He can bar any mention of election results, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
I think it's a good opportunity to present the material anyway. These are not court proceedings. What does Trump's team have to lose by not playing by the rules here?
Yes, it is a court proceeding. It's an actual criminal trial, in the Senate. Schumer will not let a Rudy-esque presentation of election theft occur. Why would he let Rudy - who will almost certainly representing Trump in the Senate, prove that the entire building helped an election get stolen? Especially when the recipient of that theft, the President of the Senate Kamala Harris, is presiding over it?
You need to learn what Impeachment is, in the Senate. Schumer has ALL of the power in this. He makes the rules, like any judge would in their court. He will not let them make a case for the election, because the charges are high crimes and misdemeanors over the events at the Capital on Jan 6th.
The Senate is Schumer's house now. Expect Trumps people to be completely railroaded and blocked on everything. Especially now, now that the Constitution means nothing.
My understanding is that it's Robert's decision as to what evidence can be heard, not Schumer's. I don't see a drawback to including evidence of election fraud in with everything else if we're going to go into extreme detail again like we did a year ago.
Thank you for the perspective. I appreciate it. Most folk on here don't want this level of conversation.
The same speech they are claiming was inciting was the same speech where he spent an entire hour laying out the election fraud. The topic is overbearingly present. I'm still going to place my bet on election fraud info being presented during the trial.
I think it's a good opportunity to present the material anyway. These are not court proceedings. What does Trump's team have to lose by not playing by the rules here?
Yes, it is a court proceeding. It's an actual criminal trial, in the Senate. Schumer will not let a Rudy-esque presentation of election theft occur. Why would he let Rudy - who will almost certainly representing Trump in the Senate, prove that the entire building helped an election get stolen? Especially when the recipient of that theft, the President of the Senate Kamala Harris, is presiding over it?
You need to learn what Impeachment is, in the Senate. Schumer has ALL of the power in this. He makes the rules, like any judge would in their court. He will not let them make a case for the election, because the charges are high crimes and misdemeanors over the events at the Capital on Jan 6th.
The Senate is Schumer's house now. Expect Trumps people to be completely railroaded and blocked on everything. Especially now, now that the Constitution means nothing.
My understanding is that it's Robert's decision as to what evidence can be heard, not Schumer's. I don't see a drawback to including evidence of election fraud in with everything else if we're going to go into extreme detail again like we did a year ago.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/3_1986SenatesImpeachmentRules.pdf
Pay attention to parts IV and V. Roberts would preside, but it's not his court, he runs it how the Senate tells him to. It's all Schumer's rules.
The charges don't include the election. They (the dems) would be idiots to include that in this sham impeachment.
Thank you for the perspective. I appreciate it. Most folk on here don't want this level of conversation.
The same speech they are claiming was inciting was the same speech where he spent an entire hour laying out the election fraud. The topic is overbearingly present. I'm still going to place my bet on election fraud info being presented during the trial.