CONGRESS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

TRY TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TRIAL DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF MEN IN DISGUISE, OR MEN COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM THE "JURY", MEN WHOSE VOICES ARE EVEN DISGUISED, MEN WITH NO REAL NAMES, UNKNOWN MEN WHO COULD BE HIRED ACTORS, ENEMIES OF THE STATE, ANYONE WHO WANTED TO SEE YOU CONVICTED BADLY ENOUGH TO LIE ON THE WITNESS STAND.

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JUDGE TO ALLOW THAT TESTIMONY TO BE HEARD?

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JURY TO ACCEPT SUCH TESTIMONY? 

Based on what Democrats have revealed so far, President Donald Trump is as likely to be impeached as he is to be a lottery pick in next year's NBA draft.

But, as Garrett Epps, University of Baltimore Law School professor, pointed out in "American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution," nothing can stop the House hell-bent on impeachment. They'll  seize on to ANY reason to go for it "whether for illicit sex, jaywalking, or drinking Pinot Noir with fish," as he humorously said

In 1985, the New York Daily News quoted former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler as saying that if they so desired, district attorneys could persuade a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich'.
A month later, the New York Times noted that Wachtler believed grand juries “operate more often as the prosecutor’s pawn than the citizen’s shield.”

The old reprobate judge was correct in both assessments.

As the Tea Room has stated often and clearly, I abhor ALL politicians, BOTH major parties were created to maintain a continuous CIVIL WAR, JUST AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARNED, time and time again. I have never in my life voted for "the lesser of two evils", since that would still amount to a vote for evil.

Politicians are the most vile, reprehensible, lying/oath-breaking group of freedom-robbing, scum-sucking life forms in the known universe. 

However, given the despicable 'crucifixion' of the current President by so many Capitol Hill whores and by the mainstream media since before he was elected until today, we will NEVER see "JUSTICE TRULY SERVED" when it comes to trying Trump for anything. He's a "marked man" to all Democrats and some so-called "Republicans"

We can find some small solace in the fact that getting the vermin of The House to vote for impeachment is a far simpler task than getting a conviction in the rat-infested Senate.

THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT BY MEANS OF RIGHTFUL, LAWFUL APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
FEW, IF ANY, OF THOSE SERPENTS ON THE HILL RECOGNIZE OR ADMIT THE INERRANT SIMPLICITY OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS INTENDED OF THAT OLD DOCUMENT.
THEY THINK IT NEEDS INTERPRETATION.
IT DOES NOT.**
IT MERELY NEEDS ACCEPTANCE AND STRICT ADHERENCE TO ITS SIMPLICITY. 


The operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.There are essentially four schools of thought concerning their, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

1- CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION: 
"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

Ford's view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

2- AN INDICTABLE CRIME: 
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office.
This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

[WHAT IS THE SENATE IN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT CASES BUT A JURY?
THE SENATE BECOMES BOTH THE COURT AND THE JURY.] 

Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

[FINE. IF IT'S 'CRIMINAL' THEN THE DEFENDANT HAS A NICE PLETHORA OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY CONSTITUTION'S BILL OF RIGHTS TO ACCUSED CRIMINALS.] 

#3- MISDEMEANORS 

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified.

This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Constitution's Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty."
This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption."
The word "corruption" was then eliminated.

On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place.
There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one.

#4- RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL DUTIES
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened.

(Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statute be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

YES, YES IT WOULD.
AND CONGRESS KNOWS IT.

[SEE ALSO:

Impeachment attempt against John Tyler

Impeachment investigation against James Buchanan

Harry S Truman—Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas (TWO CHARGES AGAINST TRUMAN) 

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

A Republican congressman from Michigan wanted Franklin Roosevelt impeached, and he wasn't alone.

Perhaps more fancifully, the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote a poem titled "Tentative Description of a Dinner Given To Promote the Impeachment of President Eisenhower."

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, especially, all inspired more or less serious calls for their impeachment.

In early 1983, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said President Ronald Reagan should be impeached "for incompetence." Later that year, he called for impeaching Reagan over his military action in Grenada.

Jesse Jackson wanted Reagan impeached in 1984 for mining Nicaragua's harbors. Texas Rep. Henry Gonzalez and six other Democrats introduced a resolution to impeach Reagan in 1987 over the Iran-Contra affair.

Gonzalez pushed to have President George H.W. Bush impeached in 1991 because of the Gulf War.

Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush in 2004 that centered on the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, global warming and the 2004 elections.

Conyers filed a resolution in 2005 calling for Bush's impeachment, and was still publicly advocating it by 2007.
Kucinich kept pushing for impeachment into Bush's last months in office.

Rep. Maxine Waters first called for Trump's impeachment before he was inaugurated.
Rep. Alan Grayson was talking up Trump's impeachment before he'd even secured the Republican nomination.]     

MAKE UP NEW RULES AS YOU TRY TO IMPEACH  

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

IF THE SENATE APPEARED TO "ACT IN A MANNER THAT CREATED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS", THE SUPREME COURT CAN, AND SOME SAY DEFINITELY SHOULD AND WILL, INTERVENE. 

In Walter Nixon v. United States, as stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

FOUR TRUE FACTS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THAT FEW AMERICANS KNOW. 

#1: Presidential Impeachment is a two-step process.

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides for the removal of a president, vice president and other “civil officers” of the United States.

There are three grounds upon which removal proceedings may be commenced:
1.Bribery
2.Treason
3.Felonies and Misdemeanors

The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment.

Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.

A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office.

The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president.

Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the conclusion of the trial, a vote is held in much the same manner as a trial jury votes to convict or acquit following a trial in a criminal court.
Two-thirds of the members of the Senate must vote in favor of conviction for a president to be removed from office through impeachment.

#2: Only TWO Presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both Democrats), but neither were convicted.
The House has voted to impeach officials on 60 different occasions, including the two above-mentioned Presidents.
Of all of the officials impeached by a vote of the House, only eight federal judges have actually been convicted in the Senate and removed from office. 
#3: Contrary to what some people might believe, President Richard Nixon was not impeached.

The burglary at the Washington, D.C., offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Complex in 1972 drew international headlines and led to an investigation by the House of Representatives. The hearings in the House Judiciary Committee disclosed a possible link between the White House and the individuals who committed the burglary.

The congressional investigation ended with the Judiciary Committee issuing articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon alleging, among other things, perjury, bribery and obstruction of justice.

Before the accusations could be presented to the House for an impeachment vote, Nixon submitted his resignation from office in the summer of 1974.

#4: Political rivalry does not amount to grounds for impeachment.

The fact that no president has been removed from office through impeachment would appear to stand as proof that as much as partisan politics might factor into the process, the system incorporated into the Constitution has worked for more than two centuries.

The adoption of rules of evidence and procedures governing the impeachment trial in the Senate include the right of the accused to be represented by counsel, the right to cross-exam witnesses and to present witnesses and evidence in defense of the charges are designed to incorporate fairness and due process into the proceedings.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME RIGHTS ARE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT AT THE
SENATE TRIAL AS ARE AFFORDED 'COMMON CITIZENS' IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT TRIAL.   

WHAT ARE THOSE 'INALIENABLE RIGHTS'?
THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM.

FROM 'THE LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL:   

"The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action.

 This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43).
As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.

In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1.To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
2.To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
3.To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior.

In Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), the Court noted that the Confrontation Clause is one of several constitutional safeguards to promote fairness in the criminal justice system.

In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the Supreme Court left open the possibility that competing interests, such as a jurisdiction’s interest in effective law enforcement, might prevail over the right to confront opposing witnesses.

However, in Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988), the Supreme Court held that that taking other interests into account should not be interpreted as creating exceptions to “the irreducible literal meaning of the clause,” reaffirming that a defendant has the right to confront his alleged victim “face-to-face."

The admission of hearsay evidence sometimes results in depriving defendants of their right to confront opposing witnesses, as the Supreme Court observed in Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586 (1924).

THE HOUSE CANNOT APPLY THE FOLLOWING 'EXCEPTION', IT JUST WON'T FIT. 

In Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968), the Court recognized a common law exception to the Confrontation Clause's requirement when a witness was unavailable and, during previous judicial proceedings, had testified against the same defendant and was subject to cross-examination by that defendant.

THE HOUSE CANNOT DENY TRUMP THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

In Brookhart v. Janis 384 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right had been violated when a trial court refused to let him cross-examine the witnesses who testified against him at his trial, even if his attorney tries to waive the defendant's right to do so.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), the Supreme Court held that in order to fulfill the procedural due process inherent in the Confrontation Clause, a criminal defendant must have the opportunity to cross-examine testimony that has been made against him. In an analogy the Melendez-Diaz Court made, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."
For more on the right to confront a witness, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this St. John's Law Review article, and this Louisiana State University Law Review article."

FOR A LENGTHY SUMMARY OF WHY THE SUPREME COURT RULED AS THEY DID IN THE CRAWFORD CASE, SEE THE CORNELL LAW SCHOOL'S TAKE ON IT.

In 2004, that the Supreme Court decided that out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause when they decided, Crawford v. Washington.

This case altered the rules for prosecutors. No longer could out-of-court statements be used against a defendant without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Before Crawford, the Supreme Court had held that out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause as long as they were adequately reliable.

In Crawford, the Court changed course and determined that defendants had a right to cross-examine out-of-court statements, regardless of whether or not the statements were reliable.

In his opinion in Crawford v. Washington, Justice Antonin Scalia follows a long and interesting description of the common-law history of the right to confront one's accusers with this conclusion:
"This history supports two inferences about the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.

First, the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused. ...

The historical record also supports a second proposition: that the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 

The text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts. Rather, the “right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” Amdt. 6, is most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. ...

Where testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence, much less to amorphous notions of “reliability.” 

Before 1965, the Court had little need to address the scope of the Confrontation Clause's protections of the rights to cross-examine a witness and to do so face to face.
This was because the Bill of Rights was originally only a restriction against the Federal government, and not against the states.

Gradually, after the introduction of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, through the use of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, nearly all of the restrictions in the Bill of Rights have also been applied to the states. You can read the 14th Amendment here.                                                                                                                                                             
Types of Protection Provided by Due Process

Though some laws in certain jurisdictions have slightly different interpretations of individual rights, they all prevent the government from harming a person without following the specified procedures of the law. This is known as “due process.”

The Due Process Clause provides four basic areas of protection, all of which are overseen by the U.S. Supreme Court:

1.Substantive due process; When determining whether the government has violated a person’s substantive due process rights, the judicial system first determines whether the issue at hand was a fundamental right.

2.Procedural due process;

~The right to an unbiased trial.
~The right to be given notice of the proposed trial and the reason for it.
~The right of the individual to be aware of evidence against him.
~The right to cross-examine witnesses for the opposition.
~The right to present evidence and call witnesses.
~The right to be represented by counsel. 
3.Prohibition against vague laws;
The Due Process Clause protects citizens against laws that are too vague for the average person to understand. If the laws are written in such a manner that an ordinary person cannot determine whether the conduct is expressly prohibited, or that a punishment can be rendered if they carry out the conduct, the court can determine the law to be “void for vagueness.” This prohibition against vague laws ensures that the laws are understandable and that ignorance cannot be used as a defense in criminal offenses.

4.As a means to incorporate the Bill of Rights; As time went on, the Supreme Court made a number of rulings that certain state laws or policies violated protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, thus “incorporating” those protections, applying them to all U.S. citizens.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
REPEAT, when the 14th Amendment was passed it made the 6th Amendment's right to confrontation applicable to state courts as well as federal courts.

In 2004, the Supreme Court decided that out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause when they decided 'Crawford v. Washington'. 

THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS GRANTED AND NONE OF THOSE ARE SIMILAR OR APPLICABLE TO THE UPCOMING "ANONYMOUS WITNESS" THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WANTS TO HIDE.

If you've been accused of a criminal offense, you have the constitutional right to confront your accusers face-to-face, period, the end.

14th AMENDMENT, Section 1  

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
THE 6th AMENDMENT
The sixth amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees certain rights in all criminal prosecutions. 
--the right to a speedy and public trial
--the right to an impartial jury in the district in which the alleged offense occurred
--the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge or charges against him or her
--the right to confront witnesses against him or her
--the right to a compulsory process for obtaining defense witnesses
--the right to assistance of counsel
--the right to cross-examine

This fourth item, the right to confront one's accusers, is known as the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. It is this clause which was a key issue in a recent criminal appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, the same federal appeals court which has jurisdiction over Oklahoma cases.

In United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez, Maria Leticia Gutierrez de Lopez was convicted of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens after being caught trying to transport an illegal immigrant from El Paso, Texas, to Denver, Colorado. She was sentenced to three years' probation, but she appealed the conviction.

A key issue in her appeal--one that could have had a significant impact on how state and federal agents use confidential informants--was the assertion that the use of anonymous witnesses in her trial violated the Confrontation Clause by denying her Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by witnesses against her.

Precedent holds that witnesses may testify anonymously if their testimony will place them in significant danger.

In her appeal, Gutierrez de Lopez argued that the lower court failed to prove that there was any need for secrecy in allowing the witnesses to testify under aliases, and that if the witnesses' safety was truly a concern, the court would have used a curtain and disguised their voices to shield their identity. 
While the government did not provide the true identities of the confidential informants, it did give information about the criminal histories of the informants and the compensation they received for assisting law enforcement.

The appeal argued that, although the defense was able to cross-examine the witnesses based on the information provided at trial, it did not receive enough information to conduct thorough pre-trial investigation of the witnesses.

The Tenth Circuit found that the lower court "failed to justify secrecy" and did not adequately demonstrate a need for anonymity for the protection of the witnesses, but called that a "harmless error."

The court ruled that the Confrontation Clause "requires the literal right to confront witnesses" and said that the defendant was given that opportunity through cross-examination. The court affirmed the conviction of Gutierrez de Lopez, despite the government's use of anonymous testimony without establishing safety concerns.

It seems a critical point that in order to allow anonymous testimony, the government would have to clearly demonstrate that revealing the true identity of the witness would place him or her in danger.

However, calling a failure to do so a "harmless error" seems to open the door for presenting anonymous testimony without any real need to do so, which would indeed be a violation of the Confrontation Clause.

This is the second recent court case in which an anonymous accuser seems to trump the defendant's Constitutional rights.

In late April, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Navarette v. Califonia that an anonymous tip was enough to merit reasonable suspicion and probable cause for a traffic stop, even if the responding law enforcement officer witnessed nothing himself or herself to verify the tip.

The Court found that an anonymous tip, in and of itself, was not necessarily credible cause for suspicion, but with "adequate indicia of reliability," the officer could rely on an anonymous caller alone without his or her own visual verification of the alleged behavior.


Constitutional Issues

There are two potential constitutional issues with allowing a witness to testify in disguise. They deal with two clauses in the Constitution:

(1) the Confrontation Clause and

(2) the Due Process Clause.

First, the Confrontation Clause, found in the Sixth Amendment, generally allows a criminal defendant to "confront" his accusers. This doesn't mean that the defendant can intimidate them, but it does mean that the defendant must generally know who his accusers are, and be able to cross-examine them. If a defendant doesn't know who a witness is, he may be able to argue that his right to confront his accusers is being denied.

Second, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally guarantees a criminal defendant a fair and unbiased trial. However, if even witnesses are afraid of the defendant, the jury may be swayed into believing that the defendant is so dangerous a man and surely guilty of whatever crime he is charged with.

When Is Testifying Under Disguise OK?

There are not a lot of court opinions about this subject. But at least when it comes to child victims or witnesses, the U.S. Supreme Court has held they can be blocked from the defendant's sight if testifying in the open would cause "severe emotional distress" for the child.

As for adults testifying incognito, the few courts that have ruled on it have found that such a tactic may be OK if it is supported by a strong interest, such as a legitimate fear of the witness being in danger, coupled with assurance that the disguise will not unfairly bias the jury. 

Reported in the Charlotte Observer, MARCH 8, 2018:"In an unusual ruling last month, U.S. District Judge John Adams has cleared the way for an undercover FBI agent to hide his identity by using a pseudonym and altering his appearance when he’s in the courtroom. At prosecutors’ request, Adams has also agreed to largely clear the federal courtroom when the agent takes the stand."


'Light disguise' used as two CIA security operatives detailed the deadly aftermath of the 2012 attack on U.S. Benghazi compound. Testifying under unusual secrecy measures—including wearing what the judge described as "light disguise"—the CIA officers told a federal jury at the Washington trial of a Benghazi militia leader about how they flew in from Tripoli on the night of the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi only to eventually find themselves caught up in an intense firefight at a CIA annex nearby.

[NOTE: THE TEA ROOM WONDERS IF EITHER OR BOTH WERE AMONG THOSE WHO HINTED THAT STEVENS WAS FRAGGED BY CIA MEMBERS AT THE SCENE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED?] 

The Supreme Court may eventually have to make a definitive answer on this issue, especially in matters of impeachment.
.

THE CRAWFORD RULE,  MARCH 8, 2004 

Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia’s tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though he had no opportunity for cross-examination. The Washington Supreme Court upheld petitioner’s conviction after determining that Sylvia’s statement was reliable. The question presented is whether this procedure complied with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

The State charged petitioner with assault and attempted murder. At trial, he claimed self-defense. Sylvia did not testify because of the state marital privilege, which generally bars a spouse from testifying without the other spouse’s consent. See Wash. Rev. Code §5.60.060(1) (1994). In Washington, this privilege does not extend to a spouse’s out-of-court statements admissible under a hearsay exception, see State v. Burden, 120 Wash. 2d 371, 377, 841 P.2d 758, 761 (1992), so the State sought to introduce Sylvia’s tape-recorded statements to the police as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Noting that Sylvia had admitted she led petitioner to Lee’s apartment and thus had facilitated the assault, the State invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, Wash. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003).

Petitioner countered that, state law notwithstanding, admitting the evidence would violate his federal constitutional right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” Amdt. 6. According to our description of that right in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), it does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Id., at 66. To meet that test, evidence must either fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bear “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ibid. The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault.

The Washington Court of Appeals was reversed.

It applied a nine-factor test to determine whether Sylvia’s statement bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, and noted several reasons why it did not: The statement contradicted one she had previously given; it was made in response to specific questions; and at one point she admitted she had shut her eyes during the stabbing. The court considered and rejected the State’s argument that Sylvia’s statement was reliable because it coincided with petitioner’s to such a degree that the two “interlocked.” The court determined that, although the two statements agreed about the events leading up to the stabbing, they differed on the issue crucial to petitioner’s self-defense claim: “[Petitioner’s] version asserts that Lee may have had something in his hand when he stabbed him; but Sylvia’s version has Lee grabbing for something only after he has been stabbed.” App. 32.

The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, unanimously concluding that, although Sylvia’s statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness: “ ‘[W]hen a co-defendant’s confession is virtually identical [to, i.e., interlocks with,] that of a defendant, it may be deemed reliable.’ ” 147 Wash. 2d 424, 437, 54 P.3d 656, 663 (2002) (quoting State v. Rice, 120 Wash. 2d 549, 570, 844 P.2d 416, 427 (1993)). The court explained:

“Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the statements were contradictory, upon closer inspection they appear to overlap… ."


THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING LENGTHY PDF RE: THE CRAWFORD DECISION: 
http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2013NewMisdemeanor/GuideToCrawford.pdf


LIKE I SAID, TRY TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TRIAL DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF MEN IN DISGUISE, OR MEN COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM THE "JURY", MEN WHOSE VOICES ARE EVEN DISGUISED, MEN WITH NO REAL NAMES, UNKNOWN MEN WHO COULD BE HIRED ACTORS, ENEMIES OF THE STATE, ANYONE WHO WANTED TO SEE YOU CONVICTED BADLY ENOUGH TO LIE ON THE WITNESS STAND.

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JUDGE TO ALLOW THAT TESTIMONY TO BE HEARD?

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JURY TO ACCEPT SUCH TESTIMONY?

WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH NEVER SEEING THE FACES OF YOUR ACCUSERS OR NEVER GETTING TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM WITH OR WITHOUT DISGUISES, OR SEE THEIR TESTIMONIES ACCEPTED 'IN ABSENTIA'?

ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD WILLINGLY ALLOW OR AGREE TO SUCH A THING, MAYBE SOMEONE WITH A DEATH WISH OR WHO WANTED TO SPEND YEARS BEHIND BARS.

IF YOU WERE NOT A LAWYER YOURSELF, WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT YOUR ATTORNEYS TO STOP SUCH MADNESS, HAVE IT THROWN OUT OF COURT?

THE DEMOCRATS SAY THESE WITNESSES ARE "IN FEAR OF THEIR LIVES".
THAT'S BULL*HIT.

THEY'RE IN FEAR OF BEING REVEALED AS CHARLATANS, LIARS, FRAUDS, WHATEVER ELSE THEY MAY BE BUT HONEST AND DEDICATED TO UPHOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

THESE 'WITNESSES' ARE IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THOSE WHO WANT TO USE SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS AS PART OF A COUP TO UNSEAT A DULY ELECTED UNITED STATES PRESIDENT (EVEN IF HE WAS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE).

WE'VE SEEN ATTEMPTED COUPS AGAINST MANY FORMER PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN BOTH PARTIES ACCUSED OF THE SAME THINGS, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BOTH PARTIES FOUND GUILTY OF THE SAME 'CRIMES', MAKING BOTH PARTIES LEADERS BOTH HYPOCRITES AND UNBELIEVABLE.

THESE WITNESSES SHOULD BE, AS SHOULD ALL OF CONGRESS BE, ADMINISTERED A NICE 'TRUTH SERUM', STRIPPED NAKED, HOOKED UP TO 'LIE DETECTORS', AND THE WHOLE SHEBANG TELEVISED NON-STOP ON LIVE NATIONAL TELEVISION.

THE PUNISHMENT FOR TREASONOUS ACTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS DEATH AND DEATH BY HANGING, ONCE UPON A TIME.

PERHAPS IT'S PAST TIME WE REINSTALL THAT PUNISHMENT? 



_______________________________________

FURTHER READING:
**-- The Constitution is plainly written.  It was intended to be easy to understand. 
The Constitution is also short. 
Why do we need a process for interpreting the Constitution? 

If we have such a process for divining the meaning of the Constitution, why should that process be secret deliberations of nine judges who are effectively unaccountable to the people? 

The problem with federal judicial usurpation of the right to interpret the Constitution is that no one really knows what is "constitutional" and what is not.  If the Supreme Court upheld a congressional statute outlawing the practice of Zoroastrianism in America then the Supreme Court would have violated the Constitution.  But these justices could not even be impeached for that action because they would have just declared that the Constitution allowed Congress to do what it did.

The Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution needed to be changed, from time to time, and that it needed to be clarified as well.  So within the Constitution is Article V, which prescribes just how to change the Constitution.  Nowadays, this way of changing the Constitution is simply ignored.  Instead, federal courts "interpret" the old language of the Constitution instead of legislators either changing that language to allow the Constitution to "grow" or to clarify what the original language meant.  Now, even if the Constitution is amended, federal judges will interpret what that amendment means.

When Congress passes a law, it is constitutional.  This approach sounds scary but it is not.  When Congress passed the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, no federal judges leapt to the defense of the First Amendment.   The legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia determined the laws were unconstitutional, but even more importantly, the voters of America determined the laws were unconstitutional:  the Federalist Party was crushed in the next election and died an ignoble political death.    Americans had no choice but to vote out of Congress members who treated the Constitution so cavalierly.   If courts said nothing about the constitutionality of federal laws, then voters would have to champion the Constitution themselves. 

The Constitution would stop being the mysterious runes of judges and lawyers and become the documentary statement of our liberties defended only by the governed:  the people. 


Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Speedy Trial Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Public Trial Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Right to Trial by Jury Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Arraignment Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Compulsory Process Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Right to Counsel Clause


-- A History of Treason in The United States




//WW