an excerpt from a letter to the editor of the dallas morning news

Presumption of guilt? No right to confront your accuser? Hearsay evidence accepted? How would you like to be accused and tried in the kangaroo court of congressional Democrats?

If the rule of law prevails in the Senate, a crime must be established. Is asking the president of Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of influence peddling and obstruction of justice by a former vice president on behalf of his son a crime?

Unlike in the House, the president will have the presumption of innocence, a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a right to confront his accuser, a right to defend himself, and hearsay evidence will not be admitted. That will be justice.

this is the thinking
that an impeachment inquiry, investigation and ultimately senate ‘trial’ of the president (or any other federal official) falls under the TV ‘law and order’ etc federal or state criminal/civil rules of evidence etc.

none of those things in the first paragraph have happened

in the second paragraph, with impeachment, a crime DOES NOT need to be established.

the third is just… confusing.
- the ‘accused’ doesnt have those rights at the investigation stage anyhow.
- “presumption of innocence” - no. many senators have already said they’ve made up their minds.
- “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” - no that’s not how senate trial works.
- “right to confront his accuser, a right to defend himself” well certainly - that’s what a trial in this country (and senate is).
- and finally “hearsay evidence will not be admitted” — wanna bet?

it’s ignorance, willful or otherwise.
and its how people, think, vote, and answer polls.