing the government the founders gave us in the 1700s?

 

[marke]

Republicans did have witnesses before the House.

Schiff let the republicans have a few witnesses not several which were key to the case. Schiff was charged with collecting testimony from witnesses in the House and presenting that witness testimony to the Senate. He was not supposed to still be calling new witnesses in a failing effort to prove his case after delivering the articles to the Senate. Not only that, but the fact that he was still obstructing republican witnesses in the Senate proved he wanted the Senate to try the case on the same unfair partisan political terms he tried the case in the House.

The only reason Trump and his supporters wanted the whistle blower was to extract revenge upon the person and destroy the career like he is currently trying to do with Vindman and others.

I don't know what Trump wanted but I do want to know how the whistleblower got his secret government info in the first place and why was he supposed to be believed to be credible when he never heard the call, was not supposed to know about the call, and had no business getting involved with the call or offering his unqualified opinion about the call?

 

[marke]

The content of the Bolton book was not revealed until the matter was already before the Senate and post impeachment vote in the House.

Like the whistleblower's 3rd hand account of the phone call he never heard and was not supposed to be involved with in the slightest, Bolton's book is not only unsubstantiated but also not yet revealed except by illegal leaks. Bolton's testimony could never alter the facts of the case which the jury have declared Trump innocent of any criminal charges.

For example, Trump never verbalized any demand which could be proven to have been a bribe or a quid pro quo. Biden's testimony even if he were to give it cannot change that exonerating fact.

Zelensky testified he knew of no pressure to meet any demand by Trump and Trump's release of the aid was consistent with his stated purpose of waiting for further intelligence to come in to insure Zelensky was not going to be just another corrupt problem in Ukraine. Nothing Bolton could say will change that.

Vindman opposed Trump and American justice officials investigating Burisma even though Vindman admitted he knew practically nothing about Burisma or the Biden's involvement with the corrupt company. Nothing Bolton could possibly say would change that fact.

Vindman assumed Trump had bad motives. Maybe Bolton could support that opinion, but there are two key facts democrats continue to overlook about that. First, nobody can prove what Trump was feeling, what Trump was thinking, what Trump wanted, what Trump was expecting, etc, unless they quote Trump specifically admitting that to be true. Biden cannot prove Trump is guilty of thinking something that nobody can prove he was thinking. But, secondly, if Trump was secretly hoping to gain advantage by having the US investigate criminal activity in Ukraine, that is just too bad for democrats because that is not a crime even if it were true.

 

[marke]

You cry a river of phony crocodile tears because Trump was not allowed all the elements of a defense during trial in the House proceeding. That is what the trial is for before the Senate. The House acts similar to a Grand Jury hading down an indictment and acted totally properly.

The biggest problem in the House was the dishonest acceptance of Schiff's declaration of Trump's guilt when Trump was never proven guilty because there was no trial, no due process, no defense and no jury of peers. Schiff branded Trump guilty and paraded into the Senate with the degenerate brass demanding they approve of his unjust process and illegitimate verdict.

 

[marke]

Roe was a Supreme Court decision. Trump was on trial before the Senate. Those are two very different things and an attempt to equate the two is intellectually dishonest at best.

How can a majority innocent vote in the impeachment trial not be valid while a majority vote in SCOTUS abortion ruling can be valid?

 

[marke]

Again, you confuse a trial where those rights are held by the defendant with the House handing down an impeachment charge much like a Grand Jury hands down an indictment.

Schiff's mistake, as all those who fell for his trick, was to declare Trump guilty before he was even tried fairly under due process laws.

 

[marke]

You're right, because when I think of President Johnson and President Clinton I think of acquitted.

Exactly.

 

[marke]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you predict Hillary would crush Trump? I don't think we can put much stock into your ability to predict the future.

Democrat prophets have a dismal success rate when predicting the future. Al Gore predicted catastrophes of unimaginable global warming horror in a very short time, but that time has come and gone and no such catastrophe on his scale ever happened.

 

[marke]

Clinton won the vote of the American people by over 2.8 million votes. If we were still not slaves to a feudal system from the 1700's when our nation was radically and significantly different, Trump would not be President today.

You forgot to deduct the stuffed ballot box votes for Hillary uncovered in the Michigan recount before the recount had to be stopped due to the massive numbers of irregularities being uncovered. If democrats had not forced the halting of the recount, Michigan may have made the Iowa caucus look like a FBI accountant's books for accuracy by comparison.

 

[ArtemisBarca]

Then you are blind. I have provided information in this thread. I will now post it again, because certain people in this thread read this information already and continue to post things they know to be false.

Robert Mueller'''s report debunks Russia dossier



Every single one of these allegations was in the dossier. Almost nothing in the dossier has proven to be true. There was no collusion, no conspiracy, no active participation from the Trump campaign. "Accepting" as used by Haymarket would require the campaign to actively assist or use the information, that did not occur. Simply, its a bald faced because he has seen this exact information, and other supporting information already. To actively present it again having read this information indicates he knows its a lie but does not care that he is presenting disinformation.

For further information this is what IG Horowitz had to say in his report:



and:

The article lists no example of how they were not true..

It is an AP article, but it uses some super shady wording for an AP article... quoting devin Nunes like he is credible where trump is concerned......


It also, says he found no evidence of it..

Not the same thing at all as “we found out it was a fake..”



For example take the Russian pee allegation...

They might be able to prove trump wasn’t even in that country on that date, or plans changed and he stayed at a different hotel..


“We were unable to verify his claims” does not me they debunked them either...



Separately, Concerning Russia specifically, Muller said if he found no evidence of collusion. He would exonerate trump. That is not what happened..

If you read the article it only contests very specific things that most people were not even saying..

Such as “trump is a Russian agent”..

The only serious people who called trump a Russian agent meant it from the stand point of “he did a shady back room deal with them”..

No one seriously thought trump was a Russian agent with handlers and such..

I can’t back out of this reply to quote more from the article, but as I scanned it most had some little addition that wasn’t necessary...

I’ll try and reply back siting more examples..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

You forgot to deduct the stuffed ballot box votes for Hillary uncovered in the Michigan recount before the recount had to be stopped due to the massive numbers of irregularities being uncovered. If democrats had not forced the halting of the recount, Michigan may have made the Iowa caucus look like a FBI accountant's books for accuracy by comparison.

I live in Michigan and have no idea what you are talking about.

Present your evidence.

 

[haymarket]

Schiff's mistake, as all those who fell for his trick, was to declare Trump guilty before he was even tried fairly under due process laws.

It is the job of those in prosecutorial positions to show guilt even before the trial if their investigations and evidence point to that direction.

 

[haymarket]

How can a majority innocent vote in the impeachment trial not be valid while a majority vote in SCOTUS abortion ruling can be valid?

The Senate impeachment trial was before a fixed jury and unfair trial which would not allow witnesses as all other judicial and presidential impeachments have done in US history. .

 

[haymarket]

The biggest problem in the House was the dishonest acceptance of Schiff's declaration of Trump's guilt when Trump was never proven guilty because there was no trial, no due process, no defense and no jury of peers. Schiff branded Trump guilty and paraded into the Senate with the degenerate brass demanding they approve of his unjust process and illegitimate verdict.

The proceedings before the House were never suppose to be like a trial with all aspects of the case heard. That was suppose to be done before the Senate. Sadly, it was not.

 

[haymarket]

Like the whistleblower's 3rd hand account of the phone call he never heard and was not supposed to be involved with in the slightest, Bolton's book is not only unsubstantiated but also not yet revealed except by illegal leaks. Bolton's testimony could never alter the facts of the case which the jury have declared Trump innocent of any criminal charges.

For example, Trump never verbalized any demand which could be proven to have been a bribe or a quid pro quo. Biden's testimony even if he were to give it cannot change that exonerating fact.

Zelensky testified he knew of no pressure to meet any demand by Trump and Trump's release of the aid was consistent with his stated purpose of waiting for further intelligence to come in to insure Zelensky was not going to be just another corrupt problem in Ukraine. Nothing Bolton could say will change that.

Vindman opposed Trump and American justice officials investigating Burisma even though Vindman admitted he knew practically nothing about Burisma or the Biden's involvement with the corrupt company. Nothing Bolton could possibly say would change that fact.

Vindman assumed Trump had bad motives. Maybe Bolton could support that opinion, but there are two key facts democrats continue to overlook about that. First, nobody can prove what Trump was feeling, what Trump was thinking, what Trump wanted, what Trump was expecting, etc, unless they quote Trump specifically admitting that to be true. Biden cannot prove Trump is guilty of thinking something that nobody can prove he was thinking. But, secondly, if Trump was secretly hoping to gain advantage by having the US investigate criminal activity in Ukraine, that is just too bad for democrats because that is not a crime even if it were true.

You provide reasons why the Senate should have heard from witnesses. Not doing so forever taints and scars their sham proceeding.

 

[haymarket]

Schiff let the republicans have a few witnesses not several which were key to the case. Schiff was charged with collecting testimony from witnesses in the House and presenting that witness testimony to the Senate. He was not supposed to still be calling new witnesses in a failing effort to prove his case after delivering the articles to the Senate. Not only that, but the fact that he was still obstructing republican witnesses in the Senate proved he wanted the Senate to try the case on the same unfair partisan political terms he tried the case in the House.

So why didn't the Republicans in the Senate call their important witnesses?

 

[OpportunityCost]

The article lists no example of how they were not true..

It is an AP article, but it uses some super shady wording for an AP article... quoting devin Nunes like he is credible where trump is concerned......


It also, says he found no evidence of it..

Not the same thing at all as “we found out it was a fake..”



For example take the Russian pee allegation...

They might be able to prove trump wasn’t even in that country on that date, or plans changed and he stayed at a different hotel..


“We were unable to verify his claims” does not me they debunked them either...



Separately, Concerning Russia specifically, Muller said if he found no evidence of collusion. He would exonerate trump. That is not what happened..

If you read the article it only contests very specific things that most people were not even saying..

Such as “trump is a Russian agent”..

The only serious people who called trump a Russian agent meant it from the stand point of “he did a shady back room deal with them”..

No one seriously thought trump was a Russian agent with handlers and such..

I can’t back out of this reply to quote more from the article, but as I scanned it most had some little addition that wasn’t necessary...

I’ll try and reply back siting more examples..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like every other biased, butthurt Democrat. He doesn't have to prove he's innocent, they have to prove he's guilty. Hey, lets have Trump's campaign team take a bunch of unsubstantiated bull**** and start an investigation, oh wait that was your standard for impeachment. You can't make this kind of total nonsense up.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So why didn't the Republicans in the Senate call their important witnesses?

Because they didn't need to. Because the House case was utter nonsense.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Clinton won the vote of the American people by over 2.8 million votes. If we were still not slaves to a feudal system from the 1700's when our nation was radically and significantly different, Trump would not be President today.

Sounds like a butthurt, whiny, sour grapes excuse to me.

 

[marke]

I live in Michigan and have no idea what you are talking about.

Present your evidence.

I'm talking about the Jill Stein recount, the widespread voter "irregularities" and the fact that the recount was stopped because of the fact of so many voting irregularities found in so many precincts.

 

[marke]

It is the job of those in prosecutorial positions to show guilt even before the trial if their investigations and evidence point to that direction.

Prosecutors allege guilt. They do not sit as prosecutor, judge and jury to declare guilt without due process. Schiff suspended due process and refused to allow the defendant a defense, meaning he could not have possibly established Trump's guilt by law. He should have entered the Senate trial attempting to demonstrate Trump's guilt, not openly declaring it as though it had already been established beyond any doubt.