Democrats ready to trash another cardinal legal principle

It is remarkable to contemplate that even something as basic as the standard of proof required to convict President Trump cannot be agreed on between the House Managers and the President's legal team. What then should be the standard of proof necessary for the House Managers to establish to convict the President of the alleged crimes for which he has been impeached: abuse of power and obstruction of justice? Should it be the criminal standard—proof beyond all reasonable doubt. or the civil standard—proof that tips the scales in favour of conviction?

The president's lawyers and House Managers clashed when the question: "What standard of proof should be used in an impeachment trial?"  was posed to both the House Managers and Trump's legal team by Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Todd Young, R-Ind. In response, House Manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., discussed the burdens of proof used in past impeachments, noting "there's no court case on this." Lofgren said the House Judiciary Committee held itself to a "clear and convincing standard of proof in the Nixon matter, which requires the evidence of wrongdoing must be substantially more probable to be true than not." In President Clinton's impeachment, she said, the "House did not commit to any particular burden of proof." She surprisingly said she would "recommend against including an express standard" and asked that Senators work on "finding the facts" without legal technicalities. The dispensation of legal technicalities seems to have become the norm for the Democrats. This poses serious problems for the operation and administration of the rule of law in the United States. Deputy Counsel to the President, Patrick Philbin however disagreed with Rep Lofgren's assertion.

---

Quoting Democratic and Republican arguments from Clinton's impeachment, Philbin argued impeachment was rooted in criminal law, which put the burden of proof required to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." "The strength of our Constitution and the strength of our nation dictate that the Senate mature beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance standard is wholly insufficient, that means just 50.1%," Philbin said.   "The gravity of the issue before you would not permit applying any lesser standard," he concluded. The House Managers have already trashed:

1. the principle of equality before the law and equal justice under the law
2. the right of the President to be legally represented at all hearings of the House inquiring into allegations concerning the impeachment of the President 
3. the President's defence counsel's claims that: 
   1. subpoenas issued by the House sub-committees prior to 31 October 2019 were illegally issued because they were not authorised by a vote of the House
   2. subpoenas issued after 31 October 2019 to senior members of the President's advisory staff were unenforceable because they were entitled to absolute immunity
   3. subpoenas issued after 31 October 2019 to Executive Branch Members would not be complied with because those subpoenaed could not have their legal counsel present when they testified.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

These disagreements need to be resolved by the Courts.  Senators have now been placed in a real quandary as to what standard of proof is required by the House Managers to prove their case.  The Senate rules governing the conduct of the impeachment trial are silent on the burden of proof required to convict the President. It would serve the interests of justice, given the gulf between the House Managers and the President's defence team— if there was a motion to amend the rules to set out the standard required—criminal or civil. No defendant being impeached in any trial should be subjected to this level of legal uncertainty.