Impeachment not going so well?

[BabyBoomer50s]

Your daily reminder that Trump is still in the exclusive club of "impeached president" and will be there forever down through history and there isn't a damn thing you or he can do about that. The Republicans in the Senate have made clear that failure to remove has nothing to do with establishing innocence of the charges and the history books will fully make that clear--and again, there isn't a damn thing you or Trump can do about that. It seems clear from his reactions that Trump understands this even if you pretend not to.

Sounds like we’re both happy. You can celebrate the contents of future history books while we celebrate the continuation of President Trump’s leadership. Sorry that Democrats are now sitting on their impeachment articles after all the work they put in to it. Oh well! At least they tried.

 

[phrodeau]

With inchoate crimes you still have to prove the same elements as if you had committed the Crime. With attempted murder for example, the only real difference is your aiming sucks.

Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?

 

[Dumpington]

BabyBoomer50s writes: "Sorry that Democrats are now sitting on their impeachment articles after all the work they put in to it. Oh well! At least they tried."

Nancy Pelosi KNEW this was a bad idea right from the beginning, but she'd already lost control of the House of Representatives to the freshman Democrats who hated Trump and were spending their every waking moment attacking him! In the end, Pelosi handed the whole thing over to Schiff & Nadler, and they pushed it through.

But THEN they woke up to the realization that their party lacked the political muscle to get it through the U.S. Senate, and so they retreated to their current position of doing nothing. The entire country now sees just how IMPOTENT the modern Democratic Party has become!

phrodeau writes: "Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?"

Here in the United States, phrodeau, NOBODY is required to prove their "innocence" - it's up to the other side to prove that they're GUILTY! In the case of President Trump, the House Dems have no proof, which explains why Speaker Pelosi is NOT forwarding her articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate. She has no case to make!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?

Idiot

 

[Fuzzy1975]

NOBODY[/I] is required to prove their "innocence"

True right until you are in court.

At that point the prosecution lays out the evidence you are guilty, the defence lays out the evidence you are innocent, or at least not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

At no point when your are in court are you required to mount a defence, however the jury is under no obligation to view you as innocent, or guilty. They are only charged to listen to the evidence presented in court. Then deliberate on the evidence presented and render a decision on your guilt or innocence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

True right until you are in court.

Nope, not even in court.

Court is where the state has to prove your guilt.

 

[icanhelp1]

True right until you are in court.

At that point the prosecution lays out the evidence you are guilty, the defence lays out the evidence you are innocent, or at least not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

At no point when your are in court are you required to mount a defence, however the jury is under no obligation to view you as innocent, or guilty. They are only charged to listen to the evidence presented in court. Then deliberate on the evidence presented and render a decision on your guilt or innocence.

In an american court you are afforded by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments the presumption of innocence and a fair and speedy trial. At no time in a court of law are you presumed guilty, the biggest reasons for thoroughly interviewing jurors, to eliminate bias and discrimination. It is the responsibility of the state to prove guilt. In a criminal court you are never found not guilty by reasonable doubt. You're either innocent or guilty. If found guilty then the next step is sentencing guidelines.

 

[Dumpington]

Fuzzy1975 laments: "True right until you are in court. At that point the prosecution lays out the evidence you are guilty, the defence lays out the evidence you are innocent, or at least not guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

Do you see the WEAKNESS in your argument, Fuzzy?

Nancy Pelosi & the House Democrats have INDICTED President Trump for wrongdoing, but then they're now DENYING HIM HIS DAY IN COURT! They're not bothering to forward the House articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate for a trial, as is required by our U.S. Constitution!

BotanyBoy writes: "Court is where the state has to prove your guilt."

That only works if the prosecution has a valid case to make, which the House Democrats clearly do NOT!

icanhelp1 writes: "At no time in a court of law are you presumed guilty"

The House Dems are currently attempting to re-write the law, claiming that an impeachment vote alone makes a president guilty. That will NEVER hold up in a court of law, but they don't dare send it on to the U.S. Senate where their entire case will be ridiculed & dismissed.

 

[phrodeau]

So nothing supports Trump’s innocence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So nothing supports Trump’s innocence.

Innocence of???

The crimes you can't make a case for???

No....which is totally irrelevant.

 

[magicalmoments]

True right until you are in court.

At that point the prosecution lays out the evidence you are guilty, the defence lays out the evidence you are innocent, or at least not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

At no point when your are in court are you required to mount a defence, however the jury is under no obligation to view you as innocent, or guilty. They are only charged to listen to the evidence presented in court. Then deliberate on the evidence presented and render a decision on your guilt or innocence.

Personally, I prefer the system used by the Scots. There, once the Crown and the defence have presented their evidence the jury has a choice of 3 verdicts it can deliver:
1. Guilty, beyond reasonable doubt
2. Not guilty.
3. Not proven, not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt but just enough to make the jury believe the defendant might be guilty. The defendant is freed but the crown has the right to bring him back to court if new evidence comes to light. This verdict suspends the double jeopardy issue.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

So nothing supports Trump’s innocence.

The thing is that Hilary was guilty of all sorts of things including child slavery or pedophilia or something although never indicted, after about 10 congressional investigations and about 10 hours of testimony without taking 5 one time. Trump is obviously not guilty of anything regardless of the highly credible testimony of high-level patriots from his own administration that he’s a fucking traitor.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Trump is obviously not guilty of anything regardless of the highly credible testimony of high-level patriots from his own administration that he’s a fucking traitor.

The former is true because the latter never happened, despite the desperate and mass delusion among the TDS afflicted that it did.

Wanting to believe he did, doesn't mean he did.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The former is true because the latter never happened, despite the desperate and mass delusion among the TDS afflicted that it did.

Wanting to believe he did, doesn't mean he did.

ewwww dog shit, I stepped in dog shit

 

[BotanyBoy]

ewwww dog shit, I stepped in dog shit

And that's about the strongest argument you've put up to support your insane claims yet.

Good job!!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

And that's about the strongest argument you've put up to support your insane claims yet.

Good job!!

Please stop sending me dick pics. I'm not interested!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Please stop sending me dick pics. I'm not interested!

Oh no! Ass pics.Gross!

 

[icanhelp1]

Oh no! Ass pics.Gross!

They have to start checking ID’s, too many juveniles on this site!

 

[Cubantripod]

Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?

He doesn't have to prove his innocence. The accusers need to prove his guilt. That's what presumption of innocence means. The burden is on the accuser.

 

[1Diver2]

Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?

So nothing supports Trump’s innocence.

These have to be the two most retarded comments I've read yet in this mess.

Are you joking maybe?

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Where’s the sworn testimony to support Trump’s innocence?"

phrodeau then writes: "So nothing supports Trump’s innocence."

1Diver2 writes: "These have to be the two most retarded comments I've read yet in this mess."

I'm going to defend phrodeau by pointing out that he subscribes to the "Nancy Pelosi school of justice" theory, which says that if you hate a political opponent enough you can make whatever baseless charges you want to, and your opponent is guilty unless he (or she) can prove otherwise.

The Democratic Party used this argument unsuccessfully during the Brett Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court hearings, but they haven't given up on it just yet, despite the fact that it doesn't appear to be working in the impeachment arena, either. But phrodeau has always trusted & looked up to Speaker Pelosi, and that clearly hasn't changed. He continues to put his faith in her & Adam Schiff to make his dreams come true.

 

[phrodeau]

He doesn't have to prove his innocence. The accusers need to prove his guilt. That's what presumption of innocence means. The burden is on the accuser.

You are right. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. So where’s the sworn testimony to support his innocence?

 

[Cubantripod]

You are right. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. So where’s the sworn testimony to support his innocence?

You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "You are right. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. So where’s the sworn testimony to support his innocence?"

Cubantripod writes: "You're contradicting yourself."

I think that what phrodeau is trying to say is that while impeaching President Trump was clearly a huge mistake on the part of House Democrats, it's deeply humiliating for Nancy Pelosi's party to come away with absolutely nothing after making all of that effort. He argues that perhaps President Trump should be forced to do something that makes him appear guilty so that the Democratic Party can save face. Isn't that right, phrodeau?

The U.S. Constitution appears to have been designed to EMBARRASS the Democrats and make them appear foolish & incompetent, and our Founding Fathers never intended it to be that way, and phrodeau is simply arguing for a way to give the Dems a little of their pride back. He feels their humiliation, and would like to make some changes in the law to benefit them.

 

[phrodeau]

You're contradicting yourself.

Can’t find any testimonials?