Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
If you were really a lawyer (and objective) as you claim, you would know the burden of proof is solely on the party pushing impeachment.
POTUS is innocent until proven guilty and does not have to provide any defence until the Dems prove their case.
POTUS was validly elected in 2016, if you are going to remove a duly elected President less than one year before the next election, you need a pretty serious reason.
Here the Dems cannot even prove that: 1) what they say happened even in fact happened (i.e. no factual proof, beyond hearsay and conjectures); and 2) even if we accept that what they say happened did in fact happen, exactly what laws POTUS has violated.
The Dems case is so weak and obviously politically motivated, that the GOP strategy to ridicule and ignore it is the only sensible course of action.
|
A crime does not need to have been committed to qualify a president's actions as impeachable misconduct, and i'd argue there is legal credibility to the witnesses and the information they have presented (You'll notice I pointed out that there are exceptions to Hearsay that are admissible). I'm hardly an expert on US Constitutional Law though, and I know any opinions I hold are open to change... which is more than can be said for a few of the posters in this thread who seem to be taking this whole thing rather personally.
There's not really any point posting further, taking the time to deconstruct peoples arguments here and attempting to have a discussion reminds me of a dog chasing it's tale.
