Saw this earlier. Mic drop! 😂
I kept hearing the following all week. "An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial". Is there a book of rules where fraudulent, doctored evidence is admissible in an impeachment trial? Hearsay is admissible? (Well apparently, the latter must be. That's all they clung to in impeachment #1)She never heard him. It's astonishing. No idea about congressional rules but in a court of law those actions are defined as prosecutional misconduct...and it's a crime.
I kept hearing the following all week. "An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial". Is there a book of rules where fraudulent, doctored evidence is admissible in an impeachment trial? Hearsay is admissible? (Well apparently, the latter must be. That's all they clung to in impeachment #1)![]()
Best mic drop I have ever seen in my lifetime.
If the presiding "judge" had not been a democratic (who by the way had already stated he feelt Trump guilty), the case would have been dismissed on the spot once it was shown that evidence doctored. The Senate rules do not allow such evidence.Honestly I don't know the difference in rules. I do know in a criminal court that both sides must submit evidence before it is admitted as such...the judge being the arbiter. Sometimes both sides will have an opportunity to argue why it should or should not be admitted as evidence.
Even attempting to submit doctored evidence would lead to admonishment, if not worse. If said evidence made it into the trial prior to the discovery of it being bogus, there would be hell to pay.
Well the judge that was supposed to oversee the hearings bowed out...once again proving we don’t have three coequal branches.If the presiding "judge" had not been a democratic (who by the way had already stated he feelt Trump guilty), the case would have been dismissed on the spot once it was shown that evidence doctored. The Senate rules do not allow such evidence.