In a normal world certain things progress in an order dictated by science, law, logic or custom. If an unusual event occurs an investigation may be appropriate. Many investigations are purely scientific. Why was there a fire today? Some have both social and scientific significance. What caused the fire that burned down Lahaina? Some have social, scientific and legal significance. Who was responsible for the fire that burned down Lahaina? One expects an orderly progression from incident to question to answers.
In the not-too-distant past supernatural causes were sufficient. “God moves in a mysterious way.”; “Inshallah.”; “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” or “The devil made me do it.” None of which improved understanding.
In the 17th century, scientific method was introduced. Instead of blindly accepting the explanations offered by those claiming to know, test their hypotheses and see it they fit the known facts. Modify the hypotheses and retest until results match expectation. If A is supposed to cause B, does it do it consistently in a controlled experiment?
About the same time, legal due process was introduced. Instead of automatic conclusions or the opinion of authority, follow certain steps. In almost all cases the investigation starts with an event. The event may have a natural or human cause. The investigation is made to determine and understand causes. Compare the evidence of an event to known facts. Interview witnesses privately. Do their recollections match, or at least not contradict. Separate enforcement, prosecution and justice to separate steps by separate entities.
Enforcement gathers facts to determine if anyone can be held responsible and if so, reports what they know to the prosecutor. The prosecutor determines if the evidence looks sufficient to charge the alleged perpetrator. In many cases the case is important enough or complicated enough they present the evidence to an independent grand jury. If the grand jury agrees that a crime was committed, they may indict a defendant and involve the courts. The court system will inspect the evidence in several steps leading to a trial, usually involving a jury. Juries are compiled of randomly chosen ordinary citizens.
In politics though, it can be reversed. Investigate him to see if he can be impeached. I saw my first impeach Clinton bumper sticker early in the morning after Bill’s election, while the votes were still being counted from the night before. Obviously, the sticker was printed before the election.
Kevin McCarthy has commissioned a committee to investigate Joe Biden so he can be impeached maybe. Imagine if every one of us were held under that microscope. Good morning, what laws did you break today? None, are you sure? How about yesterday. How about March 3, 1999?
A justice system preoccupied with finding causes to prosecute will become quickly overwhelmed. When you don’t know what you are looking for there is always another rock to look under to see if maybe something is there, when you run out of rocks then what?
Unfortunately, the Constitution is vague about what is impeachable: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Treason and bribery are pretty clear, but high crimes does not set a bar: Murder, rape, adultery, blasphemy? We think of misdemeanors as minor offenses: Disorderly conduct, prostitution, indecent exposure; victimless offenses.
Gerry Ford defined an impeachable offense as whatever Congress says it is. That is the problem, all the impeachment trials in my lifetime have had vague accusations. Well, one was about a lie. By that criterion everyone in government is impeachable. In court a witness is impeached if exposed in a lie.
Before Congress impeaches anyone else, how about defining high crimes, as in basketball, no harm no foul. The process should start with defining the harm or injury, not the person to be attacked. On the other hand, as James Madison observed: If you define something like rights (or crimes) too precisely then troublemakers can argue that the subject does not fit the definition exactly.
Samuel Alito concluded that the Constitution does not specifically grant the right to abortion or air even though it says “Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
