Canth impeachment trial concludes

The trial of President Rick Canth (Conservative-D7) is in its final stages with both sides resting their cases following the testimonies of the President, his Chief of Staff, and Representative Jackson Canth.

Excerpts from these testimonies follow. DA refers to defense attorney for the President, P refers to the prosecution, CJ refers to the Chief Justice, and W refers to the witness.

P: Mr. Canth, thank you for coming today. You served as the House chair of the Joint Special Committee on Presidential Election Bribery, correct?

W: That is correct.

P: In your capacity as chair, what were your duties?

W: I oversaw the investigation of the alleged bribery scandal to ensure that those who committed crimes were brought to justice.

P: Was the President ever a subject of this investigation?

W: Only in the area of if he was aware of any bribery. The President was not considered a prime suspect as he did not commit the bribery himself. However, his knowledge of the bribery would have directly implicated himself, leading us to investigate if he had direct or indirect knowledge of any such action.

P: As the brother of the President, wasn’t serving as chair of the panel that investigated an incident that could have lead to criminal charges being filed against the President something that could be considered a conflict of interest?

W: I disagree on that. While I do love my brother, he is clearly prone to error, as are all of us. I did not spare my brother simply because he was my brother.

P: Were you privy to a conversation between your chief of staff and the President’s chief of staff that said, “Tell Jackson it’s his job to fix this”?

W: No.

P: Did your chief of staff ever urge you to expedite the investigation or commit an action that would have consciously or unconsciously inhibit your investigation?

W: Yes.

P: Will you please elaborate on that?

W: Tom told me that if we didn’t get the investigation done, there would be consequences.

P: Did this have any factor in your investigation?

W: No.

P: How long was the time between when this conversation occurred and the closing of the investigation?

W: Two days.

P: Nothing further.

DA: Mr. Canth, did your chief of staff inform you of what consequences would occur if the investigation were not expedited?

W: No, he didn’t.

DA: Did he inform you of who was pushing for such an expedition?

W: No.

DA: No further questions, Your Honor.


P: Mr. Tompkins, hello. Let’s jump right in. You worked as campaign manager for the Rick Canth for President campaign, yes?

W: Yes, I did.

P: You were aware of the close election, yes?

W: That’s correct.

P: So, when the election was won by the President, it was considered historic, correct?

W: Yes.

P: Did you write an email to Tom Wilkins, the chief of staff to Representative Jackson Canth, saying, “Tell Jackson it’s his job to fix this”?

W: Yes, but I would note that it was taken out of context. I was referring to Mr. Canth’s leadership of the Conservative caucus in the House and their support of the new President.

P: Did you also correspond with the President in an email in which he asked about the ongoing investigation, to which you replied only, “It’s handled”?

W: Yes.

P: What did you mean by this statement?

W: I decline to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.

P: No further questions.

DA: Nothing from me.


P: Mr. President, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to meet with us.

W: Always a pleasure.

P: How well briefed were you regarding the electoral fraud and bribery investigation?

W: I tend to avoid being briefed at all on matters of federal investigations.

P: And yet you inquired in an email to Mr. Tompkins, “How’s that investigation going?” To which he responded, “It’s handled.” Wouldn’t you consider this an informal briefing?

W: No, considering it was a harmless conversation.

P: However, you were aware of the investigation?

W: Of course.

P: Were you aware of the emails between Mr. Tompkins and Mr. Wilkins?

W: No.

P: Why did Mr. Tompkins tell you, “It’s handled”?

W: As I’m not Mr. Tompkins, I couldn’t possibly tell you.

P: Did you ever ask Mr. Tompkins or any other person about the investigation prior to this?

W: *no response*

CJ: Mr. President, I’m afraid that you are required by law to respond to the question.

W: Yes.

P: And who might that be?

W: Mr. Tompkins.

P: How often did you discuss the investigation with Mr. Tompkins?

W: Weekly.

P: So you were being briefed weekly?

W: No, it simply came up in casual conversation throughout the week at any given point. It was not a briefing as it was not scheduled, nor was it given by an expert.

P: At any point did you ask for the investigation to be expedited or make any other request regarding the investigation?

W: I decline to answer on the grounds of my Article V, Section I right against self-incrimination.

P: Nothing further, Your Honor.

DA: Your Honor, I ask for a recess to discuss with my client.

CJ: Recess granted.


Following the recess:

CJ: Are there any further witnesses from the prosecution?

P: No, Your Honor. The prosecution rests their case.

CJ: Any witnesses from the defense?

DA: No. The defense rests their case.

CJ: Well, with that, I hereby send this to the Senate for deliberation.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s