Proof
From the Associated
Press:
The escalating uproar over President Bush's ouster of eight U.S. attorneys has handed Democrats a weapon they have long sought, evidence that his administration improperly allowed politics to trump the law.
There are a couple of problems: The evidence is largely circumstantial, and the proof is missing. (Emphasis added)
This sent me to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary.
Circumstantial evidence: all evidence of indirect nature; direct evidence as to the facts deposed, but indirect as to the fact probandum
Proof:The effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by evidence.
In other words, circumstantial evidence is any evidence that allows one to infer that a given fact is true, or a given event happened. I have, for instance, never actually seen the back of my head, but I have good reason to conclude it exists.
If you have enough evidence, of any nature, you have proof.
Perhaps I can provide an illustration:
Attorney: Can you tell the jury what you observed?
Witness: I saw a wooden box with a duck in it.
Attorney: Isn't it true that you never saw a duck?
Witness: But I heard a quacking noise from inside the box.
Attorney: So, you don't know that there actually was a duck in that box, do you?
Witness: Well, while I was there, a whole bunch of other ducks congregated around the box, and they seemed to be drawn by the quacking noise.
Attorney: So you are simply asking the jury to speculate that there was a duck in the box, arent' you?
Witness: Well, the box was raised up and it had a screened bottom. There was duck shit underneath, which was confirmed on scientific analysis.
Attorney: Would you please answer the question: You never saw a duck, did you?
Witness: No I didn't.
To be explicit: Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and enough of it is proof, because proof is just a pile of evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact to a given level of certainty. People have been hung based solely on circumstantial evidence, and a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows, as the night the day, that proof is not missing just because the only evidence is curcumstantial. The reporter fails to understand this, something that should be obvious to anyone who performs a little cogitation about the matter.
Now, what level of proof do we need to conclude that the Justice Department had been totally politicized? We are talking about citizens making a political judgment, not about jurors. There is no reason that we should withhold judgment until we have seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil standard is preponderance of the evidence, but I would submit that when the system of justice is at stake, action is necessary when you find probable cause. That standard is easily met here, but I'd say that even the civil standard is met when you combine the facts recited in the story itself:
The case of San Diego's former federal prosecutor Carol Lam has attracted particular attention because of the uncanny timing of discussions about her ouster.
Lam, who oversaw a bribery case against now-imprisoned Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had just alerted the Justice Department to new search warrants in that case last May when Gonzales' then top aide contacted the White House about replacing her.
The same day, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles had opened an investigation of GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis that was connected to the Cunningham case.
Justice Department documents released last month show Lam landed on a target list long before because of what administration officials have described as her office's lax record on immigration enforcement. They've said they were pleased with Lam's work on the Cunningham case.
Arizona's Paul Charlton was ousted amid reports that he was investigating Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe's contacts with underage congressional pages and a land deal by another Republican, Rep. Rick Renzi.
New Mexico's former U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, surfaced on the list before the Nov. 7 election, after he was contacted by two Republican members of Congress asking if he would bring indictments in a suspected Democratic kickback scheme before Election Day.
The New Mexico lawmakers, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, have acknowledged making the calls but denied trying to pressure Iglesias. Gonzales' former top aide, D. Kyle Sampson, told Congress after he resigned over the ousters that the lawmakers' concerns may have played a role in Iglesias' ouster.
Justice officials said Iglesias was a poor manager.
John McKay, the ousted Seattle prosecutor, had declined to investigate charges of voter fraud in the disputed 2004 gubernatorial election that put Democrat Christine Gregoire in the governor's mansion. McKay has said an aide to Republican Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington called to ask about the investigation.
In Nevada, Daniel Bogden was asked to leave as he was reportedly looking into whether Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons had received gifts and money in return for using his influence on congressional intelligence and national security panels when he was in the House.
There have been no allegations that political corruption cases were a factor in the ousters of three other prosecutors.
..with the fact that the Justice Department is withholding evidence, giving rise to what we in the law biz call an adverse inference. The foregoing evidence constitutes sufficient proof to compel a conclusion to a reasonable degree of certainty that the Bushies were engaged in improper activities. Add all the other evidence that's come out, and you could easily get an indictment if you happened to run the Justice Department. Just a little thought, by the way, would lead almost anyone to conclude that in a case like this, most of the evidence will be circumstantial. Some elements of a crime must almost always be proven by circumstantial evidence. The element of intent, for instance, can rarely be proved by direct evidence.
One more thing: The last statement in the article is true, but misleading. One of the remaining three U.S. Attorneys was the Arkansas U.S. Attorney, who was pushed out to make way for Karl Rove's puppet. Remember, the overriding charge is not that the Justice Department was trying to suppress investigations of Republicans. That's a mere subset of the overall crime. The charge is that the Justice Department was being politicized, converted into an arm of the Republican Party. The charge is proven, to a reasonable degree of certainty. After all, if it quacks like a duck...
The escalating uproar over President Bush's ouster of eight U.S. attorneys has handed Democrats a weapon they have long sought, evidence that his administration improperly allowed politics to trump the law.
There are a couple of problems: The evidence is largely circumstantial, and the proof is missing. (Emphasis added)
This sent me to my copy of Black's Law Dictionary.
Circumstantial evidence: all evidence of indirect nature; direct evidence as to the facts deposed, but indirect as to the fact probandum
Proof:The effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by evidence.
In other words, circumstantial evidence is any evidence that allows one to infer that a given fact is true, or a given event happened. I have, for instance, never actually seen the back of my head, but I have good reason to conclude it exists.
If you have enough evidence, of any nature, you have proof.
Perhaps I can provide an illustration:
Attorney: Can you tell the jury what you observed?
Witness: I saw a wooden box with a duck in it.
Attorney: Isn't it true that you never saw a duck?
Witness: But I heard a quacking noise from inside the box.
Attorney: So, you don't know that there actually was a duck in that box, do you?
Witness: Well, while I was there, a whole bunch of other ducks congregated around the box, and they seemed to be drawn by the quacking noise.
Attorney: So you are simply asking the jury to speculate that there was a duck in the box, arent' you?
Witness: Well, the box was raised up and it had a screened bottom. There was duck shit underneath, which was confirmed on scientific analysis.
Attorney: Would you please answer the question: You never saw a duck, did you?
Witness: No I didn't.
To be explicit: Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and enough of it is proof, because proof is just a pile of evidence sufficient to convince a trier of fact to a given level of certainty. People have been hung based solely on circumstantial evidence, and a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows, as the night the day, that proof is not missing just because the only evidence is curcumstantial. The reporter fails to understand this, something that should be obvious to anyone who performs a little cogitation about the matter.
Now, what level of proof do we need to conclude that the Justice Department had been totally politicized? We are talking about citizens making a political judgment, not about jurors. There is no reason that we should withhold judgment until we have seen proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil standard is preponderance of the evidence, but I would submit that when the system of justice is at stake, action is necessary when you find probable cause. That standard is easily met here, but I'd say that even the civil standard is met when you combine the facts recited in the story itself:
The case of San Diego's former federal prosecutor Carol Lam has attracted particular attention because of the uncanny timing of discussions about her ouster.
Lam, who oversaw a bribery case against now-imprisoned Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had just alerted the Justice Department to new search warrants in that case last May when Gonzales' then top aide contacted the White House about replacing her.
The same day, the Los Angeles Times reported that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles had opened an investigation of GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis that was connected to the Cunningham case.
Justice Department documents released last month show Lam landed on a target list long before because of what administration officials have described as her office's lax record on immigration enforcement. They've said they were pleased with Lam's work on the Cunningham case.
Arizona's Paul Charlton was ousted amid reports that he was investigating Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe's contacts with underage congressional pages and a land deal by another Republican, Rep. Rick Renzi.
New Mexico's former U.S. attorney, David Iglesias, surfaced on the list before the Nov. 7 election, after he was contacted by two Republican members of Congress asking if he would bring indictments in a suspected Democratic kickback scheme before Election Day.
The New Mexico lawmakers, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, have acknowledged making the calls but denied trying to pressure Iglesias. Gonzales' former top aide, D. Kyle Sampson, told Congress after he resigned over the ousters that the lawmakers' concerns may have played a role in Iglesias' ouster.
Justice officials said Iglesias was a poor manager.
John McKay, the ousted Seattle prosecutor, had declined to investigate charges of voter fraud in the disputed 2004 gubernatorial election that put Democrat Christine Gregoire in the governor's mansion. McKay has said an aide to Republican Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington called to ask about the investigation.
In Nevada, Daniel Bogden was asked to leave as he was reportedly looking into whether Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons had received gifts and money in return for using his influence on congressional intelligence and national security panels when he was in the House.
There have been no allegations that political corruption cases were a factor in the ousters of three other prosecutors.
..with the fact that the Justice Department is withholding evidence, giving rise to what we in the law biz call an adverse inference. The foregoing evidence constitutes sufficient proof to compel a conclusion to a reasonable degree of certainty that the Bushies were engaged in improper activities. Add all the other evidence that's come out, and you could easily get an indictment if you happened to run the Justice Department. Just a little thought, by the way, would lead almost anyone to conclude that in a case like this, most of the evidence will be circumstantial. Some elements of a crime must almost always be proven by circumstantial evidence. The element of intent, for instance, can rarely be proved by direct evidence.
One more thing: The last statement in the article is true, but misleading. One of the remaining three U.S. Attorneys was the Arkansas U.S. Attorney, who was pushed out to make way for Karl Rove's puppet. Remember, the overriding charge is not that the Justice Department was trying to suppress investigations of Republicans. That's a mere subset of the overall crime. The charge is that the Justice Department was being politicized, converted into an arm of the Republican Party. The charge is proven, to a reasonable degree of certainty. After all, if it quacks like a duck...
Posted: Wednesday - April 11, 2007 at 09:00 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:20 PM