It is remarkable to contemplate that even something as basic as the standard of proof required to convict President Trump cannot be agreed on between the House Managers and the President's legal team.
What then should be the standard of proof necessary for the House Managers to establish to convict the President of the alleged crimes for which he has been impeached: abuse of power and obstruction of justice? Should it be the criminal standard-proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
The president's lawyers and House Managers clashed when the question: "What standard of proof should be used in an impeachment trial?" was posed to both the House Managers and Trump's legal team by Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Todd Young, R-Ind. In response, House Manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., discussed the burdens of proof used in past impeachments, noting "There's no court case on this."
In President Clinton's impeachment, she said, the "House did not commit to any particular burden of proof."
The right of the President to be legally represented at all hearings of the House inquiring into allegations concerning the impeachment of the President.
The President's defence counsel's claims that: subpoenas issued by the House sub-committees prior to 31 October 2019 were illegally issued because they were not authorised by a vote of the House.
Senators have now been placed in a real quandary as to what standard of proof is required by the House Managers to prove their case.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/democrats-ready-to-trash-another-cardinal-legal-principle
What then should be the standard of proof necessary for the House Managers to establish to convict the President of the alleged crimes for which he has been impeached: abuse of power and obstruction of justice? Should it be the criminal standard-proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
The president's lawyers and House Managers clashed when the question: "What standard of proof should be used in an impeachment trial?" was posed to both the House Managers and Trump's legal team by Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Todd Young, R-Ind. In response, House Manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., discussed the burdens of proof used in past impeachments, noting "There's no court case on this."
In President Clinton's impeachment, she said, the "House did not commit to any particular burden of proof."
The right of the President to be legally represented at all hearings of the House inquiring into allegations concerning the impeachment of the President.
The President's defence counsel's claims that: subpoenas issued by the House sub-committees prior to 31 October 2019 were illegally issued because they were not authorised by a vote of the House.
Senators have now been placed in a real quandary as to what standard of proof is required by the House Managers to prove their case.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/democrats-ready-to-trash-another-cardinal-legal-principle
No comments:
Post a Comment