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.
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...