President Trump

[newfie]

Trump definitely isn't innocent. But he would be found "not guilty" in a court of law because House Democrats apparently haven't produced enough evidence against him to support a bribery charge in their articles of impeachment. And impeachment is of course a political process in which the evidentiary bar to produce a charge is lower.

Not a good sign if the Democrats want to pursue this into the election season.

I don't understand how you can possibly impeach a president without at least having a criminal charge in the foundation.

 

[vantexan]

Of course you miss the point, but that’s to be expected.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your point is Trump is guilty of everything the Dems claim, and only fools can't see that.

 

[Box Ox]

So all the money and time spent " hasn't produced evidence that he is guilty '' but he " definitely isn't innocent "
Dim Logic

What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

"What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”."

 

[El Correcto]

What is the difference between innocent and not guilty? | MacDonald Law Office, LLC

"What's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty"?

In short, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”."

Courts also don’t pronounce anyone innocent.
You’re innocent until proven guilty.

 

[MrFedEx]

The folks your side trotted out we're the tools. The folks who trotted them out we're some of the members, the intelligence group that spied on a presidential campaign a portion, the FBI who plotted to perform their own coup. The media that feeds your your daily spin to regurgitate here.

Oh, the Deep State conspiracy and the Mainstream Media combo. Can I have that with fries?

 

[MrFedEx]

Courts also don’t pronounce anyone innocent.
You’re innocent until proven guilty.

OK, so Trump's guilty until proven guilty. Got it. Thanks.

 

[bbsam]

Trump definitely isn't innocent. But he would be found "not guilty" in a court of law because House Democrats apparently haven't produced enough evidence against him to support a bribery charge in their articles of impeachment. And impeachment is of course a political process in which the evidentiary bar to produce a charge is lower.

Not a good sign if the Democrats want to pursue this into the election season.

We don’t know that. Mueller clearly seemed to believe that if not a sitting president, Trump could indeed be indicted and tried.

 

[bbsam]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your point is Trump is guilty of everything the Dems claim, and only fools can't see that.

You are wrong.

 

[bbsam]

I don't understand how you can possibly impeach a president without at least having a criminal charge in the foundation.

I think Lindsay Graham explained that years ago.

 

[It will be fine]

I don't understand how you can possibly impeach a president without at least having a criminal charge in the foundation.

Then you don’t understand impeachment. Let’s say a President was drunk off his arse all day and never left the residence to do the job. It wouldn’t be criminal but it would make them unfit to hold the office. Impeachment would be the proper remedy.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Then you don’t understand impeachment. Let’s say a President was drunk off his arse all day and never left the residence to do the job. It wouldn’t be criminal but it would make them unfit to hold the office. Impeachment would be the proper remedy.

Wrong

 

[Jkloc420]

Then you don’t understand impeachment. Let’s say a President was drunk off his arse all day and never left the residence to do the job. It wouldn’t be criminal but it would make them unfit to hold the office. Impeachment would be the proper remedy.

no

 

[Jkloc420]

Then you don’t understand impeachment. Let’s say a President was drunk off his arse all day and never left the residence to do the job. It wouldn’t be criminal but it would make them unfit to hold the office. Impeachment would be the proper remedy.

Being unfit falls under something else, impeachment is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[It will be fine]

Being unfit falls under something else, impeachment is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Wrong. High crimes has no definition. Being unfit and refusing to do the job is a high crime against the nation but not a criminal act. When impeachment was written there weren’t any laws yet, trying to limit it to now criminal acts is absurd.

 

[Jkloc420]

Wrong. High crimes has no definition. Being unfit and refusing to do the job is a high crime against the nation but not a criminal act. When impeachment was written there weren’t any laws yet, trying to limit it to now criminal acts is absurd.

no it falls under the 25th amendment

 

[It will be fine]

no it falls under the 25th amendment

Pretty impressive the founders thought of that one. Lulz

 

[Fred's Myth]

Pretty impressive the founders thought of that one. Lulz

Even more impressive is your admitting you were wrong!

 

[vantexan]

Wrong. High crimes has no definition. Being unfit and refusing to do the job is a high crime against the nation but not a criminal act. When impeachment was written there weren’t any laws yet, trying to limit it to now criminal acts is absurd.

Actually your scenario would fall under Article 25 of the Constitution if I remember right which allows removal of a president deemed unfit by his cabinet and the vice-president.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Wrong. High crimes has no definition. Being unfit and refusing to do the job is a high crime against the nation but not a criminal act. When impeachment was written there weren’t any laws yet, trying to limit it to now criminal acts is absurd.

What idiot libturd told you that lie?

FFS bro, do you ever get tired of being completely wrong?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Pretty impressive the founders thought of that one. Lulz

They amended the Constitution to remove Wilson, rather than just ignoring the clear intent like the Democrats are doing.

If you want to remove a president because of abuse of power, amend the Constitution. Good luck.

The Democrats are the ones who have abused their power by impeaching outside the bounds of the Constitution. They have broken their sworn oath to uphold it, and this is a clear example of legislative tyranny.