Harry's Gang: Impeachment is a process

There’s so much misinformation over the impeachment proceedings, I thought it might be helpful to explain the process using more common terms and an analogy that should make sense to most of us. So, as a litigation attorney who has occasionally dabbled in criminal law, here’s my best shot:

Let’s say Andy Capp (a fictional character used in this analogy) is driving down the road at 70 miles per hour, the speed limit, with a few of his co-workers on his way home from a conference in Duluth.

Unbeknownst to him, someone driving behind him suspects he’s driving drunk, and anonymously calls 911. This is the whistleblower.

In America, suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. This holds in a court of law, under strict rules that are followed precisely. Public opinion and politics should have no effect on the outcome.

But a lot happens between the 911 call and a court conviction.

Once the call is made, 911 dispatches law enforcement. The police find Andy’s car, and follow him for a bit. Police have every right to follow and observe Andy: they are investigating suspicious activity. It’s what they do. Once the cops see Andy swerve, weave, cross the center line and drive over the fogline, they pull him over. We never hear from the 911 caller (the whistleblower) again; the cops have independently verified that, under their protocol and the law, there’s enough evidence to suspect Andy of a crime: drunk driving.

Enough to pull him over, yes, but it’s not enough to arrest him. More investigation is needed. Police observe Andy swaying unsteadily on his feet, and clearly smell the distinct odor of alcohol. Andy hands over his driver’s license but otherwise refuses to say anything, because he has the right to remain silent. But if Andy does say anything, it can (and will) be used against him.

The police ask the occupants of the car a few questions too, even though they are not suspected of criminal activity. One of the riders tells the police they are on their way home from a business meeting in Duluth, and another confirms that story. But a third rider also tells the cops that there was a reception after the conference, and wine was served. He didn’t know if Andy had any, though. The officer goes back to the first rider, who confirms that alcohol was served and that he saw Andy with a bottle of beer in his hand.

The police finish their investigation and decide to arrest Andy, as their investigation points to a crime: drunk driving. (That’s the impeachment hearings). Now, it’s in the hands of the county attorney, who prosecutes Andy, and his public defender, who defends him. A trial is held before a jury, with a judge overseeing the process (the Senate, with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding).

The jury is carefully selected to make sure they will be impartial and will listen to all the evidence before deciding guilt. If a juror has already decided they would convict Andy even before the trial starts, that juror would be dismissed. Only after all the evidence is presented, and after Andy has had a chance to confront those witnesses, does the jury find him guilty or not guilty. (The jury never finds “innocence.” It’s presumed you are innocent; the jury decides only if you are guilty or not.)

Using this analogy, the 911 caller is the whistleblower. The police investigate the allegations because they have independently verified the complaint; this is the House of Representatives’ job. If the investigation shows enough evidence that a crime has been committed, it votes to impeach and send its findings to the court or, in this case, the Senate. Only after a trial in the Senate, where the accused is presumed innocent and has the right to confront the witnesses, can there be a conviction. There’s no right to confront the guy who called in the report; he merely tipped off the police to a possible crime.

It’s called due process. It’s in the Constitution. We, the people, may have our opinions on the issue of impeachment, but our system of separation of powers depends on a thorough investigation, a fair trial, and a just outcome. We expect no less.

Pete Radosevich is the publisher of the Pine Knot News community newspaper and an attorney in Esko who hosts the cable access talk show Harry’s Gang on CAT-7. His opinions are his own. Contact him at [email protected].