Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think anyone has asserted that any nominee should go down simply because an accusation is made. That's obviously an imbecilic and dangerous policy.
I think the policy advocated is that where an accusation is made, there should be some investigation and the accuser should be put to his or her proofs in a forum allowing some form of direct and cross examination, but not a hearing where a bunch of Senators can merely grandstand and make closing arguments for TV at the accuser and accused, rather than ask questions intended to get to the actual truth, or lack of truth, in the allegation.
How do you do that? I think allowing counsel for the accused and accuser to engage in a short hearing before a circuit court judge in which they follow the rules of evidence and federal trial procedure. The accused and accuser both get to testify and the video and transcript are then given to both the Senate and media. That's the only fair method, unfortunately. Doing it before the Senate is a waste of time, political shitshow. Those idiots aren't intellectually fit or unbiased enough to hear such a matter.
|
And does the prosecutor get to call whatever witnesses they want as long as they can show relevance, so no withholding Judge from cross-examination, and is there some form of discovery, so those 100,000 documents being withheld by the Administration are subject to discovery?
