Via press release from Anna Whites, counsel for the petitioners
The Petitioners in the AG Cameron impeachment filed a motion asking the Impeachment Committee to either recommend impeachment on the grounds that the AG has failed to provide any sworn evidence countering the evidence in the petition, or to subpoena the special prosecutor in the Breonna Taylor matter so that the prosecutor can testify on behalf of the AG.
“Under Kentucky law, if a party can’t provide sworn evidence in support of his argument, that party loses the case” said Anna Whites, counsel for Petitioners. “Since the special prosecutors failed to record the relevant parts of the Grand Jury proceedings, their testimony and notes are the only way the Committee and the public can find out the truth.”
Excerpts from the motion
The following are excerpts from the motion filed by the Cameron petitioners. The complete motion is linked below.
“The IC requested certain audio or video evidence from the Office of Attorney General to rebut the factual assertions made by the Grand Jurors. AG Cameron was unable to provide that requested evidence and alleged that his office did not record the charges or instructions given the Grand Jurors. … Neither the Response to the Petition nor the answer to the IC’s request were sworn or attested to by anyone with even passing knowledge of what happened during the grand jury proceedings, and those cannot be considered evidence under even the most favorable standards. The only evidence before the IC, that being the affidavit of the Grand Jurors and their counsel, shows that the AG was not accurate and truthful in his discussions of the Taylor case.”
“The only alternative available to the Committee, should it wish to allow the AG’s office one more opportunity to provide evidence, is to demand witness testimony from the special prosecutor in the case, who was and is believed to still be an employee of the Office of Attorney General.”
“Petitioners ask that the IC act in accordance with Kentucky law and principles of fundamental fairness in requiring the AG to provide evidence supporting his defense, just as the IC did with the Office of the Governor when the IC deemed the response insufficient.”