The first was to say that the Senate doesn't need to hear from the "whistleblower". Clearly if the Senate can't hear from the man who started the whole impeachment process then the Senate doesn't need to hear from any witnesses.
If Schiff is going to throw out Trump's 6th Amendment rights to confront his accuser then clearly it's unjust to only call witnesses that will attack Trump if he can't call the witnesses that will destroy the Democrat's case.
But that's precisely what the Democrats have been doing. Schiff's secret hearings were auditions. The witnesses who said things that hurt Trump were then allowed to testify in public and the witnesses whose testimony helped Trump were not allowed to testify in public.
Until the Senate hearing the impeachment of President Trump has been a kangaroo court where the defendant was denied the right to defend himself.
It's said that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. One of the key reasons it's easy to get a grand jury indictment is that the jurors are only told what the prosecutor wants them to hear; they aren't shown any exculpatory evidence and no lawyer for the defense is present so that the jurors don't see problems with the evidence the prosecutor is presenting.
The Sondland testimony is great example of that. Adam Schiff and the other dishonest Democrats keep saying that Sondland said there was a quid pro quo but they never mention that Sondland also admitted that not only was he simply presuming there was a quid pro quo--ie no one who was in charge ever told him there was one--but that when he, Sondland, asked Trump about it Sondland said that Trump said there was no quid pro quo and that he, Trump, didn't want one.
How can Democrats hide the identity of the "whistleblower" but demand that other people testify?
The second was saying that Trump was guilty of "bribery" and "extortion". The problem is that the Articles of Impeachment don't ever mention either of those crimes.
As Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin pointed out that's like you being on trial for shoplifting and the prosecutor suddenly telling the jury that you were guilty of bribery and extortion.
As Philbin pointed out a prosecutor introducing new charges out of the blue would result in an automatic mistrial in the American legal system.
Prosecutors can't simply declare, without any evidence, that the defendant did this or that that; that is prosecutors can't deliberately lie to the jury.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment