Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: The Benefit of the Law
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
– “A Man For All Seasons”, Robert Bolt (Act I)
You can append any outrageous charge with “if” and the sentence that results would be true. If I ate babies, I would be a cannibal. If I did, I would be. But I do not. So I am not.
Currently, we have a set of accusations made against the President by anonymous witnesses offered behind closed doors. Those judging the evidence are not impartial. They exclude all except those who agree with them. The conclusions and public pronouncements made by the investigating committee are frequently contradicted by both facts and the statements of those testifying after they leave. If Trump had done the things he is accused of he should be removed. But an accusation alone is not enough to condemn a man. There must be proof. And the proof must be credible, and it must be presented openly and subject to investigation.
We have established norms of evidence in this country. They are not being followed in the investigation of the President. We have established procedures for investigating accusations of misconduct. No cross-examination of witnesses is allowed. The Intelligence Committee is investigating the accusations, not the committee that should be investigating the accusations (Judiciary). The main inquisitor committee chair with the responsibility of impartiality is behaving in an egregiously biased manner.
I understand why the press is playing this as gospel. It sells papers and views and they have no obligation to respect the facts or tell the truth. What I do not understand is how any rational person – especially those educated in the law – can take this process seriously, at least as far as a legal proceeding. What should be taken seriously should be the assault on the bedrock principle of this country: due process of law. Anyone, especially lawyers, should be ashamed of themselves if they put the result of a trial ahead of the process.
Published in Law
True. However, it would be a legal obligation to tell the truth if absence of malice wasn’t a part of suing the news media for libel or slander . . .
If we go by the analogy of normal judicial proceeding for criminal cases, then the House is really a Grand Jury. It isn’t as far as I know standard practice for the defense to cross examine witnesses, review the evidence, or offer arguments before a Grand Jury. That is done at trial, which only occurs if the Grand Jury indicts. So the analogy and complaints actually break down even further if one demands that we treat this like a real criminal prosecution. You don’t get to debate with the cops investigating your part in a murder while they are doing the investigation, you can’t demand that you sit in on their interviews with suspects and witnesses. All that is done at trial which in the case of impeachment happens in the Senate.
If the House has to offer “due process” then it should also sit in judgement of guilt, a trade that I don’t think Trumps hackish supporters would make. Honestly do we think McConnell will run a clean trial in the Senate? That Senate Republicans will really be impartial jurors? Ha!
These complaints about due process in impeachment are just pure political hackery. Meant to construct a narrative that will be pushed on stupid and uniformed voters.
Except it’s not, by analogy or wish.
It is disingenuous, if not dishonest, for Schiff to make such a claim. Why not state the hard truth? The majority party makes the rules.
Or maybe the Democrats fear the naked exercise of power will offend even smart informed citizens.
I don’t feel that they do. But they should. I hope.
Sea,
I needed to remember this from the movie.
What I never realized was that Fred Zinnemann directed this. Zinnemann also directed High Noon. Here is a great biographical piece on Zinnemann.
The Immigrant Who Directed The American Classic ‘High Noon’
Zinnemann’s father was the man for all seasons.
Regards,
Jim