True the collusion is not demonstrable at this stage which I have also said. Hence agreed.
Yes, you brought up collusion AGAIN even though the topic was responsibility for the hack, you keep trying to divert to something else, something which you keep getting wrong too, since you are claiming that there is no evidence of collusion.
And on the actual topic, here is what your cited source Clapper happen to say just today:
"There's been a long history of Soviet interference going back to the Soviet era in our elections, but never, ever has there been a case of the aggressiveness and direct actions that the Russians took and their conduct of a multifaceted campaign to interfere with our election," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo Tuesday on "New Day."
Clapper previously testified before a Senate judiciary subcommittee that he was not aware of any evidence demonstrating collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia -- but he also said he had been unaware of an FBI investigation into the matter until former FBI Director James Comey announced it publicly at a House hearing in March.
"Are you 100% sure that Russia was behind the election meddling that you described," Cuomo asked Clapper Tuesday.
"Absolutely," Clapper responded. "The evidence, which unfortunately we could not detail in our intelligence community assessment, was, in my view, overwhelming. And that is why the assessment that we did enjoyed such a high confidence level."
Clapper: Russia 'absolutely' meddled in the 2016 election - CNNPolitics.com
Please ask someone to translate that for you if you still don't get it.
By the way, as KeepTalking pointed out, you also earlier repeated your whopper that Clinton's email server was hacked. Stop the bullshit for once. Are you honestly this inept or are you doing this on purpose? That you never admit error, gives me a hint.
Hacking: This is something which has been going on for a considerable amount of years. Since this is concerning an unsecured server this created a field day for all kinds of Hacks. That is it. We can also argue that since this was happening for a number of years, the previous US governments should have been doing something about it (but it is possible it was).
Thanks for another of your headscratching non sequiturs.
I suggest you read the procedures used in particular the Supreme Court Case Nixon v. United States (1993) This was relating to WALTER Nixon, not Richard Nixon.
I did read it. YOU need to read it. This is what YOU quoted:
The Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings and that Senators' political accountability was the only check on this authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials.
That is the exact opposite of what you keep claiming. If Congress wanted to, they could decide to impeach Trump because he's too unfit to walk half a mile without taking a break. Congress can vote however they want about it. Of course they should try to objectively apply suitable standards of evidence, but as your quote says it's a political process not a judicial one.
However if you can find a lawyer on the forum (there used to be a couple) he/she can give a perspective in that he may say my interpretation is correct or it is wrong. However this is really not the central issue as it relates to the methodology used.
It's not a court of course. It's a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice (in the case of the President).
Yes, go ask any lawyer who knows about impeachment. Please do so. Go play your nutty game with them instead of wasting our time here.
Unless the statements are false, hacking seems to have taken place.
The leaks are pretty boring and certainly insufficient to seriously discredit anyone.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...ourage-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-n2240856
FBI Sources: Clinton Server Hacked By 'At Least Five' Foreign Intel Agencies, Two Major Federal Probes Ongoing
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/11/hillary-clinton-server-continues-to-haunt-her/
Hillary’s server continues to haunt her
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/02/fbi-an-account-on-clintons-private-email-server-was-hacked/
Did that system ever get hacked? On Friday, the FBI revealed that a hacker broke into an email account on that system.
Here are 18 lacklustre statements from the BBC. Could any of these have been doctored?? Maybe, maybe not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37639370
18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails
The above could be true of false but what I have seen (unless these are fake emails) is there is nothing dramatic enough to change things.
The Impeachment Trial is analogous to a court trial, but in a different setting and a limitation of powers once the person is found guilt.
There is a continuing disparity as to the following positions:
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is something which defendants would expect impeachment proceedings and which we see in criminal trials.
However those who present a case (for convicting) argues for have urged a lower civil standard namely a weight of evidence.
The standards for presenting, evaluating and adjudicating on evidence are not in themselves changed for to do otherwise would violate the constitution and be illegal.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: One case in favour of preponderance rests in the fact the fact that the Impeachment Court has limited powers
The disparity is as to the court standards used and not the principals of evaluating evidence.
If you ask a lawyer, you may get differing opinions as to the standard they feel is required.
The Impeachment Trial is analogous to a court trial, but in a different setting and a limitation of powers once the person is found guilt.
There is a continuing disparity as to the following positions:
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is something which defendants would expect impeachment proceedings and which we see in criminal trials.
However those who present a case (for convicting) argues for have urged a lower civil standard namely a weight of evidence.
The standards for presenting, evaluating and adjudicating on evidence are not in themselves changed for to do otherwise would violate the constitution and be illegal.
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: One case in favour of preponderance rests in the fact the fact that the Impeachment Court has limited powers
The disparity is as to the court standards used and not the principals of evaluating evidence.
If you ask a lawyer, you may get differing opinions as to the standard they feel is required.
I could speak to Lawyers but then I prefer to check for myself as follows:
http://congressionalresearch.com/98...RD+OF+PROOF+IN+SENATE+IMPEACHMENT+PROCEEDINGS
STANDARD OF PROOF IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
CRS Report for Congress
Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment
Proceedings
Thomas B. Ripy
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Summary
The Constitution gives the United States Senate the responsibility for trying
impeachments, but does not address the standard of proof that is to be used in such
trials. This report concludes that an examination of the constitutional language, history, and the work of legal scholars provides no definitive answer to the question of what standard is to be applied. In the final analysis the question is one which historically has been answered by individual Senators guided by their own consciences.
At best, the constitutional provisions concerning the power of impeachment provide only indirect guidance in analyzing the question of what standard of proof is, or should be, applicable to Senate impeachment trials. Nevertheless, those words are the starting point for discussions about the nature of impeachment proceedings and the standard of proof that is or should be applicable to such proceedings.
See also
Impeachment is also addressed in the Executive Article of the Constitution wherein it is said that: “The President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Finally, the Judicial Article provides that, “The trial of all Crimes except Impeachment, shall be by Jury; ....” These few words provide the constitutional framework for a discussion of the standard of proof in impeachment proceedings, but no definitive answer as to what standard is to or should be applied. The use of certain words such as “try,” “convicted” and “conviction” suggests that impeachment might be likened to a criminal proceeding, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
You could quote some legal opinion when you write as that helps.
