,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is REALLY important. As I noted yesterday: Congressional hearings (including impeachment) aren't bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence the way court processes are. Congress may consider evidence that Mueller couldn't.
1/
1/
"[T]he federal rules of evidence do not apply in impeachment trials, and the Constitution itself does not require unanimity among the Senators sitting in judgment. Senators determine their own burdens of proof: they need not be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt."
2/
2/
Hastings v. US Senate, Impeachment Trial Com., 716 F. Supp. 38 (D.D.C. 1989) law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
3/
3/
In other words, a case Mueller felt he couldn't make as a criminal prosecutor, Democrats COULD make in impeachment. Completely legally. Completely fairly. Completely consistent with the Constitution.
4/
4/
Which is why Mueller used that word "admissible." And is yet another reason why Mueller was referring his EVIDENCE, not his prosecution/declination decisions, and to CONGRESS, not to Barr.
5/5
5/5
P.S.: A quick word search shows that Mueller referred to himself as being constrained by "burden of proof," "admissible evidence," or "beyond a reasonable doubt" on at least nine separate pages of the report. Again, NONE of these legal constraints apply to congressional hearings. 
P.P.S.:
