Furion
Well-known member
How would you know?How so???
How would you know?How so???
Of "collusion", yes.Like I said, the Russian collusion report was inconclusive.
Gee, congrats. Good going.Yes, it did take thousands of years. Luckily, the Enlightenment came along and we started to throw off the shackles of Christianity that had been holding us back for thousands of years. Come back if your society lasts even one thousand years.
You are mistaken. I am British. We invented concentration camps, but not cremation ovens.
So it could not be proven then. Innocent of all charges then I guess.Like I said, the Russian collusion report was inconclusive. What part of that don't you understand?
I asked first. Yes or no?Do you think it only applies to Democrats? Yes or no?
If you look in the dressing up box, you can pretend to be an angel.Gee, congrats. Good going.
Well if you wise up and end up in heaven we will know in a thousand years.
You claimed it... YOU support it.How would you know?
Nope. It was inconclusive. That means there wasn't enough evidence for a charge. And likewise, it didn't remove all suspicion. It didn't clear him.So it could not be proven then. Innocent of all charges then I guess.
Let's see you answer.I asked first. Yes or no?
As soon as you do I will be happy to return the favor. I asked first.Let's see you answer.
Not enough evidence means your innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. It does not exonerated him or pronounce guilt. They presented evidence and the evidence was a joke.Nope. It was inconclusive. That means there wasn't enough evidence for a charge. And likewise, it didn't remove all suspicion. It didn't clear him.
That standard is for trials held in a legal court. Impeachments have no such standard. There is no presumption of innocence or guilt.Not enough evidence means your innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Let's see you answer.As soon as you do I will be happy to return the favor. I asked first.
Nope, not necessarily. Just because an investigation doesn't achieve the threshold for filing charges doesn't mean it completely clears are person.Not enough evidence means your innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. It does not exonerated him or pronounce guilt. They presented evidence and the evidence was a joke.
And in police work lack of enough evidence to bring changes doesn't necessarily remove a person from suspicion.That standard is for trials held in a legal court. Impeachments have no such standard. There is no presumption of innocence or guilt.
Sure it does. Innocent till proven guiltyNope, not necessarily. Just because an investigation doesn't achieve the threshold for filing charges doesn't mean it completely clears are person.
Not in a impeachment, no. And not in an investigation of charges that would justifiably get someone impeached.Sure it does. Innocent till proven guilty
Except that's not really the way it works in reality. An INVESTIGATION of a suspect might not tun up enough evidence to constitute charges, but that doesn't mean the suspect is 100% cleared of all suspicion. You seem to have no idea how police investigations work.Sure it does. Innocent till proven guilty
LOL. reality is subjective, Its about what you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.Except that's not really the way it works in reality. An INVESTIGATION of a suspect might not tun up enough evidence to constitute charges, but that doesn't mean the suspect is 100% cleared of all suspicion. You seem to have no idea how police investigations work.
So the mere accusation makes one guilty?Not in a impeachment, no. And not in an investigation of charges that would justifiably get someone impeached.
Are you sure you understand how US government works?