The Senate as Jury?

Over the course of my forty plus year legal career I have questioned and empaneled several dozen juries . The process is called the 

“ Voir dire”, which is a French term that literally translates “ to speak the truth”. I have entreated many hundreds of prospective jurors to do just that, tell me the truth during the course of the interview, as that saves everybody considerable time and effort.  I would ask “If there is any reason that you as a potential juror would have a disqualifying bias that would make you unsuited to be a juror in the particular case you are “being asked to decide, just tell me, and you can be excused”.      

     I would also exhort potential jurors to leave the “baggage of their life “ at the courthouse door. By that, I would explain that we all carry with us everyday the “baggage of our lives”, which is the totality of our experiences which tilt us one way or another when dealing with any particular issue. We are not always Conscious of the bags we carry with us. It is this pre-conceived notion, or bias, that I would ask jurors to shed or check , as they embarked on their duty as fair and “ impartial” jurors.  

      Not everyone is able to render a fair and impartial verdict in every case. There are often certain life experiences which prejudice us from making a fair and dispassionate analysis of the facts of a particular case. Before embarking on their duty as a juror , a jury candidate must even take an oath to render a fair and impartial verdict. The oath of a juror is to decide the case upon the evidence produced at trial, and not on the basis of extraneous information gleaned from other sources. 

An example of a juror’s oath would be

that they will "well and truly try the matters in issue and a true verdict render according to the evidence and the law." 

That is how a jury trial is set up. The objective is to ferret out the truth, and to render justice. 

     An 

impeachment proceeding is a little different, but the objective of ferreting out the truth remains. There 

Is ultimately no Republican or Democratic version of the truth. There is only truth, and in finding the truth, facts matter. 

     The senators are required to take an oath before proceeding to try the President on any articles of I,peachment proffered them by the House of Representatives..

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 6

     So, the Senators, under law, are required to render a fair and impartial verdict pursuant to their oath. It is not unlike the requirement of jurors in any other court case.  There are Those who say that impeachment is simply a political process 

 They are wrong. It is a quasi-judicial process, requiring Senators to vote to convict or acquit based upon the facts presented to them, and upon their oaths taken.

     In the final analysis, it matters not what the commentators on Fox News or CNN or MSNBC say. Nor what the majority or minority party partisans say. It is what the Senators say, under oath. That is their verdict. Nothing more. Nothing less. Let’s try to keep this in mind as we proceed down this road. 

Civics lessons do matter. Constitutional requirements matter as well, and justice demands that the process be strictly adhered to. 

Duck Duck Goose !

Reverse Conspiracy Theory

Our current President came to political prominence by espousing the convoluted conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and thus was not eligible to serve as President. He went to great lengths to investigate this supposed conspiracy to cover up the President’s real birthplace, including alleging the complicity of state officials in fabricating a phony birth certificate, and in the process, was able to convince between a quarter to a third of the American population that he was onto something. When that theory no longer served his purpose, he dropped it like a hot potato, and simply went on to campaign, successfully, for the prize of the Oval Office itself.
     Fast forward three years, and we now have a kind of reverse conspiracy theory developing that this same man, Donald J. Trump, may be acting as an agent of or stalking horse for our chief geopolitical enemy, Russia, and its leader, Vladimir Putin. Is that theory in any way believable? Is there any empirical evidence that exists that would make sane people seriously entertain the notion? The answer , clearly, is yes. And you don’t have to be a crazed conspiratorialist to believe it. His answer to the charge? “I never worked for Russia. This whole Russian thing is a big fat hoax!” We might eventually expect him to add, “ I am not a crook either.”
     Meanwhile, let’s examine the facts underlying this theory. First, all of our intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election in furtherance of Trump’s candidacy in a myriad of ways. Trump pays lip device to the conclusion of those agencies, and chooses to defer to Putin’s denial instead. Second, in meeting between Trump and Putin, the number of participants has been limited, and even the notes of a translator were personally impounded by the President so that there is no clear record of what promises were made and what was discussed. This is a total abrogation of normal procedure. Why would anyone go to such lengths to obscure what was said between two heads of state unless they were trying to conceal something.?
      Third, why would the President defer to Russia on Syria, defend Russia’s original invasion of Afghanistan, and back off on criticism of Russia’s conduct toward the Ukraine?
     Why would he criticize everyone else, make up names to label many other world leaders , but as to Putin, only be effusive in his praise of his strong leadership?
Why would this President undermine NATO and many of our longest standing allies?
And what about that “dossier”? . Does Putin hold compromising evidence over Trump’s head? Also, why would he totally disrupt the ordinary processes of the American government , sowing further seeds of discord and discontent and undermining our democratic institutions?  Why would he persistently criticize our rule of law by  undermining the credibility of our courts, the FBI, and the Justice Department?
     This fact pattern impregnates the conspiratorial theorists , and as the old saying goes, “ If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a  duck , it may well be a duck. The degree of quacking here has become so cacophonous  that only the deaf can ignore it, and only the blind can fail to see  the various connections . Perhaps when it comes to Conspiracy theories and Mr. Trump , what’s good for the goose is  good for the gander as well.