one of the really aggravating things about the House impeachment hearings is how gut wrenching funky the procedure is.
As an example, in a trial, let's say a criminal trial, the prosecution presents its opening statement, and then the defense. Then the evidence is put on. At the conclusion of the trial, the prosecution delivers its closing, then the defense, and then the prosecution, which has the burden of proof, gets the last word.
Often the court puts the lawyers on the clock. As in, each side gets X minutes for its statements.
In the impeachment proceedings, however, which I guess are sort of like a grand jury, there were openings, then witnesses, and then on Tuesday the 19th (the resumption of testimony), new statements again.
That's absurd.
The entire wacky process really shows why a real jurist should preside over hearings of this type so that they're run like real judicial proceedings. I'm not opining on the outcome in any fashion, but giving House members repeated openings is really gratuitous and shows a real lack of ability. If you didn't cover it the first time, cover it in your closing.
No comments:
Post a Comment