Except this argument shreds their other argument: that impeachment is tantamount to a criminal proceeding because the Constitution speaks of a "conviction." They used that reasoning to argue nothing less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be used by the Senate to determine whether or not the evidence supports removal from office.WH Counsel Patrick Philbin: "If this were a criminal trial in ordinary court & Mr. Schiff had done what he just did...& start talking about crimes of bribery & extortion that were not in the indictment, it would've been an automatic mistrial."— CSPAN (@cspan) January 30, 2020
Watch -- https://t.co/0c6IWSaX4Y pic.twitter.com/TfJ5RDw0Kq
Philbin argues the standard of evidence is not "preponderance of evidence" nor "clear and convincing" but "beyond a reasonable doubt" since removal of a president is so drastic— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 29, 2020
Of course, there hasn't been any evidence presented, only a record of hearings in the House. No cross-examination, no direct testimony (which obviates the cries of "hearsay!" that ring through the halls of the Senate from time to time. Can't complain about hearsay when you keep introducing statements in arguments about what Trump said or tweeted or what Ukraine knew when. Can't have hearsay without testimony in the first place. What you sure can't do is point out how much impeachment is like a criminal trial, and then point out how much it isn't like a criminal trial at all.
(Well, except when it suits him.)Philbin: "I'm limited to what's in the record" -- meaning the House record.— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) January 29, 2020
"I can't point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time...."
🤔
Because which point were you trying to make, Counselor?
No comments:
Post a Comment