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.
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.
They'll try. Rudy wouldn't be Rudy if he doesn't try. But the deck is stacked against them.
That's Trump's wheelhouse.