Exculpatory evidence is evidence that tends to show the innocence of the accused.
If someone is on trial and the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence from defense lawyers, then the defendant is (or should be) found not guilty by reason of prosecutorial misconduct.
Is Adam Schiff not withholding exculpatory evidence in his Impeachment Inquiry hearings? Like the name of the whistleblower?
4 comments:
What would be exculpatory would be for Trump to release his guys who were on The Call to face questioning about what was said, under oath. If he has nothing to hide why would he not rush to get his guys up there to testify? I think we know the answer.
The identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant since other witnesses have come forth with devastating evidence of extortion.
The Constitution be damned!
Answer the question! Why doesn't he just tell them to testify under oath?
Even if this were a trial, the identity of the whistleblower could hardly be deemed "exculpatory".
(PS - I'm pretty sure the WB is Mike Pence. It's the only way he gets to be POTUS.)
How about these apples: According to that “piece of paper” (Obama’s word’s), Adam Trump has the right to face his accuser, the whistleblower. And Trump doesn’t have to prove his innocence, Shifty needs to prove his guilt.
Post a Comment