Originally posted by Surtur
How is that worse than the precedent of using impeachment cuz you dislike a president?
It's ok when democrats set bad precedents, Surtur... you know that. Different rules for them. 👆
In all serious though, repubs didn't set any bad precedents. Only butthurt lefties think they did.
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?
No, there was literally no evidence of a high crime. Hence, that's why democrats set a bad precedent by filing articles (not to mention the unfair process they went thru over in the House behind closed doors).
FFS dude, some dems even admitted it was done because they wanted to make sure he wouldn't be able to run in the next election because they knew they couldn't beat him. It was not about getting the truth or justice; it was about soothing their butthurt from last election and making sure he couldn't run again in 2020.
He was exonerated... end of story... so give it up, crybaby. Y'all (the left) lost... AGAIN.
Beating this dead horse over and over after it's already a settled issue reminds me of how you sore losers reacted after Hillary lost to Trump by crying about "muh popular vote her derp" and "da russians!!" and pretending like she actually won lol.
Give it up... it's over and done with. Not guilty means exactly that, that he's NOT... GUILTY. LOL @ people like you trying to pathetically spin it to mean something else.
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?
That is the opposite of what the democrats did, they impeached Trump on abuse of power. They didn't even have evidence of bribery. Which is what Allan Dershowitz argued in the senate, there were no laws broken and abuse of power was a subjective label, the Democrats in the house screwed this impeachment up, it was 100% political.
The first president impeached without breaking any laws per the letters of impeachment.
Originally posted by snowdragon
That is the opposite of what the democrats did, they impeached Trump on abuse of power. They didn't even have evidence of bribery. Which is what Allan Dershowitz argued in the senate, there were no laws broken and abuse of power was a subjective label, the Democrats in the house screwed this impeachment up, it was 100% political.The first president impeached without breaking any laws per the letters of impeachment.
Yeah I mean it was the democrats who decided there was sufficient evidence lol.
So they claim there is overwhelming evidence that orange man is bad and republicans ignore it. So why wouldn't they be afraid of republicans ignoring that there is a *lack* of evidence if they ever control the House while a Dem is in office?
To be fair I doubt they even thought it through, just like when they got rid of the filibuster.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool, now let's try an actual legal dictionary:[b]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? [/B]
😂👆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cool, now let's try an actual legal dictionary:[b]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? [/B]
LoL, missed this.
Originally posted by Robtard
Remember when Mueller's report said "I do not exonerate the President" and KMC's team Trump still claimed that Trump was exonerated? Robtard remembers.
And remember how democrats highlighted Mueller saying there was no exoneration despite it not being his job to exonerate? Yet they acted like it was akin to him saying "he's guilty".
Originally posted by Silent Master
Legally-speaking people are innocent until proven guilty, he wasn't proven guilty.
Yep, everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence. If you don't prove them guilty, then that means they're innocent, legally speaking at least.
Now watch as some jackass tries to argue that since it wasn't an actual "criminal trial" or whatever that the presumption of innocence rule doesn't apply lol.