Better Know the Impeachment Process 12.14.19 "Hearsay at Trial"

One of the issues (faux issues, really) raised by Republicans against the use of "hearsay" may come up in the Senate trial also. Given the strategy that the White House and the Senate leadership are planning, to minimize any evidence at trial at all, we can expect a lot of "hearsay." But should that bother us? Black argues not, and I'm inclined to agree, although to assume that members of the current Senate are more prudent and insightful about the credibility of evidence strikes me as--well--a stretch. Here's what Black says on the subject: 

In an ordinary trial, for example, we exclude what we call “hearsay” evidence—testimony by one witness that another person, not a witness, told the witness that something had happened. We exclude evidence of the defendant’s character, unless he himself seeks affirmatively to establish his good character. And so on through a considerable range of technicality. Here, I think, the sensible answer comes clear. These technical rules of evidence were elaborated primarily to hold juries within narrow limits. They have no place in the impeachment process. Both the House and the Senate ought to hear and consider all evidence which seems relevant, without regard to technical rules. Senators are in any case continually exposed to “hearsay” evidence; they cannot be sequestered and kept away from newspapers, like a jury. If they cannot be trusted to weigh evidence, appropriately discounting for all the factors of unreliability that have led to our keeping some evidence away from juries, then they are not in any way up to the job, and “rules of evidence” will not help. 

Black, Charles L. & Bobbitt, Philip, Impeachment: A Handbook, New Edition  (p. 18). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition. 

Unconstitutional War

This article (link below)  makes an absolutely crucial argument: the strike against Syria was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The author, con law lawyer Garrett Epps, doesn't argue that the strike was immoral (maybe, maybe not; although I think not) or illegal under international law (almost certainly). No, without congressional authorization, even under the War Powers Act, the president cannot order an attack on a sovereign nation as he did here unless that nation has attacked us (it hasn't). Congress could authorize such an attack, but it routinely abrogates its constitutional duties. Most congressional representatives--Democrats and Republicans--don't want to take a stand. Any choice--because there is no "good" choice--will prove unpopular with some segment of voters. And for this, Paul Ryan and others will draw a fat pension.

Let's be clear about this. This isn't about Trump, it isn't about Republicans, it isn't even about Syria--it's about the U.S. Constitution and the blatant disregard of the Constitution.

This needs to stop.

The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria

The Constitution still requires congressional authorization for an attack on another country. The requirement is not a formality.

THEATLANTIC.COM

I Say, Sir, It is CORRUPTION! A Review of Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress & How to End It by Lawrence Lessig

Imagine Patrick Henry speaking in his booming voice and railing against the CORRUPTION of the age. Or, perhaps if you’re not in mood for a stem-winder, think about how Madison or Hamilton (the two greatest minds among the Founders—sorry TJ) might address this. Come to think of it, everyone should be—must be—against corruption, right? However, in fact, in a manner of speaking, CORRUPTION works. In the jargon of social science, it results in an equilibrium that has built-in antibodies against change. The concept is simple: if someone doesn’t participate in the CORRUPTION, then she or he won’t get elected. It’s that simple. 

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig argues, and I agree, that we do have CORRUPT system in exactly the way that the Founders would have known and used the term. Not corruption in the way of paper bags and Rod Blagojevich; this happens, but it’s not a big problem (well, at least outside of Chicago). No, the CORRUPTION of wherein I speak (I can’t resist a little Revolutionary typeface and usage) is endemic to our system and perfectly legal. (Thank you, Supreme Court.) The CORRUPTION is the system that requires members of Congress to go begging for the money to run their campaigns to get re-elected or elected. (Of course, once you’re elected, you’re in pretty good shape to stay there because of your money-raising potential—unless you’re a “moderate Republican” (archaic: a species essentially extinct, having suffered a plague from the RIGHT, most recently identified as the Tea Party virus.) Whether the money comes from the Right (think Koch Brothers of Sheldon Adelson) or the Left (think George Soros), it buys INFLUENCE that we the 99% can’t match. (Gotchya’ if you think “1%” is accurate; it’s way high). 

Lessig tells us all of this in his TED Talk and this book. I’ve now read the book, and I agree that you should watch the TED Talk first: it’s the executive summary. If you can’t read the book, you’ll still have the message. For me, I wanted the gory details, and this proved worthwhile. Not only does Lessig document the problem well (he is a Harvard law prof, after all), but he makes clear that this is a problem for both the RIGHT and the LEFT, that CORRUPTION causes problems that reach across the aisle (well, at least something does these days besides Obama’s unwanted hand). CORRUPTION affects government and the political process in ways that no UNINTERESTED PERSON could endorse. 

How good is this book? It’s not a fun read. It’s not a deep read. But it’s a book with a mission; TO WIT, to get us out of our lethargy and engaged to REFORM this most vile CORRUPTION of our polity. To this end, I’ve joined Lessig’s organization, ROOT STRIKERS (from a quote of Thoreau that we should strike at the root of evil), and I’ve once again written my congressional representatives to ask them to take THE PLEDGE. Consider this, and join us, as a PATRIOT. 

BTW, the title may seem puzzling, unlike his earlier, more easily identifiable Republic Lost. Lessig refers to “Lesters” as those of the tiny minority—I mean TINY—who fund elections with BIG BUCKS. I think it’s a South Park reference, but then, that’s out of my league.