Nancy Pelosi's Fake Crime

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChuckB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
um, he has not been impeached. I do not know what you are talking about.
 
Yes. Impeachment happens in the house.

The senate either convicts or acquits.

Clinton was impeached.

Trump was impeached.

Neither were convicted.
 
Maybe on Tralthalmador he wasn’t impeached.
Here on earth, he is impeached for all time.
His obituary will include the word impeached.
 
Last edited:
Xenon777 said:
um, he has not been impeached. I do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
He was impeached, or essentially indicted. He was then acquitted.
There have been untold numbers of people who were indicted then acquitted in court. It can be said they were “indicted for all times” and it means nothing. Same with this.
 
Xenon777 said:
um, he has not been impeached. I do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Um, you are wrong in your first sentence, and correct in your second.

He was impeached. You just don’t know the difference between the impeachment and the trial…

Read Article I, Section 2, Clause 5,’ Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7; Article II, Sections 2 and 4, of the United States Constitution, and then get back to us.
 
JonNC said:
There have been untold numbers of people who were indicted then acquitted in court. It can be said they were “indicted for all times” and it means nothing. Same with this.
Click to expand...
Again, because acquittal is not a proclamation of innocence, it means a great deal,.

The text book example is OJ Simpson…He was acquitted, but the acquittal was hardly meaningless…he still lived is life in disgrace.
 
redal said:
Again, because acquittal is not a proclamation of innocence, it means a great deal,.
Click to expand...
Again, because acquittal means not guilty, and because in America one is presumed innocent unless convicted, he is acquitted, not guilty and presumed innocent.
redal said:
The text book example is OJ Simpson…He was acquitted, but the acquittal was hardly meaningless…he still lived is life in disgrace.
Click to expand...
OJ was found not guilty. In America, he is presumed innocent. But OJ is not the text book example. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson are. In Bill Clinton’s case, he was acquitted, but he was guilty of perjury.
No one can say that Bill Clinton was guilty of the impeachment articles. In other words, he must be presumed innocent.
 
JonNC said:
No one can say that Bill Clinton was guilty of the impeachment articles. In other words, he must be presumed innocent.
Click to expand...
So, lets put it up to the rank and file supporters here on CAF of the recently impeached and permanently disgraced current President, and ask them if they presume the innocence of Bill Clinton.
 
This was impeachment, not a criminal trial.
You cannot draw comparisons.
What criminal trials have jurors that declare their verdict before they start.
Or opt to have no witnesses or evidence so the public doesn’t see that evidence ( AND HOW DAMAGING IT IS) before they vote a predetermined Aquittal.
You don’t presume innocence from that circus. Or ," half a trial," as General Kelly called it and Mark Warner confirmed.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
This was impeachment, not a criminal trial.
You cannot draw comparisons.
Click to expand...
Sure I can. But I’m not the one who did a comparison to OJ. I compared to Bill Clinton.
Maximus1 said:
Or opt to have no witnesses or evidence so the public doesn’t see that evidence ( AND HOW DAMAGING IT IS) before they vote a predetermined Aquittal.
Click to expand...
There were 18 witnesses. If they wanted others, Schiff should have called them in the House.
Maximus1 said:
You don’t presume innocence
Click to expand...
No. Progressives don’t presume Innocence.
I do.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maybe Trump can Ukraien ot announce an investigation. 😆
 
If they wanted others Schiff should have called them?
This idea is one of inertia. Repeat it over and over and inertia substitutes for legal authority and precedent.
Nothing in our jurisprudence supports this idea. The GOP in the Senate needed to hide witnesses and evidence from the court of public opinion and they did.
They ignored 100% of the Impeachment precedent over 250 years. Without exception witnesses have been called. The average impeachment has had 30 witnesses called live in the Senate each Impeachment that took place. New witnesses never called in the House have been called in Senate trials multiple times.
Your statement was nothing more than a reason given to keep witnesses from testifying on TV. Like declaring there will be no footballs in the Superbowl.
 
Will we see Trump’s secret police arrest her in the night for crimes against the State? No reason to think not. He’s half way there determining her guilt.
 
You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.… The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway.

My friends wanted America purified. They wanted it purified of the politicians, of all the politicians. They wanted a representative leader in place of unrepresentative representatives. And Trump, the pure man, the anti-politician, was the man, untainted by “politics,” which was only a cloak for corruption.

…Now I see a little better how Trump overcame America - not by attack from without or subversion from within, but with a whoop and a holler. It was what most Americans wanted - or, under pressure of combined reality and illusion, came to want. They wanted it; they got it; and they liked it…"
Click to expand...
–They Thought They Were Free (Trump edition)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top