HF - thank you good Sir - for a thoughtful post.
I agree, and will try my best to dignify your post by writing no more.
I believe there was substantiated fraud, just not enough to move forward in a trial because the outcome being sought was not validated by the evidence. In other words, "you don't have enough evidence to make a difference". The wording was always the same.I've asked others and I'll ask you -- you claim there was "substantiated fraud". Please cite in which states those claims were made and what the exact claims were.
election. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
It’s not a court of law. They agree to a set of rules in governing the trial. They aren’t bound by the federal rules or civil procedure or the federal rules of evidence. It’s clear that it’s not a judicial proceeding as Cruz and Lee met with theTrump lawyers today to discuss what they should say. In a judicial proceeding jurors don’t get to help with strategy.
The judge in an impeachment doesn’t do anything. Doesn’t make rulings on evidence. The senate does. That’s exactly why evidence was limited in Trumps first trial.
It amazes me that you can’t seem to distinguish the difference between the political process of impeachment and a criminal process.
I really think your age is catching up to you or you are intentionally obtuse. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
I've asked others and I'll ask you -- you claim there was "substantiated fraud". Please cite in which states those claims were made and what the exact claims were.
There will always be a limited amount of fraud in most elections but Trump supporters and Trump himself says he would have won EASILY without massive voter fraud.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
It’s not a court of law.
But Senator's are free use "the law" to render a verdict, correct?
They agree to a set of rules in governing the trial.
Did they all agree that they would not consider the law in rendering their verdict?
They aren’t bound by the federal rules or civil procedure or the federal rules of evidence.
Nor or they bound to disregard them.
It’s clear that it’s not a judicial proceeding as Cruz and Lee met with theTrump lawyers today to discuss what they should say. In a judicial proceeding jurors don’t get to help with strategy.
The judge in an impeachment doesn’t do anything. Doesn’t make rulings on evidence. The senate does. That’s exactly why evidence was limited in Trumps first trial.
It amazes me that you can’t seem to distinguish the difference between the political process of impeachment and a criminal process.
I really think your age is catching up to you or you are intentionally obtuse. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
I've explained the difference in multiple posts. I guess you either missed them or couldn't comprehend the distinction I was making. Maybe it's your youth and inexperience.The answer to your question is no. But that would not stop one from doing so since this is a political process and they are are JINO.
But let's see if we can simplify this for you. Can a Senator, if he or she so chooses, treat this as a criminal proceeding and demand, if they want his or her vote, to prove a crime using statutory language?
Do they have that right, yes or no?
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Thanks for proving my point! I never said and I am not saying now, that "massive" fraud took place. If you can't comprehend that, that's your problem to work out. Originally Posted by HedonistForeverI did not say YOU personally claimed massive fraud. I said Trump and his base supporters claimed massive fraud. I said you stated there was "substantiated fraud" and I was asking for specific examples of what you consider to be substantiated fraud.
I did not say YOU personally claimed massive fraud. I said Trump and his base supporters claimed massive fraud. I said you stated there was "substantiated fraud" and I was asking for specific examples of what you consider to be substantiated fraud. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
The answer to your question is no. But that would not stop one from doing so since this is a political process and they are are JINO.
By their own internal rules, the senate sets forth by a majority vote agreement what standards they will use for all determinations in the trial including what is “constitutional” (this is what I referred to earlier about justiciability and the political question doctrine). They decide by majority vote what the rules regarding admission of evidence and procedures are. Of course, individually each senator can ignore their oath of impartiality or agreement to vote based on the agreed upon rules. That is why the judge in a senate trial is irrelevant since that person doesn’t decide anything, decisions are presented to the full senate for a vote.
You’ll have to Excuse my youth (though I no longer feel that young) and inexperience. Originally Posted by 1blackman1
Say what? No, but that wouldn't stop them from doing so? Then the answer is yes, they can base their decision on whether the prosecution has made a legal case and that is what 43 Senators did and that's exactly what Mitch did. He didn't like what Trump did, said it was despicable but the law, the Constitution made him apply the law and nothing else. Every other Senator based their vote on emotions, genuine to be sure but pure emotions. Originally Posted by HedonistForeverDidn't like what Trump did? His wife resigned from Trumps administration over it. Mitch seems to think Trump should be tried in a court of law. I happen to agree.
And I'll repeat what you just said, there is always fraud. I don't run an investigation agency. All I can do is Google. If Google doesn't want me to see substantiated fraud in this election, I have no way of showing it to you.So there was fraud in the election but none that you can point to. There are many search engines other than Google.
FYI if you are debating me, I assume you are talking to me not Trump not what Trump supporters say. Just respond to what I say please. Originally Posted by HedonistForever