McConnell thinks he can compress the arguments as to the "trial" in two 24 hour sections. Why this is a coverup, and is a homeland security emergency
McConnell really thinks he can get away with this?What planet is he from? NO legal trial in the world has such short evidentiary and review formats. This is nothing other than a FRAUD and bespeaks of a homeland security emergency
The bottom line
'THE FACT IS, that there is NO way that the American people, let alone ANYONE else can go through 12 hours of legal technical arguments, and understand what the **** is going on,
On these grounds alone, what McConnell is proposing is a NON Starter and is likely unconstitutional to boot
Now for the fraud McConnell is trying to pull
Quote
McConnell proposes compressed schedule for impeachment trial
BY ALEXANDER BOLTON - 01/20/20 06:35 PM EST
House impeachment managers will have 24 hours over two days to make their opening arguments when they begin to present their case against President Trump to the Senate Wednesday, according to a resolution circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
President Trump’s team similarly will have two days to present their arguments and then senators will have a chance to ask questions and consider subpoenas of witnesses.
The resolution, as expected, does not require additional witnesses to be subpoenaed and does not allow House prosecutors to admit evidence into the Senate trial record until after the opening arguments are heard.
If the Senate sticks to the aggressive schedule and later votes down motions to subpoena witnesses or documents, the trial could be finished by the end of next week, before the president’s State of the Union address.
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) quickly pushed back and vowed to force votes on amendments.
“Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace,” Schumer said in a statement Monday afternoon.
Both sides will have 24 hours to make their first round of arguments — the same amount of time House impeachment managers and Bill Clinton’s lawyers received in 1999, but on a more compressed time schedule than required more than 20 years ago.
A Senate GOP leadership aide noted that prosecutors in the Clinton trial didn’t use all of their allotted time and finished their opening arguments within three days.
Schumer argues that forcing House managers to cram their opening arguments into a two-day window will force them to present on the Senate floor well into the evening and possibly past midnight.
The House managers will be allowed to begin their arguments 1 p.m. Wednesday.
“McConnell’s resolution stipulates that key facts be delivered in the wee hours of the night simply because he doesn’t want the American people to hear them,” Schumer said.
If the Senate votes at the end of phase one against subpoenaing witnesses, then it will not be possible to consider additional motions on specific witnesses, according to McConnell’s resolution.
The Senate will vote on the resolution Tuesday.
DEVELOPING
TAGS MITCH MCCONNELL CHARLES SCHUMER DONALD TRUMP BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
End of quote
The fact is, that according to legal jurisprudence there is no way to defend the McConnell proposals
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial
Quote
Trial
After many weeks or months of preparation, the prosecutor is ready for the most important part of his job: the trial. The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered. During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime(s). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence.
In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, he’s not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly.
Jury Selection
At trial, one of the first things a prosecutor and defense attorney must do is the selection of jurors for the case. Jurors are selected to listen to the facts of the case and to determine if the defendant committed the crime. Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool (also called the “venire”), a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the Federal district.
When selecting the jury, the prosecutor and defense attorney may not discriminate against any group of people. For example, the judge will not allow them to select only men or only women. A jury should represent all types of people, races, and cultures. Both lawyers are allowed to ask questions about their potential biases and may excuse jurors from service. Each side is allowed to excuse certain potential jurors without providing a reason by using a limited number of “peremptory challenges.”
Opening Statements
Opening statements allow the prosecutor and the defense attorney to briefly tell their account of the events. These statements usually are short like an outline and do not involve witnesses or evidence. The prosecutor makes an opening statement first because the Government has the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime.
Presentment of Cases
Witness Examination
Following opening statements, the prosecutor begins direct examination of his first witness. This is the prosecutor’s initial step in attempting to prove the case, and it can last from a few minutes to several days. During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene.
Following the prosecutor’s examination of a witness, the defense attorney has an opportunity to cross examine or ask questions to the same witness. The purpose of cross examination is to create doubt as to the credibility of the witness.
After the defense attorney cross examines the witness, the prosecutor asks the witness final questions to clarify any confusing testimony for the jury. This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case. After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government.
After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that he is innocent. It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment. The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime. The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney. However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case.
Objections
During direct or cross examination, either attorney can make an objection to a question or a piece of evidence to the judge. For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case.
Common objections include:
- Hearsay – Statement by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but learned about it through secondhand information such as another’s statement, a newspaper, or a document.
- Relevance – Testimony and evidence presented at trial must be relevant to the case.
The judge decides the outcome of an objection, sometimes after allowing attorneys on both sides to comment before making a ruling. The judge either “sustains” the objection so that the action stops, or he “overrules” the objection and allows the action to continue.
Closing Arguments
After the defense’s direct testimony and cross examination by the prosecutor of all the witnesses, the defense rests, and the prosecutor and defense attorney prepare for closing arguments.
Closing arguments are the final opportunity for the prosecutor and the defense attorney to talk to the jury. These arguments allow both attorneys to summarize the testimony and evidence, and ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
Jury Instructions
Following the closing arguments, the judge “charges the jury,” or informs them of the appropriate law and of what they must do to reach a verdict.
Jury Deliberations & Announcement of the Verdict
After being charged, the jury goes into deliberation, the process of deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. During this process, no one associated with the trial can contact the jury without the judges and lawyers. If the jury has a question on the law, they must write a note to the judge, which the judge will read in court with all parties present. In federal criminal trials, the jury must reach a unanimous decision in order to convict the defendant.
After they reach an agreement on a verdict, they notify the judge, the lawyers, and the defendant in open court. Everyone is present in court for the reading of the verdict. The United States Marshals Service is present during trial to protect the judge and prosecutors from potential harm. If the defendant is found not guilty, they are usually free to go home.
End of quote
Why this DOJ outline of trial procedures destroys McConnell
Quote
Presentment of Cases
Witness Examination
Following opening statements, the prosecutor begins direct examination of his first witness. This is the prosecutor’s initial step in attempting to prove the case, and it can last from a few minutes to several days. During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene.
Following the prosecutor’s examination of a witness, the defense attorney has an opportunity to cross examine or ask questions to the same witness. The purpose of cross examination is to create doubt as to the credibility of the witness.
After the defense attorney cross examines the witness, the prosecutor asks the witness final questions to clarify any confusing testimony for the jury. This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case. After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government.
After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury. The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that he is innocent. It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment. The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime. The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney. However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case.
Objections
During direct or cross examination, either attorney can make an objection to a question or a piece of evidence to the judge. For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case.
Common objections include:
- Hearsay – Statement by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but learned about it through secondhand information such as another’s statement, a newspaper, or a document.
- Relevance – Testimony and evidence presented at trial must be relevant to the case.
The judge decides the outcome of an objection, sometimes after allowing attorneys on both sides to comment before making a ruling. The judge either “sustains” the objection so that the action stops, or he “overrules” the objection and allows the action to continue.
End of quote
What McConnell screwed up on. See how Roberts will react
Quote
John Roberts will not like McConnell’s efforts to rush through the impeachment trial at night: Law professor
On Monday’s edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” UNC Law professor Michael Gerhardt warned that Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the impeachment trial, will be unhappy with the proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to force arguments to be rushed through in two days and continuing into the night.
“He wants to try and end this fast … [and] he wants to put it on and ensure it happens at a time people can’t see it,” said Gerhardt. “One person it’s not going to make happy is Chief Justice John Roberts. People have been hoping Roberts might save this trial in some way. In fact, I think Chief Justice Roberts looks at this as not a great thing. He doesn’t want to sit there for 12 hours. He knows that’s not going to ensure lawyers at their best. What this does is it serves the president’s interest, not the interest of the Senate, and certainly not the interest of trying to help the American people understand what’s going on.”
end of quote
ONCE AGAIN
THE FACT IS, that there is NO way that the American people, let alone ANYONE else can go through 12 hours of legal technical arguments, and understand what the **** is going on,
On these grounds alone, what McConnell is proposing is a NON Starter and is likely unconstitutional to boot
Andrew Beckwith, PhD
: