Crooked judge cannon throws out the documents case

[Valcazar]

2/3 of the senate are required to vote on conviction. That didn't happen and they fell short.
How many different ways would you like to twist things to suit your narrative?

ie witch hunt waged...with hunt failed.

Move on.

So you are going to admit that Trump is a rapist according to law now?

 

[Frankfooter]

2/3 of the senate are required to vote on conviction. That didn't happen and they fell short.
How many different ways would you like to twist things to suit your narrative?

ie witch hunt waged...with hunt failed.

Move on.

So are you going to admit, again, that rump was twice impeached?

In other words, you don't support and accept verdicts when they don't jive with your narrative.
Sounds like the only sore loser here is you sunshine.

 

[Dutch Oven]

Acquitted in the senate, which is specifically a vote on "do not remove from office" not a vote on "did he do it",

The constitution requires both impeachment (articles of impeachment which function as charges or an indictment) AND conviction. Clearly, conviction involves both an examination of "did he do it" and "is it conduct deserving of impeachment".

Of what relevance are charges if, at trial, there is an acquittal rather than a conviction? Spoiler alert - the answer is none. (Side note - in Canada if you were to describe someone charged with crime X, but acquitted of it (or had the charges dropped), as "accused of crime X" you would certainly have a defamation claim in your hands toute suite.) Thus, most impartial sources refer to the entire process, including the Senate trial, as the impeachment process:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1/ALDE_00000282/

 

[Skoob]

So you are going to admit that Trump is a rapist according to law now?

If all you are going to do is change topics every response then I can do that as well.

Let's start...

I think it's going to rain later this week.

 

[Valcazar]

If all you are going to do is change topics every response then I can do that as well.

Let's start...

I think it's going to rain later this week.

I'm not changing topics at all.

I'm pointing out that you are being inconsistent in what you think matters.

 

[Valcazar]

The constitution requires both impeachment (articles of impeachment which function as charges or an indictment) AND conviction. Clearly, conviction involves both an examination of "did he do it" and "is it conduct deserving of impeachment".

Absolutely, and many Senators were quite clear that they thought he did it but that since he was already gone from office, conviction was unnecessary.

 

[Skoob]

So are you going to admit, again, that rump was twice impeached?

He was acquitted twice...what part of that confuses you?
Are you desperate?

 

[Skoob]

I'm not changing topics at all.

I'm pointing out that you are being inconsistent in what you think matters.

How do you go from falsely accusing someone of rape to then arguing over acquittals related to failed impeachments?

This conversation is like herding cats with you.

 

[Skoob]

Absolutely, and many Senators were quite clear that they thought he did it but that since he was already gone from office, conviction was unnecessary.

"conviction was unnecessary"...that's funny!
How about conviction was unwarranted?

Better?

 

[Leimonis]

Absolutely, and many Senators were quite clear that they thought he did it but that since he was already gone from office, conviction was unnecessary.

it's sad but also hilarious when righties are trying to convince themselves that orange man is not a criminal

 

[kherg007]

What you don't understand is that not all legal proceedings are litigated before courts. Many are determined by administrative tribunals or by publicly appointed officials. Impeachment by the House is comparable to an indictment in criminal procedure. The Senate is empowered to hold a trial as to the articles of impeachment. It was a legal proceeding, just not a proceeding before the courts. The Senate was empowered to effect specific sanctions and remedies if it had found guilt. It didn't.

The only person confused about this point is you.

First off, a majority found him responsible. Second, it was not a criminal proceeding. And acquittal is a legal term referring to a criminal proceeding.
Here's the definition:
acquittal. noun [ C/U ] /əˈkwɪt̬·əl/ an official decision in a court of law that someone is not guilty of a particular crime: [ C ] He hoped for an acquittal.
Thus to claim Trump was acquitted is false.

 

[Leimonis]

First off, a majority found him responsible. Second, it was not a criminal proceeding. And acquittal is a legal term referring to a criminal proceeding.
Here's the definition:
acquittal. noun [ C/U ] /əˈkwɪt̬·əl/ an official decision in a court of law that someone is not guilty of a particular crime: [ C ] He hoped for an acquittal.
Thus to claim Trump was acquitted is false.

To them acquitted means got away with it

 

[glamphotographer]

Hunter Biden is doing the same thing, stating the prosecutor-special counsel is illegally appointed. Hunter's lawyer filed the motion but I think it probably won't be thrown out of court. Corrupt justice system in the US.

 

[Anbarandy]

To them acquitted means got away with it

Or in their vernacular:

"Boss beat the rap."

"No coppers gonna get us, huh boss."

 

[Anbarandy]

Hunter Biden is going the same theme, stating the prosecutor-special counsel is illegally appointed. Hunter's lawyer filed the motion but I think it probably won't be thrown out of court. Corrupt justice system in the US.

No, no, no ...... it's one way only.

 

[glamphotographer]

Jack Smith will appeal the Corrupt judge's ruling.

 

[Valcazar]

How do you go from falsely accusing someone of rape to then arguing over acquittals related to failed impeachments?

This conversation is like herding cats with you.

Ahh... You get confused and upset if someone expects consistency from you.

I see.

It's just Trumpian "win the moment" with no regard to a consistent worldview with you.

You're just bullshitting.
OK.
Noted.

 

[Valcazar]

"conviction was unnecessary"...that's funny!
How about conviction was unwarranted?

Better?

Take it up with the Senators.

 

[Skoob]

Ahh... You get confused and upset if someone expects consistency from you.

I see.

It's just Trumpian "win the moment" with no regard to a consistent worldview with you.

You're just bullshitting.
OK.
Noted.

I guess your mission is accomplished then?

You know, that tactic whereby you start distracting all over the place by injecting irrelevant points in the hope that the original discussion somehow gets lost?

OK.
Noted.

 

[Skoob]

Take it up with the Senators.

It was taken up with the senators and he was acquitted.
It was a complete sham and everyone knows it except the ones who just want to desperately cling to their confirmation bias.