Senate Votes Trump ‘Won the Election in a Landslide’

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It isn't hard for you because you are reading it to mean what you want it to mean. Sheesh, you are a strange person.

You're gaslighting.

Rule 23 was thoroughly argued at trial. The Defense pointed out that the Article violated that rule and it meant the Senate would be voting guilty or not guilty on ALL the allegations or NONE of them.

You didn't watch the trial, eh?

Watching something is one thing, interpreting it in a logical and intelligent manner is the key trick you seem to have missed.

a reply to: UKTruth

The quality of the evidence was insufficient to go to court. If you want to pretend otherwise that's your concern. What's boring is all the talk about there being clear evidence that absolutely proves fraud that never actually gets shown.

originally posted by: tonycodes

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: tonycodes

I'm not sure that's intelligible. The 'highest courts' did not rule that election fraud was real, the OP has taken 2+2 and somehow came up with 42, completely mangling what the text actually says to meet their own desired outcome.

Just to be clear, if people say there is evidence but they decide it doesn't need to be shown, chances are they never had it.

OP is saying they lumped in election fraud partly bc trump was a civilian as well and you cant impeach a civilian, and i dont know whos right, there is not one real lawyer in this thread? really... and i dont see how you can detach election fraud from this impeachment trial bc uhm there is no other dialogue or motive im aware of... to be clear i dont care who is president either, way above my paygrade, im interested in transparency and my spidey sense going off over this OPs implications

Just to be clear, Trump was impeached for the second time when he was in office. The trial was to remove his ability to take any level of office in the future.

If you start off with that basic level of information you at least have something to work from.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Funny how Biden won and Trumps now all back of the Mar-a-lago bus imho.

Look here is the deal!

Trump numbers at nonsensical super spreader events full of MAGA muppets don't equate to the amount of people who voted for Joe.

Its plainly simple they are not the same thing.

And if you fail to comprehend that fact you should seek help mate.

No fraud or simply show the evidence which you fail to provide.

a reply to: uncommitted

Boy, the media has sure done a number on you. You're not capable of understanding a thorough explanation without a news conglomerate filtering and spoonfeeding an interpretation to you.

Sad.

But, it's not my problem. Moving on.

People grasping at straws again because they can't accept Donnie lost. As said before, there has been NO proof of any election fraud. I expect criminal charges against Trump in the near future

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth

The quality of the evidence was insufficient to go to court. If you want to pretend otherwise that's your concern. What's boring is all the talk about there being clear evidence that absolutely proves fraud that never actually gets shown.

Dismissals and denials were almost exclusively due to laches and standing...not the 'quality' of the evidence.

You're the one pretending because you are too lazy to verify whether your assumptions are correct or incorrect. Your assumptions are not correct.

a reply to: vlawde

If he lost, why didn't the Senate find him guilty on the allegation that he made false statements when he said won in a landslide? The Senate would know if he won or not...the House put it before the Senate to decide the factuality of his claims.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

Boy, the media has sure done a number on you. You're not capable of understanding a thorough explanation without a news conglomerate filtering and spoonfeeding an interpretation to you.

Sad.

But, it's not my problem. Moving on.

I think by the amount of people expressing similar opinions to mine in this thread it's fairly clear that you are the one with a different somewhat unique view.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth

The quality of the evidence was insufficient to go to court. If you want to pretend otherwise that's your concern. What's boring is all the talk about there being clear evidence that absolutely proves fraud that never actually gets shown.

Dismissals and denials were almost exclusively due to laches and standing...not the 'quality' of the evidence.

No they were not, it's because it wasn't fit for purpose.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

Boy, the media has sure done a number on you. You're not capable of understanding a thorough explanation without a news conglomerate filtering and spoonfeeding an interpretation to you.

Sad.

But, it's not my problem. Moving on.

I think by the amount of people expressing similar opinions to mine in this thread it's fairly clear that you are the one with a different somewhat unique view.

I think by the number of flags and stars, I got a lot more agreement than differences of opinion. I sure didn't get any 'quality' debate.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth

The quality of the evidence was insufficient to go to court. If you want to pretend otherwise that's your concern. What's boring is all the talk about there being clear evidence that absolutely proves fraud that never actually gets shown.

Dismissals and denials were almost exclusively due to laches and standing...not the 'quality' of the evidence.

No they were not, it's because it wasn't fit for purpose.

Well 'purpose' implies maybe standing? 'Fit for purpose' has no place in this discussion.

The state judicial decisions and governor's orders that were in violation of state law are not evidence that's in dispute by anyone and they're not hard to find.

All ballots not cast in accordance with state law are illegal ballots. Those are illegal votes. The precise number of illegal votes? That will take someone with standing and a timely filed legal argument to get.

'Fit for purpose?' Pah. Moving on. You are just making up stuff now.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: uncommitted

Boy, the media has sure done a number on you. You're not capable of understanding a thorough explanation without a news conglomerate filtering and spoonfeeding an interpretation to you.

Sad.

But, it's not my problem. Moving on.

I think by the amount of people expressing similar opinions to mine in this thread it's fairly clear that you are the one with a different somewhat unique view.

I think by the number of flags and stars, I got a lot more agreement than differences of opinion. I sure didn't get any 'quality' debate.

Flags and stars mean that there are people with the same opinions as you out there, what it doesn't mean is that opinion actually makes sense.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fit for purpose means fit for purpose - you know like the stuff Trumps initial legal team talked about what alleged to be - unfortunately for him, and them, it wasn't.

a reply to: uncommitted

5 people that voice a differing view 12 times while 62 people flag my post doesn't indicate my view is unique.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Fit for purpose means fit for purpose - you know like the stuff Trumps initial legal team talked about what alleged to be - unfortunately for him, and them, it wasn't.

No, I don't know. Please link to the 'fit for purpose' part(s) of the trial docs or transcripts.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Naw pal, the dismissals and denials were down to court officials and judges enforcing state laws of the land.

Its not like your court systems flung out over 50 case because the judge did not like the cut of the lawyer jib.

This is reality im afraid, you seem to be confusing it with the likes of some kind of "My Cousin Vinny" scenario.

Good luck with those assumptions, because at some point you are going to have to accept your delusional.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow but Joe Biden won, he's POTUS, and that's it for the next 4.

a reply to: andy06shake

Oh, ok. Must have been about the cut of the lawyer 'gib.' Barry, Andy, Robin, and Maurice. Not everyone is into falsetto.

🙄

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you doing "Person, woman, man, camera, TV." impression now?

Coz we are still not seeing any evidence Trump won the election in a landslide.

Point of fact the exact opposite is truth, if in doubt, well stick your head out a window and smell the reality.

a reply to: Arnie123

the enormous Pelosi' Ambition may well be her undoing to be the replacement Commander-in-Chief by 2022 or 2023 on th outside