Clear and Convincing Evidence of What Senator (sic) Bundgaard Did

0
151

Posted by Michael Bryan

So testimony is being taken in the ethics violation hearing before the Senate Ethics Committee regarding Senator Bundgaard getting loaded, beating the crap out of his gal pal, tossing her in the middle of a busy street like a piece of trash, and then claiming legislative immunity to get out of it.

Bundgaard-APIt's pretty obvious that the real piece of trash here is Bundgaard. But I don't think it will play out that way.

I think the verdict will be 'unproven'. Here's why.

Just days prior to the hearing, Bundgaard's attorneys convinced the Senate Ethics Committee to change the evidentiary standard for the hearing. Just for this hearing. The usual standard applied in ethics investigations of this type has historically always been 'preponderance of the evidence'. 51% and you are toast. Simple.

But the Ethics Committte voted, along party lines, to change the standard for Bundgaard's hearing to 'clear and convincing'. Such an evidentiary standard is much higher than preponderance. Evidence must lead to a firm conviction of truth in the judge or jury. It is the standard used for things such as taking away people's children and removing people from life support.

You think that change in standards, just for Bundgaard, is a coincidence? Trust me, the Committee will vote along party lines and find that while there was a preponderance of evidence that Bundgaard did unethical things, the evidence just didn't meet the exacting level of evidence required by the standard they have to judge him by (which they imposed on themselves days prior to the hearing).

Justice is served. GOP style.