[mrzimmerman]

Because the Republican party decided that because Trump was no longer president at the time of his 2nd impeachment trial he couldn't TECHNICALLY be convicted:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-yes-mccon...

Which, if you paid attention to the trial was extremely well reported, so either you genuinely didn't pay attention at all or you're trying to imply anyone in Congress seriously believed he wasn't culpable.

So to answer your question simply, he wasn't convicted because it wasn't politically expedient to the rest of his political party.

[foolinaround]

you have to check either your biases or where you get your stories from.

If the impeachment managers did this stuff (fake the evidence such as videos, tweets, etc) in a real court, they would face serious consequences.

The Chief Justice recognized it as a sham and did not participate, and one does not need to like Trump to know what this second round was.

The first one was atleast done by the book...

[cobraetor]

Not really disagreeing with you, but Hacker News guidelines prohibits making negative comments about a person.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Everyone is biased, so it would be far more productive to just refute the central point, which in the case of mrzimmerman's comments on this thread (as you may realize) is rather straightforward[1] to do.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

[1] For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26198380

[foolinaround]

thanks - unable to edit, i also posted again.

[foolinaround]

i see the sibling comment and sorry, but i am not able to edit the post.

We all have biases, and yes, it is obvious without me alluding to it.

I have stated the facts that counter zimmerman's note