Democrat Clown Car Unloads At Senate

[oeb11]

HF - thank you good Sir - for a thoughtful post.

I agree, and will try my best to dignify your post by writing no more.

[1blackman1]

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.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

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.
election.

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.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...248246980.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3/voter-fraud/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/ni...none-credible/

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

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.

1b1 - So - you finally got something 'Right'.
the 'impeachment' is a DPST political demonstration of hatred - and any use of the word

Unity" - given Your behavior - is a complete Lie - which is what always comes out of the mouths of the DPST nomenklatura.

Trump is impeached ( again - a frivolous, money and timewasting exercise in hatred) - on allegations of words and behavior used many times by Your DPST nomenklatura


nazi pelosi - Republicans /conservatives/ caucasian - ' are 'enemies of teh state'
AOC - 're-education camps ' for Conservatives and enemies of teh state
Omar/tlaib - ovens adn smokestacks for jewish peoples. and - common to all DPST's on this forum - 'all caucasians are white terrorists, supremacists , and r....'s



And - this is just fine to you hypocritical DPST/ccp minions.

Demonize and hate enough - DPST mnions - you will get precisely what U deserve.

It won't be what you plan.



without hypocrisy and Lies - you minions would have nothing to post.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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.

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.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

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.

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.

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?


Why even have an article of impeachment using legal language "inciting an insurrection" if a legal definition of what incitement is, isn't necessary for consideration?


Why didn't they charge "dereliction of duty" as many legal scholars suggested they should have done or why not say, "we don't like the guy and we want him gone"?



Why put the words High Crime and Misdemeanor, legal terms, right there in the Constitution, if it isn't necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime was committed? How can they say, "we don't need to prove a crime, when the words are right there staring them in the face.


I apologize in advance. This was probable a little more than you can absorb all at once.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

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.


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?

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.

[oeb11]

So - 1b1 - the Constitution, rule of law , Equality for all under the Rule of law and Bill of Rights, and due process of Law - are irrelevant to you where Trump, - and by reasonable logic - extends to all Conservatives, Republicans and caucasians - who are nothing other than candidates for immediate imprisonment in re-education camps -
for teh crime they were born of a 'different envelope.'


You are free to pursue your marxist ideology - but when they come for You ,..........

[SpeedRacerXXX]

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.

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.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

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.

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.


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.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

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.

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.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

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.

Didn'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.



"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he's in office," McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor following Trump's acquittal. "He didn't get away with anything

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

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.

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.

So there was fraud in the election but none that you can point to. There are many search engines other than Google.

Unlike OEB and others you at least admit, if I am quoting you correctly, that there was a level of fraud in the election but Biden won fairly. That is my opinion also.

[oeb11]

SR - Enjoy your fiden crime cabal - it will end badly for the country.