Quote:
Originally Posted by punch it in
No not at all. It is a common practice not to put someone on trial for multiple different things when they all coincide with one another. There is actually a term for it, And a reason why it is done.
Also you do realize how funny it sounds when a Trump supporter says what you just said right?
|
I think you mean lesser included charges. Those charges are still brought against the person, but the components of the charges are included in the statute that is being charged. So if you charge murder you might include manslaughter so that if the jury doesnt find intent they can find him guilty of the lesser charge.
Not sure it is the same with the impeacment, because although the Democrats alleged bribery in documents, the House chose not to vote to include it either as its own article or as a part of 1 of the 2 articles of impeachment. And their rationale stated in questioning was, well the defense would argue against it.
For every flaw in the impeachment case, the house seemed to argue, well we had to do it that way or the president's team would have found a loophole and tried to use it. That is what defense lawyers do! And you can not deny a sitting president due process just because you don't want to have to close those loopholes so you can rush to the end.
Could you imagine in ANY court in the US a defense attorney agreeing to only present witnesses that the prosecution says the defense needs? Or a defense attorney waving attorney client privilege so that the prosecution can have the trial around their schedule??
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk