He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged-and foreseeably resulted in-lawless action …” There, he reiterated false claims that ‘we won this election, and we won it by a landslide’. “Shortly before the Joint Session commenced President Trump addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. That charge is that Trump incited violence against the government on Jan. Additional bad behavior may be considered in sentencing, but not in initial determinations of guilt.įinally: The videos are not particularly relevant to the charge in the Article of Impeachment. Actually, Trump praised the many law-abiding people present on both sides, explicitly excluding the Neo-Nazis and their ilk.įifth: When trying to prove a person guilty of a bad act, it generally is not admissible to refer to allegations of other, disconnected acts. Different witnesses might have to testify to the accuracy of each segment.įourth, at least one of Raskin’s video-related representations has been long debunked: his claim that Trump praised Neo-Nazis and other extremists in a Charlottesville, Virginia, demonstration. In fact, the defense should have been given several weeks, because the images were cobbled together from disconnected events extending over several years. Third, once the videos had been provided to the defense attorneys, they should have been given time to review them. Springing them on the day of trial is the very definition of what the law calls “unfair surprise.” Admittedly, this was consistent with other unfair aspects of this “trial.” For example, the Senate didn’t even inform the defense attorneys what the rules would be until the very eve of the hearing. Second, ethical practice would have been to provide the films to the defense team in advance. These videos were neither submitted to the defense for a stipulation nor supported by sworn testimony. That person can then be cross-examined, so the judge can assess the usefulness of the proffered evidence. Often the witness must explain how and under what circumstances the images were made. Either the parties stipulate to their accuracy or their proponent produces a sponsoring witness who can testify under oath that they’re accurate. When images are introduced into a trial, one of two things must happen. That means there’s no way to cross-examine them. Here are some reasons those videos should have been excluded:įirst, they are hearsay. Instead, the prosecution has regaled the Senate with abusive oratory and slickly edited videos. In an impeachment trial, the prosecution has the burden of proving its accusations by “clear and convincing evidence.” Yet the prosecution has introduced almost no evidence tending to show either (1) that the reported election returns were accurate, or (2) that Trump had no reason to believe they were corrupt. Raskin’s team also has carefully avoided submitting any proof of one of its central claims: that Trump repeatedly lied about the presidential election results. Other examples of Raskin’s dubious behavior include arguably misrepresenting a key piece of Founding Era impeachment evidence, and breaching professional ethics by direct contact with another lawyer’s client in an adversarial proceeding (the insulting letter that “invited” Trump to testify). That’s the guy who has reminded us at least twice that he was a “professor of constitutional law.” Rather, they constituted the latest example of the questionable tactics we have learned to expect from the lead impeachment manager, Rep. The doctored anti-Trump videos did not meet any reasonable standard of admissibility. That implies standards more rigorous than in an ordinary legislative hearing, and certainly different from those at a film festival. Still, the Constitution tells us that it is a trial. The Senate has far more procedural flexibility than a judge does. They should have been vigorously objected to, and excluded by the chair.Īn impeachment trial takes place in a legislative chamber and not a courtroom. The videos introduced into the Trump impeachment trial were utterly inappropriate. This essay first appeared in the FebruEpoch Times.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |