Dems lost again on Impeachment

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and the tryharding pretend games intensify *yawn*

Translation: "I don't like you proving me wrong by showing me what words mean so I'm going to try and save face by pretending like you haven't proven anything"- bashy. 😂

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
How was he not exonerated? The Chief Justice said he was.

Yeah, but wittle bashy doesn't like that fact so it doesn't count lol.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and the tryharding pretend games intensify *yawn*

Lawyer: Judge, the DNA evidence proves it was someone else who committed the murder and not my client

Judge: *yawn* I'll hold you in contempt if you continue these games

Originally posted by Surtur
Lawyer: Judge, the DNA evidence proves it was someone else who committed the murder and not my client

Judge: *yawn* I'll hold you in contempt if you continue these games

😆 😆

good one! 👆

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's different because special rules and fee-fees

Trump should write (or have a ghost author, since Trump's a moron) his own "If I Did It" book, Trumpers would make it a best seller.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump should write (or have a ghost author, since Trump's a moron) his own "If I Did It" book, Trumpers would make it a best seller.

shhh you're interrupting the pretend-exoneration.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
shhh you're interrupting the pretend-exoneration.

Why keep digging this hole? You were proven wrong. Move on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump should write (or have a ghost author, since Trump's a moron) his own "If I Did It" book, Trumpers would make it a best seller.

In all seriousness I do think he's gonna "write" a book whenever he leaves office, be it in 2021 or 2025.

Originally posted by Surtur
In all seriousness I do think he's gonna "write" a book whenever he leaves office, be it in 2021 or 2025.

Fair nuff.

Will you have a problem with it like you did with Clinton's book writing after she lost?

Originally posted by Surtur

Cool, now let's try an actual legal dictionary:

ac·quit v. What a jury or judge sitting without a jury does at the end of a criminal trial if the jury or judge finds the accused defendant not guilty.

not guilt·y n. Verdict after trial, stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed.

not guilty ≠ innocent ≠ exonnerated

Any other retarded baby games you two want to play?

Chief justice legit announced he was not guilty on either article. This hill? Don't die on it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, Adam... you poor baby. You need a tissue? How about some play-doh? 😂

Spin it or tell yourself whatever lie you have to or make whatever faulty apples-to-oranges comparisons you like in order to soothe your massive butthurt. I won't mind. 😉

Just remember though:

#AcquittedForever

#StillYourPresident . 🙂

Remember, Star/Fly: O.J. Simpson is #AcquittedForever.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
shhh you're interrupting the pretend-exoneration.

I don't think they've yet realized the precedents they've set...

Imagine if during Clinton's Senate hearings witnesses were blocked and they just voted to acquit.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think they've yet realized the precedents they've set...

Imagine if during Clinton's Senate hearings witnesses were blocked and they just voted to acquit.

How is that worse than the precedent of using impeachment cuz you dislike a president?

Originally posted by Surtur
Chief justice legit announced he was not guilty on either article. This hill? Don't die on it.

And? "Not guilty" is not "innocent," legally-speaking or by any other standard.

People bringing up OJ really don't feel like they've already lost the argument? Okie dokie.

Originally posted by Surtur
How is that worse than the precedent of using impeachment cuz you dislike a president?

You know there has to be sufficient evidence a crime has been committed to meet a legal threshold in order to file articles of impeachment, right? That if the only basis was mere dislike, it would not have been able to proceed?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You know there has to be sufficient evidence a crime has been committed to meet a legal threshold in order to file articles of impeachment, right? That if the only basis was mere dislike, it would not have been able to proceed?

Just curious, who decided the evidence was sufficient?

Originally posted by Surtur
How is that worse than the precedent of using impeachment cuz you dislike a president?

This is a faulty narrative and a distraction form the point I mentioned.

*shrugs* I certainly didn't expect you to go "you're right Surt".