Democrats presenting their second impeachment case against President Trump have been forced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to revise their evidence because it was false.
“They are contrary to fact,” Lee said of comments that came from Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I.
Cicilline, as part of the Democrats new impeachment case, claimed that “Lee said former President Donald Trump was trying to convince Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., to delay the certification of the presidential on Jan. 6 as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol,” reported FoxNews.com.
The facts are that Lee confirmed Trump called him, asking for Tuberville, and that he handed his phone to Tuberville. But Lee has not said what the conversation between Trump and Tuberville was about.
Lee challenged Cicilline’s claims.
“Tonight the House impeachment managers made false statements mischaracterizing Sen. Lee’s account of a phone conversation between President Trump and Senator Tuberville,” a Lee spokesman told Fox.
“Sen. Lee objected and asked that the false statements be stricken from the record. The House managers agreed to withdraw those statements.”
Lee explained he is the only witness, and asserted the statements are not true … were not made by me and they’re not accurate.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is presiding over the partisan Senate trial resulting from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “snap impeachment” on a charge of inciting insurrection. She allowed only two hours of debate, with no witnesses or evidence, before voting to impeach.
Leahy had tried to reject Lee’s request for a correction, arguing it was not consistent with the Senate rules, but Lee appealed.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., claimed Cicilline correctly read from a newspaper account. But he admitted “it is not true,” so the comments would be withdrawn.
Earlier this week, House impeachment manager Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., was caught mischaracterizing the opinion of prominent constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.
Neguse claimed that Turley’s opinion about the validity of retroactive trials for people who already have left office was recent. But it was 21 years ago, and Turley called him out.
“Neguse cited my Duke piece at length to support the basis for retroactive trials after saying that I supported such trials until the last few weeks,” Turley wrote on his website.
“I felt Neguse did an excellent job in his argument but that statement is simply not true,” Turley continued. He explained he does recognize “the value” of such trials, but “his characterization of my position … was misleading.”
“Indeed, if my views of 21 years ago are going to be cited as recent, I would at least appreciate the use of my thinner photos from the 1990s,” he joked.
Turley noted that another legal analyst, Laurence Tribe, also “bizarrely” claimed that “not long ago” Turley argued in favor of retroactive trials, based on the same Duke Law Journal article from 21 years ago.
Turley explained his views have evolved.
“If I were to write the Duke piece today, I would still maintain that it shows how impeachment trials serve this dialogic role but that, of the three outlying cases, I agreed with the decision in Blount (and the view of roughly half of the Senate in Belknap) that such trials are extraconstitutional.
“It was historically allowed but I believe that it is not constitutionally sound. That view against retroactive impeachments is strengthened by what we have witnessed in the two Trump impeachments,” he explained.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.