Ahead of the question-and-answer phase of the impeachment trial, on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., released a list of questions he would like answered by the House Democrats.
The American people deserve to know:
Do the House managers have any evidence to back up claims that Joe Biden’s threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. financial aid from Ukraine unless the country fired its prosecutor general was a valid act of U.S. foreign policy and not an act intended to personally benefit his son?
How much evidence is sufficient to develop probable cause to at least initiate an investigation of a prior elected official’s conduct, given what we know about former Vice President Joe Biden’s actions?
Why has the Senate been denied access to the transcript of Inspector General Michael Atkinson’s testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence relating to the whistleblower and the original complaint? Although the transcript is “classified,” every member of the Senate holds a security clearance to enable the receipt and review of this information.
How does Jerry Nadler square his current assertion that this impeachment is a legitimate, non-partisan action – during which not a single vote of bipartisan support was received – with his prior declaration that “There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and would call into question the very legitimacy of our political institution?”
Scott also released the following questions for White House Counsel:
Do the House managers bear the burden of proof demonstrating to the Senate clear and convincing evidence that we should remove a sitting president from office? Or does the president bear the burden of demonstrating why he should not be removed from office?
Do the House managers have the same duty to be truthful to the Senate during the impeachment trial as in an American court of law? Are they required to disclose potentially exculpatory information and evidence? Are they required to avoid mischaracterizing evidence, or are they free to lie?
How can an impeachment undertaken without a single vote of bipartisan support at any point be viewed as anything other than a purely partisan attempt to interfere with the 2020 election and the rights of the American people to vote for the president?
Author
