I could ask my first-year law students to identify everything that’s incorrect or misleading in @GOPLeader’s statement here, but it would be too easy.
Let’s just take a few examples:
1) Fruit of the poisonous tree is about evidence obtained unlawfully being inadmissible—and (a) only results in suppression of evidence; and (b) has lots of exceptions. No one is arguing the House has violated @realDonaldTrump’s 4th Amend. rights.
1) Fruit of the poisonous tree is about evidence obtained unlawfully being inadmissible—and (a) only results in suppression of evidence; and (b) has lots of exceptions. No one is arguing the House has violated @realDonaldTrump’s 4th Amend. rights.
2) A mistrial is what happens when, in the middle of a trial, some uncorrectable error has occurred. There’s nothing remotely resembling a trial here—and there won’t be until and unless this goes to the Senate.
3) Even then, most mistrials don’t actually invalidate the entire proceeding; they just require the case to start over. So even @GOPLeader’s preposterous analogy doesn’t actually lead him to where he wants to go.
There’s more, but it should be painfully obvious by now—if it wasn’t already—that the Rs are inventing fake procedural objections in a desperate and transparent attempt to distract from their unwillingness to defend what @realDonaldTrump actually did.
It’s a dumb hill to die on.
It’s a dumb hill to die on.
