Banjo,

The point I have been making and Mitch McConnell is that the impeachment process in the house was such a partisan circus devoid of impartiality and having nothing to do with justice that the entire process has been a F-You to the president.

The blame for constitutional bastardry falls entirely on the democrats.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.
You wrote :

« … the impeachment process in the house was such a partisan circus devoid of impartiality and having nothing to do with justice that the entire process has been a F-You to the president.

The blame for constitutional bastardry falls entirely on the democrats »
.

I already replied to that argumented opinion, Shadow Minister, in my post on the bottom of page 7 of this thread :

«The procedure in the House of Representatives was not just blatant partisanry. It included the presentation of documentary evidence as well as testimony under oath of a certain number of witnesses.

However, it would be naïve to consider that the procedure was not tainted by partisanry. This was probably due to Trump forbidding his staff, assistants, advisers, and other key witnesses from testifying. The President himself was also invited to testify but declined the invitation.

The refusal of all these important eye-witness Republican figures to participate in the impeachment inquiry no doubt gave the impression that it was, as you observe, “procedurally biased”.

It could well be for the same reason that you also have the impression that the impeachment process was “almost entirely based on hearsay”. Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate what exactly it is that you consider to be “hearsay”. »
.

This is the second time you have repeated an argument to which I have already replied, Shadow Minister. I’m afraid we’re turning in circles.

Unless you have something new to express on the subject, I suggest we leave it at that.

.

Banjo,

Any court system works on verifiable evidence.
Eye witnesses can cross examined and the truth verified.
People reporting what eye witnesses said cannot establish the truth of what they said, and as such in all courts this is not allowed to be submitted as evidence.

Many of the witnesses allowed by congress eventually admitted that they had seen no direct evidence, such as the ambassador.

Similarly, the evidence of the "whistle blower" is inadmissible unless he can be cross examined.

And finally the refusal to allow the republicans to call witnesses or attend the deposition of some secret witnesses goes against every fibre of the legal justice system.

In short, if the articles of impeachment were taken to a criminal court, the vast majority of evidence would be rejected, or if the senate acted as an appellate court, it would simply be dismissed.

What we have here from Pelosi is a clear indication that she knows that the case is feeble and is trying to repair the damage in the Senate.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

The House of Representatives is not empowered to conduct a trial of the President for acts of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as prescribed by the Constitution.

Its role is limited to a preliminary investigation to determine if there are sufficient grounds for referring him to the Senate for trial on such matters. If so, it brings charges in the form of “articles of impeachment”. Members of the House judiciary committee are then appointed to act as prosecutors at the Senate trial.

The Senate trial is presided by the Chief Justice and usually proceeds along the lines of a regular criminal or civil trial. The following broad principles apply :

1. Trial procedures are established before the trial commences
2. The Senate hears the full case before voting on the President’s removal
3. The trial is open to the public – transparency only being sacrificed to advance compelling interests such as the sanctity of Senate deliberations, the need to protect legitimately classified information, or the recognition of a whistle-blower’s right to anonymity (at least from the general public)
4. Senators (who constitute the judge and jury) are held to respect their oath to “do impartial justice” and to “support and defend the Constitution”

You wrote :

1. « … the evidence of the "whistle blower" is inadmissible unless he can be cross examined »

That’s up to the Senate to decide. Perhaps some compromise solution can be agreed to preserve his or her anonymity.
.

2. « … if the articles of impeachment were taken to a criminal court, the vast majority of evidence would be rejected, or if the senate acted as an appellate court, it would simply be dismissed »

No doubt that is why the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, calling for those witnesses and documents at the Senate trial that Trump refused to allow for the preliminary inquiry of the House.

Trump's action gives the impression that he considers that obstruction of justice is his best defence.

.

The smarter Democrats have woken up to the fact that they have sweet Fanny Adams on Trump, & all the rubbish they have dreamed up is going to look really stupid when confronted by a few smart Republicans.

Then there is the fact that quite few senior Democrats have a lot of dark matter in their closet. They have realised a bit belatedly that their closets could be torn open by the Republicans in a Senate hearing.

More than half of them have realised it was a very bad idea for them, very poorly thought out right at the beginning.

For the Democrats it just might be the old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times", & very unpleasant times indeed for them.

Banjo,

The three things that you have essentially conceded is firstly that the Congress did not follow the basic rules of evidence, secondly that the impeachment process was entirely partisan, and thirdly that the evidence gathered in the impeachment hearing was insufficient to obtain a conviction.

That the rules of evidence have to apply to the most basic hearing such as a worker being disciplined, means that the abandonment of the principle in Congress is a dire indictment on the process.

That the members of congress are also expected to be impartial goes without saying, and that they weren't is blatantly obvious.

Finally, any defendant is perfectly entitled to prevent people that have privileged information about them prevented from testifying. For example, a person's spouse or lawyer can be legally prevented from testifying. Trump has used this legal instrument, which is no more a crime than brushing your teeth.

Pelosi has painted the democrats into a corner in claiming that the impeachment provides overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt. If so then there is no need for further witnesses.