I think it's unseemly to call for the verdict before the trial. Much of the resolution procedes as if the outcome is already known and the trial is a formality. I would replace the "done deal" form of the language and grant Bush & Cheney the presumption of innocence that is the bulwark of just criminal law.
Two examples:
1. Delete the line about the conviction of the Senate, and replace it with:
"...and a trial before the US Senate on said articles of impeachment."
2. Instead of saying "these crimes", there should be a line saying that there is abundant evidence of these crimes.
IOW, phrase the resolution more like a prosecutor outlining his case and less like the execution reading the crimes before beheading.
Interesting blog you have here.
- Josh
The language of impeachment is 'crimes' not 'evidence of crimes'.
The criminal judge and jury trial is independent of impeachment, and is expected afterward.
Thomas, I wish you the best of luck with this and would dearly love to see the LP adopt this stance. But, given the elements at play this go around I doubt such a motion would even be entertained. The LRC would have a massive group stroke and the Boortz brigade would defect to the GOP en mass...hmm...maybe you should put this out there! 
It's a good piece and deserves a hearing on the floor. If I were going this time I'd back it!
Josh,
Any presumption of innocence is applicable only in the trial proceedings. Accusers are not obligated to presume innocence.
You don't go to a court and say "try this person because I presume they're innocent." You ask a court to try someone because you believe they are guilty.
The LRC -- see the appropriate yahoogroup -- are proposing a fellow from Michigan who was expelled from the state Senate for a variety of difficulties, of which DUI was the least. I believe the real warhawks, people like former MA state chair Eli Israel, have long since departed us.
I agree with Josh. Calling for verdict before trial would be grotesquely ironic, since neglecting due process is a big part of the charges.
The 'T' word is missing.
http://tinylink.com/?dXTyTuvMbd
Josh and David,
I've gotta go with Al on this one. The message of the resolution is "J'Accuse!" The resolution is offered on the premise that we believe Bush and Cheney to be guilty of crimes.
"Due process" refers to the mechanics of determining whether or not the allegations are true, but the accuser is perfectly free to hold that they are true and that a trial will so find. Perhaps even obligated to so hold, since if the accuser does not believe that the allegations are true and that a trial will so find, then making them would be at best silly and at worst intentionally false.
Regards,
Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
