A reminder again this isn't a criminal proceeding, despite discussions of bribery and extortion. It is more akin to a civil case, as when OJ Simpson was tried for wrongful death though acquitted of murder. There is no presumption of innocence, and the House doesn't even have to prove anything beyond any level of doubt. This is an investigation, one being curtailed by a White House that is withholding evidence.) The investigation, if it leads to proceedings, leads to proceedings no different than a civil trial. (Indeed, one irony of discussing criminal charges like bribery and extortion is that, per the OLC memorandum, no such charges can be brought against the POTUS by the DOJ. If it could be proven in criminal court that the POTUS was guilty of bribery, the Constitution would still require the House to impeach the POTUS, and the Senate to convict and remove. But it wouldn't require either body to perform a quasi-judicial criminal investigation and trial. It would, however, give the current President the due process rights he keeps demanding but is not entitled to.) That withholding of information does not support an inference of innocence; instead, it supports an inference of knowledge of guilt.“If Republicans actually believed the president to be innocent, they would seek the relevant documents and sworn testimony of the top aides who now dodge accountability.” A WaPo editorial. @PostOpinions @JacksonDiehl https://t.co/Y3G4gSN6zH— Fred Hiatt (@hiattf) November 21, 2019
If the White House were justified in its actions, it would present the evidence supporting its position. That it refuses to do so leads to a valid inference against it, as a matter of law.
(No, I didn't make that title up:
Read the two Transcripts of Ukrainian calls!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment