As was my post; I was just more pleonastic about it.That's an assessment of cognitive ability, not a personal attack.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
Conviction or acquittal, we're going to learn something about where the Republicans stand, which is a good thing. Make them take a position, not try to escape by arguing process.
What do you think Trump's witnesses are going to argue?
But what if process is germane? Indeed, process is vitally important to all proceedings of consequence whether a statutory promotion board in the military to university admissions and, of course, the courts. I understand the visceral need for some to get the most damning accusations, if not evidence, on record. But, most of the election lawsuits brought by Trumpsters were dismissed on procedural grounds. The same people that celebrated those decisions and even misrepresent some of them, are to bristle at the use of procedural arguments now? If trust in the government and Congress in general is a problem, then making short shrift of the process is no way to begin to restore it.
For starters, 45 Republican Senators already think it’s unconstitutional to even have the trial.
You’re so in love with the idea of making them take a position yet you champion the fact that Trump’s lawsuits were tossed on jurisdictional grounds? Newsflash: that’s a process argument. You can’t have it both ways.
Legal proceedings are part of the legal process. Feel free to edit my post to clarify that those cases were tossed on technicalities.
“Some cases were dismissed for lack of standing and others based on the merits of the voter fraud allegations. The decisions have came from both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges – including federal judges appointed by Trump.”
By the numbers: President Donald Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election
Trump and allies filed scores of lawsuits, tried to convince state legislatures to take action, organized protests and held hearings.. None of it worked.
www.google.com
Did you ask wink’s wife about that?
Well, they voted, and now we get a trial and we get to find out where the Senators stand.
Accountability is vitally important too.
I think this is a valuable idea. Indeed, it is critical but it must be taken with the full recognition that part of that accountability is a Senate investigation of the election process to accompany Trump's trial.
NO...no...no. I am not implying that Trump won the election but it is very clear that irregularities were rife especially with reference to shifting and changing voting rules, vote harvesting (done by both sides) and just plan old cheating through an entirely unsecured and unvetted mail out/mail in process. This leaves a bad feeling and it needs to be addressed along with Trump's trial.
Of course you are right about that. But no procedure dismissal is really a technicality in my view. It is part of the process. I don't know how you define technicality in this sense. For that matter, how are we defining process?
Standing as a legal theory is fundamental to our tort claim system. But proving standing is part of the tort claim process. If there were a check list for bringing a law suit, being prepared to prove standing would be one item, along with others like whether to notice a judge, motions to exclude certain opposing witnesses, invoking qualified immunity, etc. That is just the way I see it. In the case of standing it is both a fundamental basis and a part of the process. There is a lawyer in this thread that could clarify.
That's almost fair. Almost.
It is indeed very problematic that many folks believe there was significant election fraud but NOTHING, not an audit/process review/investigation/commission or anything else along those lines is going to convince them that the election was free, fair and with only minor issues. Not only that it would help justify the efforts of the former President to discredit many aspects of the election, rewarding bad behavior.
The primary reason that so many folks believe there was some sort of malfeasance in the Presidential election is because the loser of the election spent months discrediting it, then continued to try every lever he could to overturn the result after it was clear he lost while being suborned by a disturbingly high numbers of sycophants who should mostly know better, excepting the ones who can't even correctly name the 3 branches of government. At least it was heartening to see that almost every elected official who actually had a stake in running or validating the elections in the states did their job faithfully, thus actually having to face actual consequences for their actions, while ignoring pressure from even the former President himself.
For all the rhetoric about 'Trump Derangment Syndrome' it is interesting to see so many people, from politicians to average citizens, slavishly support whatever the former President decided even if it ran contrary to Republican party orthodoxy, common sense or the truth. TDS indeed...
Last edited:
A text book case of TDS...
Pretty much. Standing just means the party bringing the suit is the one that has a particularized injury. So if you punch me, I can sue your for battery, but some random person can't sue you for punching me just because it's a tort; they weren't injured by it. Standing applies in all cases, not just torts. Torts just make for easy examples.
Last edited: