Posted on 01/30/2020 6:44:35 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
No defendant being impeached in any trial should be subjected to this level of legal uncertainty
It is remarkable to contemplate that even something as basic as the standard of proof required to convict President Trump cannot be agreed on between the House Managers and the President’s legal team.
What then should be the standard of proof necessary for the House Managers to establish to convict the President of the alleged crimes for which he has been impeached: abuse of power and obstruction of justice? Should it be the criminal standard—proof beyond all reasonable doubt. or the civil standard—proof that tips the scales in favour of conviction?
The accused is not being allowed to face his accuser (the whistleblower).
The accused is not being charged with any actual crimes.
The only “evidence” is hearsay.
The standard of proof is unknown.
I am amazed that this legal proceeding is allowed at all. This is right out of Kafka.
Schiff refuses to release the transcript from the testimony of Michael Atkinson, probably because it reveals the whistleblower's name and disproves other statements Schiff has been making. How can you have a "fair trial" when the prosecution is allowed to suppress exculpatory evidence?
It isn’t a trial without witnesses, the Dems say.
It isn’t a trial if there are no rules of evidence, either!
None of the Democrats’ assertions are based on cross-examined witnesses. No defense witnesses were allowed in the House. Exculpatory evidence (the Atkinson interviews in the SCIF) have been suppressed.
The use of the word “crime” implies the criminal not the civil standard.
how is anyone supposed to believe there’s a real whistle blower when everyone is being denied the requested evidence proving that the person exists...
I think that may be true.
We all think it’s Ciamarella, but maybe it’s no one.
The whistleblower laws do not provide for anonymity. They protect against retribution, but contain no language about anonymity. But EVERYONE knows you cannot name the whistleblower. What the heck is up with that??
I think the “whistleblower” is a fiction dreamed up by Schiff. And Justice Roberts seems to be aiding and abetting.
for almost three years schiff insisted he had evidence on trump colluding with russia...
whatever happened with that... nothing...
the same thing that’s going on now...
it’s all hearsay until it’s physically proven that the real whistle blower exists...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.