politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Reporter Who Exposed Hillary’s Secret Intel Operation: Who Authorized & Financed It?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... on-who-authorized-financed-it/
Published: Mar 29, 2015
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2015-03-29 23:27:47 by out damned spot
Keywords: Intel, operation, Hillary
Views: 99145
Comments: 168
One of the reporters who exposed what appears to have been former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s clandestine and rogue intelligence service said that there are more questions than answers regarding the operation, which was exposed in the hacked emails of Clinton’s longtime confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Appearing on Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125, Jeff Gerth, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, told host and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that he still wanted to know “who authorized or tasked this network to do what they did” and “who was paying for this?” Gerth, the former New York Times reporter who now works for ProPublica, co- authored the report on Clinton’s rogue intelligence operation with Gawker’s Sam Biddle. He said the intelligence operation revealed in the Blumenthal emails reminds him of the Ed Wilson scandal in Libya and the Iran-Contra scandal. He noted that in both cases people were sent to jail or convicted of various crimes. “You don’t just pick this stuff up from the Internet,” he said, noting “there were human intelligence sources inside of Libya that were gathering this information” and relaying it to Blumenthal, who then forwarded the accounts to Clinton’s private email account. Gerth emphasized that the Blumenthal emails are “just a minor tiny percentage of what was going on here.” He said “we got a few pieces but don’t have anywhere near the full puzzle” because journalists have to work “with what the hacker chose to download” and take screenshots of two years ago. According to the Gawker/ProPublica report, “starting weeks before Islamic militants attacked the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, longtime Clinton family confidante Sidney Blumenthal supplied intelligence to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.” Blumenthal’s emails “include at least a dozen detailed reports on events on the deteriorating political and security climate in Libya as well as events in other nations” and they came to light when a Hacker called Guccifer posted them in 2013. On August 23, 2012, less than three weeks before the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, an email, according to the report, cites “‘an extremely sensitive source’ who highlighted a string of bombings and kidnappings of foreign diplomats and aid workers in Tripoli, Benghazi and Misrata, suggesting they were the work of people loyal to late Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi.” As the report points out, Hillary Clinton claimed “that U.S. intelligence officials didn’t have advance knowledge” of security threats in Benghazi, but Blumenthal’s email “portrays a deteriorating security climate” even if the memo, according to Gawker, “doesn’t rise to the level of a warning about the safety of U.S. diplomats.” On the day after the Benghazi attacks, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email sent an email saying a “sensitive source” said that interim Libyan president Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf “was told by a senior security officer” that the Benghazi attacks were “inspired by an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S,” which was the Obama administration’s preferred spin. The next day, though, Blumenthal reportedly sent an email that “said Libyan security officials believed an Islamist radical group called the Ansa al Sharia brigade had prepared the attack a month in advance and ‘took advantage of the cover’ provided by the demonstrations against the video.” Another email in October of 2012 notes “that Magariaf and the Libyan army chief of staff agree that the ‘situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous and unmanageable’ and ‘far worse’ than Western leaders realize.” The report notes that though the intelligence notes were sent under Blumenthal’s name, they “appear to have been gathered and prepared by Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s clandestine service in Europe who left the agency in 2005.” He has since reportedly established a consulting firm– Tyler Drumheller, LLC. The emails also show that “Cody Shearer, a longtime Clinton family operative,” was also in “close contact with Blumenthal.” Blumenthal’s hacked emails also show that “he and his associates worked to help the Libyan opposition, and even plotted to insert operatives on the ground using a private contractor.” The emails reveal that Blumenthal and Shearer were negotiating with former Army General David Grange “to place send four operatives on a week-long mission to Tunis, Tunisia, and ‘to the border and back.'” Grange, “a major general in the Army who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999,” according to the report, “subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence, security training, armament sales, and other services.” The Libyan National Transition Council and Grange’s Osprey Global Solutions, according to documents, agreed that Osprey would “‘assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country’ and train Libyan forces in intelligence, weaponry, and ‘rule-of-land warfare.'” Another email reportedly shows that Drumheller appealed to “then-Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan offering the services of Tyler Drumheller LLC, ‘to develop a program that will provide discreet confidential information allowing the appropriate entities in Libya to address any regional and international challenges.'” In addition to intelligence information from Libya, the Blumenthal memos, according to the report, “cover a wide array of subjects in extreme detail, from German Prime Minister Angela Merkel’s conversations with her finance minister about French president Francois Hollande–marked ‘THIS INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE’—to the composition of the newly elected South Korean president’s transition team.” A Clinton spokesman reportedly told the outlets that the Blumenthal emails were part of the nearly 33,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. As the report notes, “Blumenthal, a New Yorker staff writer in the 1990s, became a top aide to President Bill Clinton and worked closely with Hillary Clinton during the fallout from the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton family.” Hillary Clinton even reportedly “tried to hire him when she joined President Obama’s cabinet in 2009, but White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly nixed the idea” because of Blumenthal’s attacks on Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary. On Breitbart News Sunday, Gerth also reminded listeners how close Blumenthal is to the Clintons–he was the last person, for instance, Hillary Clinton spoke to before she went on the Today show during the Monica Lewinsky affair to allege a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against the Clintons. The emails raise more questions about whether all of the more than 30,000 emails that Clinton deemed to be “personal” were really not “work-related.” Clinton refused to turn her email server over to a third party and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who chairs the House Select Benghazi Committee, revealed on Friday that Clinton had wiped her email server “clean.” Gowdy, citing “huge gaps” in the emails that his committee has received, has indicated that there may be many relevant emails regarding Libya that Clinton may not have turned over, which is why he has indicated that the House may take legal action to get access to Clinton’s email server. “There are gaps of months and months and months. And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand, we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip, Gowdy said on a recent appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “So, it’s strange credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there’s not a single document that has been turned over to Congress. So, there are huge gaps. And with respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what’s not.” Gerth pointed out that “these things these usually have layers to them” and there is a lot more that needs to be unearthed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-108) not displayed.
.
.
.
#109. To: sneakypete (#97)
(The Left's agenda -- that is to kill God and take down Christianity and the underpinnings of morality.) Just how powerful do you really think your freaking God is if some unknown person on the internet can kill him with words and logic? "Killing God" was a metaphor -- I can't believe you couldn't understand it. Oh well. In clearer terms, the ouster and replacement of God as the ultimate answerable authority, as well as the elimination of any definitive standards of morality is the basis for our current state of confusion, chaos, and collective mental instability. Moral relativity -- the inability of America to discern and act on the difference between Right and Wrong-- is what has been killing America. And THAT is whether or not you believe in God or not. This acceptable immoral template began right at the top with...Bill Clinton and allowing he his farcical, criminal Presidency to go unpunished. Again -- one need not be a Christian to understand this irrefutable truth: The Christian ethic and faith has indeed been the traditional foundation and underpinning on from America built its greatness. Tear God away from the America fabric, and you don't have a "good" people, you don't even have an "America"; You have a divided & conquer people of diluted loyalty and common values. The proof of such a claim are the daily headlines, and well the ID and values reflected of the current President. Btw -- was America a better or worse county before or after "gay marriage" was officially shoved down America's throat? Have American more or less "rights" during the last 20 years?
You're agreeing *with* me in part: ("History" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL.) The point: Hitler's sadistic homosexual Brownshirts provided the muscle and numbers for the Nazi Party movement. Why? Because homosexuals are by nature...fascists. In fact,you will be happy to know that Hitler and Stalin both agreed with you that homosexuality was a mental disease,and both send them off to be executed or worked to death in labor camps. Who wasn't tossed into death camps or Gulags?But...but are you saying Hitler and Stalin were both "homophobes"?? :-( Will you be establishing a WWII Gay Victim Museum? When's the pink-ribbon cutting ceremony? What does it say about a Hitler (who was aid to be homosexual himself) in that he knew enough to recruit homosexuals for his first "army"? Moreover, Hitler STILL retained many homosexual sadists within his upper echelon of command. They just had to keep their little secrets...well, secret. Sort of. In defense of both fascist nuts, the American Psychiatric Association proclaimed homosexuality a mental disorder up until 1973, when homosexuals tricked its leadership into changing that status. And at NO time in history were homos EVER thought of as anything BUT sick, mentally ill, and f***ed up in the head (cue the Greek/Roma/Muzzie examples.) Still somehow, someway you're going to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior? And that the rest of us must accept that notion...or be arrested or fired or ostracized? Chyeah, "freedom." "Rights." FOR WHOM AGAIN??
Thanks for the overview, Chan. I enjoy and appreciate your penchant for detail and documentation. Your respective quibbling is obviously between approaching the issues from your legalese "burden of proof" court perspective, versus that of the presumption of guilt based on "proof" constructed via circumstantial, testimony, and dot-connecting. With respect to Hitlery's "firing" or technically "let go" from her position and involvement in Nixon's Impeachment proceedings, the unofficial "word on the street" was that Hitlery was sloppy, ventured into darker gray areas, and acted inappropriately in any case (no, please don't ask for citations :-) Technically and legally, you may be right. But then knowing how history has often been "revised" or redacted when the Clintons (or 0webuma) are the subject, the validity of the official narrative will always be questioned.
Omissions and unavailability of information do not dismiss any notion that Barry O's identity and history have not been manipulated in order to hide damaging revelations. Same as in the respective cases of both Hitlery and Bubba.... What of all the missing, unreleased docs and records of 0webuma? The BC shenanigans (and subsequent odd death of Loretta Fuddy, "verifier" of BO's supposed BC -- a BC that had originally been exposed as fake from the outset?) What of 0webuma's SS#? His parental situation? His transcripts? His relationships with Larry Sinclair, his choir member relationship (and murder?) The white-washed relationship with Bill Ayers? Rev. Wright? The prosecution of those who simply looked into his student loans? Etc-etc?? What of Bubba's serial rapes? The mysterious, suspicious death-trail of associates? Mena? Hitlery's involvement with Vince Foster (and Foster's murder and magically placed file?) Etc-Etc. How can you state without reservation that ANY claim challenging either the 0webumas or the Klintoons are "ridiculous" when it's clear as day that in all cases, shenanigans is the rule rather than exception? It's easy to claim, "WHAT PROOF?!?" when people in high places are manipulating indictable evidence and eliminating witnesses. Or do you also dismiss THAT notion?
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway? Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people? Is nolu merely an algorithm plug-in or a real person with access to the internet in his or her prison cell?
I think nolu is just another inquisitive person and poster who finds these forums a way to vent, connect, and share opinions -- just like most of us. There are those who believe ALL the "official" versions and narratives created by our elites masters and globalist overseers (nolu, and most of the serfs), those who believe most of the "official" narrative (still too many), and then those of us who scarcely believe a word (like me and maybe you ;-) Is nolu merely an algorithm plug-in or a real person with access to the internet in his or her prison cell? Lol... He's real. But he/she's a stickler for technicality and "facts" (even if some are obviously manufactured.) And of course, he/she is virulently anti-conspiracy, which mean his trust in the people running the system (including the judiciary) is 100%. Free Republic used to be that way. But given our respective observation of events and leadership since Reagan left (and especially since 9/11), we all know that THIS benevolent gubmint would NEVER do anything to hurt us, or collude with subversive international Powers That Be to divide, conquer, and destroy our Republic, the Constitution, and our sovereignty. And WHAT "New World Order"?? OH WAIT...
Close,but Christianity doesn't own the patent on ethic behavior. Btw -- was America a better or worse county before or after "gay marriage" was officially shoved down America's throat? Neither. Our problems are related to a thoroughly corrupt ruling class and a population composed of self-centered clowns that think everyone exists to provide for them as individuals. Who marries who has NOTHING to do with it. Who RAISES who is a hell of a lot more important than who marries who. Parents,who by YOUR definition are all heterosexual moralists,gave up their rights and obligations to raise their own children decades ago,and gladly passed them off to the governemnt. THAT is the root of our problems. We now have multi-generations of children that grew up thinking the government is their daddy and mommy. Have American more or less "rights" during the last 20 years? Clearly less,and it had and has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with selfishness and the desire to rule.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
("History" proves that the origins of the Nazi Party were by and large...HOMOSEXUAL.) Yeah,but that wasn't the part I was agreeing with. It's nothing more than fundie propaganda. I do agree that both fundies and Hitler were/are big fans of the "Big Lie",though. Hitler did the same thing all your fundie ministers and every other wannabe dictator does,he gathered the people living on the edges of society,and used them as tools to gain power. And like your fundie ministers,he will abandon them the instant he gains power and doesn't need them anymore. The difference is Hitler hated them enough to have them executed,and for all your dogmatic kneejerk hatred,I doubt you or your cult leader want to execute them. You just want them to somehow "go away". Still somehow, someway you're going to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior? It IS normal behavior for homosexuals. Just how fucking thick are you that you can't understand that? These people are no threat to you in any way other than political,and you and the other fundies brought that on yourselves by making them political targets. Naturally they move to the side that wants their votes instead of the side that wants them put into mental hospitals. And truth to be told,people who worship non-existant creatures that live somewhere in the sky who are going to reward them with eternal life for being faithful cult members are a better fit for mental hospitals than people who just want to have sex with the people that sexually attract them. BTW,what is your thoughts on the fundie ministers that have been caught having homosexual sex,or sex with the married women in their cults?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
A Dim drone hired to disrupt and stop any criticisms of Bubbette! as she heads off on her White House quest. His job is to find ONE detail in ANY argument or discussion that hasn't been proven to be true in court,and then imply if that one detail is not proven to be true,the whole argument MUST be false. That part doesn't offend me. The part that offends me is he's actually stupid enough to think this makes him clever. He is nothing more than a distraction and a minor cog in the Dim machine.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I didn't say that, nor was it my intent. Just that America's ethics were Christian-Bible based (even IF one wasn't Christian), while America itself moderated its behavior accordingly and by the Golden Rule. Our problems are related to a thoroughly corrupt ruling class and a population composed of self-centered clowns that think everyone exists to provide for them as individuals. Who marries who has NOTHING to do with it. You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? You have GOT to be kidding me. That corruption you allude to and self-centered clowns (aka narcissism) defines the Left and the militant gay agenda and insistence (or ELSE!) on acceptance of homo-marriage to a tee. Not that all the problem can be attributed to homofascism -- on that point you're right. Who RAISES who is a hell of a lot more important than who marries who. Yes, and since LBJ's Great Leftist Society, fathers were encouraged to leave families, divorces was encouraged, and sodomists were given parental "rights" (where NONE exist.) It's been an epic formula for FUBARing America. Parents,who by YOUR definition are all heterosexual moralists,gave up their rights and obligations to raise their own children decades ago,and gladly passed them off to the governemnt. THAT is the root of our problems. We now have multi-generations of children that grew up thinking the government is their daddy and mommy. You're partially absolutely correct -- especially on the surrender of independence ceded to gubmint (especially as Sugar Daddy.) You're right as well as the afore mentioned destruction of the family unit (especially blacks.) But in NO way shape or form have moral hetrosexual/normal people surrendered their respective "rights and obligations" to gubmint to raise their own kids. Don't know how you can conclude that.
Hitler did the same thing all your fundie ministers and every other wannabe dictator does,he gathered the people living on the edges of society,and used them as tools to gain power. And like your fundie ministers,he will abandon them the instant he gains power and doesn't need them anymore. The difference is Hitler hated them enough to have them executed,and for all your dogmatic kneejerk hatred,I doubt you or your cult leader want to execute them. You just want them to somehow "go away". Just when you've scaled height of insanity to Mount Everest you've exceeded you own record; Your insanity can now be discussed atop Mount Olympus. There's no refuting a cartoon character. It IS normal behavior for homosexuals. Just how fucking thick are you that you can't understand that? So because sodomists, psychopaths, necrophiliacs, and other assorted mentally ill lunatics all declare themelvces "normal," is reason to accept their mutant sickness, behavior and acts? On what planet are YOU on? These people are no threat to you in any way other than political... Oh, is THAT all? And who, genius, do you think controls laws and enforcement? POLITICIANS. Guess who are being coerced to think and act BY LAW a certain way (so not to "offend" sodomists? Yup. SODOMISTS-in-CHARGE.And their tool-box accessories, like you) BTW,what is your thoughts on the fundie ministers that have been caught having homosexual sex,or sex with the married women in their cults? They're hypocrites and sinners, and don't belong in leadership positions that represent the word of God. Next question?
No,and if you were to be honest with yourself,neither can you. Homosexuals as a group had ZERO political influence prior to the 90's,and in fact any politician or other public figure had negative influence if he or she were a known homosexual. Even that fruit Barney Frank stayed married to a woman and in the closet. Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,and he's a re-run governor of the land of fruits and nuts. His first time as Governor he pretended he and Linda Ronstadt were a couple to give him and her both cover. They are both homosexuals. American culture had been destroyed a LONG time before homosexuals came out and became a political force. Your,and other fundie Christians claims they destroyed American culture ranks right up there with the insanity you promote that homosexuals being married somehow lessens the value of your own marriages. Yes, and since LBJ's Great Leftist Society, fathers were encouraged to leave families, divorces was encouraged, and sodomists were given parental "rights" (where NONE exist.) It's been an epic formula for FUBARing America. No argument there! But in NO way shape or form have moral hetrosexual/normal people surrendered their respective "rights and obligations" to gubmint to raise their own kids. Don't know how you can conclude that. If it's not true,how did all those laws get passed and how did they stay on the books? I know that MY claim is the vast majority of the families in this country consist of a heterosexual mother and father,and I assume you agree with this. If this is so where were they when the laws were passed that took away their parental rights (OBLIGATIONS!),and why were and are they silent on these issues? Trust me,I am as pissed off about this particular issue as your are,since in my mind this is at the root of the whole thing.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It's normal for THEM,and I would love to see every single "sodomist" (sodomite) in your church outed as sodomites and kicked out of your church. If that were to happen,there wouldn't be enough members there next Sunday to hold a bridge game. I suspect you might even be out looking for a new church to attend. BTW,are you really and truly so ignorant that you put sodomites (if you are going to rant and rave about how you hate something,you should at least use the correct word) in the same category as psychopaths,necrophiliacs,and other mentally ill people? BTW,in YOUR opinion,are cult members mentally ill? is reason to accept their mutant sickness, behavior and acts? It's not for me to accept or not accept. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know about it. *I* am not the one obsessed with homosexuality. On what planet are YOU on? Earth. You should take the time for a long visit here sometime. Nice place,mostly.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
My goodness she was a looker, back in the day.
You noticed that, did you. Lol
My goodness she was a looker, back in the day. And had the voice of a angel. Now she has some sort of disease that can't be treated that prevents her from singing. I know she is old now and not touring or making records like she used to,but her losing her voice is still a loss to the world.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
YOU DON'T KNOW IF HAVING TO BAKE A CAKE FOR YOUR FAG RELATIVES MAKES US BETTER. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE 1. A FAGGOT 2. YOU ARE AN IMMORAL FOOL 3. FAGS ARE SHARING THE CAKE WITH YOU AND YOU LIKE SLAVES MAKING YOUR CAKE. Pete your vision for the future is evil. People who try to implement your vision should be put down like a rabid dog. You're not smart. You're not clever. You're not moral. You're immoral. Your memory the past America doesn't exist. Pete look in the mirror you're and meguro are the problem.
How do you khow? Did you see him in your closet with you?
Pete you are mentally ill if you believe that statement. Just because your family is loaded with queers. The rest of America isn't. You're obviously a homosexual. You get bent out of shape if anyone criticizes your people.
Connecting Parkinson's disease and drug addiction: common players reveal unexpected disease connections and novel therapeutic approaches" www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21375485 AKA: "I-shouldn't-have-done-all-those-drugs-itis"
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease Sex, Drugs and Parkinson's Disease Etc.
You're still mad that you had to marry a woman,ain't you? Isn't that at the core of your extreme hatred towards homosexual marriages,and why you think they somehow make your marriage less valid? Tell us all,are there any other groups of citizens in America that you demand be treated like Second Class citizens that have fewer rights than the rest of us?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
How do you khow? Did you see him in your closet with you? I saw him passing love notes to you. And just how shrewd are you to think I would be in the closet when of the two of us,*I* am the one that demands homosexuals be treated like everyone else and admit to having homosexual relatives?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yes, great voice. I wore out many of her tapes.
I think thou protest too much. BTW,you DO know that males and females can commit sodomy with each other,right? In YOUR mind,does that make them homosexuals?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I guess that makes me safe,because I never did care much for cocaine,and wouldn't have given you 5 dollars for a dump truck load back when I was getting high. Tried it several times,and it never did do anything for me. BTW,I have no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days. I am just assuming she did a fair amount based on her lifestyle,occupation,wealth,and "the 60's". Even if she did a pound a day,she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"Linda Ronstadt, who did her share of cocaine during her heyday as the leading female rock singer of the '70s, thinks marijuana and other drugs should be legalized..." www.celebstoner.com/news/...ll-drugs-should-be-legal/ Yep. www.amazon.com/Whats-New-Linda-Ronstadt/dp/B00006LSRY It's tragic. And what's more tragic is that her opinions and the gift of her voice were rendered into the bleating of a drug abusing Judas goat.
Look Closer. EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. NIXON: Huh? EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage. NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]? EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over. NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again. EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants. NIXON: Jesus Christ.
"8-1984 - Lawrence King [Homosexual and alleged Pedophile] throws a lavish party in Dallas, Texas, after singing the National Anthem at the Republican National GOP Convention." http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
Uhhh,I don't consider Nixon and Ehrlichman to have been the most alert people on the planet back then. As far as that goes,San Francisco and The Bohemian Grove crowd were a small crowd most Americans had never even heard of,and would have ridiculed if they had. They were almost exclusively a rich,trendy,trust fund crowd. I pass through San Francisco a couple of times in the 60's thanks to my army travel agent. The first time was in 65,and the second time was in 68. Both times I was wearing Army dress greens and a Green Beret with jump boots,and not a single hippy tried to hassle me. I got invited to parties,and everybody wanted to talk to me and ask my what I thought of the VN war. Let's just say they heard a different take on it than the one they were used to hearing,but they all politely listened to me and we had a non-hostile debate. The only trouble I had was with a black shoeshine guy on Market street. I ended up knocking him on his ass and kicking him in the head inside the Doggy Diner. Some people you just can't reason with,so you have to use other methods. BTW,if I saw a homosexual during either of my visits to San Francisco I didn't know it. All I really remember seeing was young males and females wanting to get together and hump their brains out.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Ok,so a home sang the National Anthem at a Republican even in Dallas in 1984. Big deal. It was a local event,and he was the hired help. Maybe Boy Jorge hired him so he wouldn't feel lonesome?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The NATIONAL GOP convention is "local". LOL. GeeOpie - Eyes Wide Shut much?
[sneakypete #105] I love the way you state they are "absurd claims" yet never come right out and say they are not true. I have stated many times previously that the absurd claims you puked up, as posted by others over the past years, are not only absurd, but absurdly untrue. If they were true, they would not be absurd. If they were possibly true, they would not be absurd. They are not possibly true, have been proven utterly untrue for ten years, and are utter garbage. They are completely indefensible, therefore you cannot make any real effort to defend the claims you made by your supposed recall of the news.
Why, no. You must have been in a coma for at least 20 years, since the Nixon tapes started getting released and removed any and all doubt. The “partisan” committee voted for the articles of impeachment, Article I (27-11), Article II (28-10) and Article III (21-17). That was before the smoking gun tape was released. When it was about to come to vote of the full house, Nixon resigned. He had almost no support in the House and was informed by the leading Senators that he faced certain conviction in the Senate with less than 15 senators still supporting him. Hearing him commit crimes in tape recorded conversations removes doubt in all except those who refuse to hear. Perhaps it was House Resolution 803 that passed 410-4 that you find partisan. RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.
I will not ask for citations because none exist. Despite the descriptions of Hillary’s presentation of procedures to the committee, the transcript of the proceedings indicate she did not say a mumbling word. The junior counsel do not get speaking roles in the high drama. The presentations were made by John Doar, Special Counsel, and Joseph Woods., Senior Associate Special Counsel. I did find one place where Hillary Rodham’s name came up. In Book I where the Impeachment Inquiry Procedures were presented to the subcommittee, Rep. Kastenmeier (chairman) presiding. From page 378: Mr. WOODS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left is Hillary Rodham and John Labovitz; on the far right John Davidson of the inquiry staff. The following is the draft of procedures to which the chairman referred. Mr. KASTENMEIER. It is captioned “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures,” is that correct? Mr. WOODS: That is correct, sir. The document referred to is herein titled “Impeachment Inquiry Procedures.” The Committee on the Judiciary states the following procedures applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry pursuant to House Resolution 803, subject to modification by the committee as it deems proper as the presentation proceeds. [Reading:] On page 400, it shows that the procedures, as amended, were adopted unanimously. To see how the Impeachment Inquiry Staff actually functioned, and how the neophyte attorney Hillary Rodham was actually assigned “grunt work” see the following from the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. In Joseph Woods recorded interview by Timothy Naftali, October 27, 2011, the Richard Nixon Oral History Project of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, one finds: At ii: Joseph Woods served as Senior Associate Special Counsel to U.S. House of Representatives Impeachment Inquiry Staff in 1974. Woods headed the Constitutional and Legal Section of the Inquiry Staff. At 6-7: Woods: Of course, he was the ultimate decider of all issues that had to do with the functioning of the staff. [...] Woods: … The organization of the inquiry staff was quite different. Each task force within the operation was made up of committee staff and minority staff so that Weld and Davidson, for example, who were on the minority staff were members of my unit, my task force, and Weld was involved in the writing of the grounds of impeachment memo. As I recall it, Davidson was not. He was involved with other projects. I think we worked effectively. [...] And [keep] in mind that there were no criminal statutes of the United States at the time that the Constitution was adopted but the Constitution had in it high crimes and misdemeanors. It couldn’t have meant crimes as it came to be defined in the criminal statutes of the United States because there was no United States and therefore there were no such statutes. There were no federal crimes. At 8: Woods: Yes. The Grounds of Impeachment report was issued in February 1974, printed by the GPO, and the foreward was signed by Peter Rodino on February 22, 1974. At 10: Woods: She did not work on the memo. Her principle role came later in working with me to draft the procedures that the committee would follow in conducting its hearings on the evidence. She and I essentially did that. Obviously with John Doar’s approval, but Hillary and I wrote those procedures. [...] Woods: Well, the starting point is the rules for the conduct of those procedures could be whatever the committee decided they were going to be. They dirivited from the fact that the sole power of impeachment is lodged in the House of Representatives is the proposition that the House can make its own rules. And those rules could be as restrictive and as secretive, provide for secrecy. Then there’s the liberal cast of the Democrats on the committee who were firmly committed to the proposition that there has to be due process about everything and that open hearings and the opportunity to confront witnesses, the opportunity to present a rebuttal case, and all these things that are part of what the United States are all about. At 11: At 15: Woods: I knew about it and I knew that Hillary had a key role in that project but I did not – and I met Dr. Woodward when he was down at the staff offices at one time but no, I did not have anything to do with the decision to retain him or with the project with him as it went forward. Naftali: Can you recall what role Hillary Rodham played in that? Woods: Well, I think she was the liaison with Dr. Woodward. Beyond that, I can’t answer the question. Naftali: Was this Mr. Doar’s idea do you know? Woods: That, I don’t know. Certainly, it was one that he approved of or it wouldn’t have happened. At 21-23: Woods: Well, she was an excellent person to work with. She is the one person that I asked for to be on my task force. I was very much impressed by her when I met her the day that she and I both reported for duty back then and I specifically requested John Doar to put her on my task force, which he did. She would do what you asked her to do. I never heard her express any reticence to undertake a task that might seem mundane given that she had recently finished a prestigious law school. She was a very diligent worker. Was easy to work with. I give her very high marks all around. Naftali: Since she did not write or help write the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what were her first tasks? Woods: John Doar was very distrustful of computers and, in any event, they were in their infancy at the time. When I got there in January of ’74 there was not such a thing as a memory typewriter in the organization and I believe that was probably true in the Congress but I’m not sure about that. It certainly was a fact in the inquiry staff and I was able to, after some argument, to get an IBM Selectric typewriter for my secretary and whenever people had things they wanted to be able to revise they were forever seeking her assistance because she had the one machine in the office that was capable of any sort of memory. Against that background, we had to have some kind of system to try to make a given bit of information available to people in various categories of inquiry. Let’s take an incident that took place that both John Doar and I had great significance. It took place in Key Biscayne when Mr. Nixon learned of the Watergate report of the apprehension of the Watergate burglars. He threw an ashtray across the room. Both Doar and I thought that that was the disgust of a person who said they blew it. That it was not the anger of someone who thought it was the wrong thing to have done. Now, that makes very nicely the distinction between the Statement of Information and the fact, if you will. And so the Statement of Information ultimately would be just a report of the throwing of the ashtray without any comment as to what the significance of that might’ve been. With that particular incidents could’ve had ramifications for different people looking into little bits of this and that somewhere in the factual investigation so, if we had computers, it would’ve been easy to bring up that information. It certainly would be now and I think it would’ve been then, to bring up that information in various context. But we didn’t have that capability. So what we did was to develop a system of punch cards where we put these pieces of information on the card and then we notched out things that it didn’t apply to and assigned little holes to different categories of inquiry and then if you wanted to find all of the incidents that fell within a certain category, you ran a long knitting needle through the holes at the end and you pulled up the cards that hadn’t been notched out. It was that primitive. And as a way station toward developing those cards, we had a system of little, not even 3X5, even smaller than that, coupons that were produced in carbon in numerous copies and these were filed in different databases, if you will. And designing those little coupons and working out the system of the cards that were going to be picked up by the knitting needles was something that Hillary and I worked on. And that’s what she was doing, which is essentially grunt work, while some of the other people had the fun of writing the grounds memo. And she never complained. Naftali: Then you gave her the more interesting task of working on the procedures. Woods: Well, that’s true. Naftali: By the way, this whole process emerged because Mr. Doar didn’t like computers. Woods: Well, I’m not sure what the capabilities of computers were at that time and I’m not sure I understand what they are yet. But I’m gradually getting there, but very gradually. Naftali: So you and Hillary Rodham worked then with the library. With Maureen, because the library – wasn’t that where all these coupons were placed in the end? Woods: Beats me where they were. I don’t remember. I simply don’t remember. I get the general impression that the system was not very successful. That it didn’t serve the purpose very well. But of course I’m not sure that the computers of that day would’ve been that helpful either. Naftali: I’m just wondering, where you got the idea for the knitting needle and the – where did that come from? I know it’s been a long time, but do you remember where that came from? Woods: No. No, I do not. Naftali: But anyhow, you and Hillary basically distilled the material down to these cards which would then be transferred to these punch cards. Woods: No, I’m not trying to say that she was making the entries on the cards. I’m saying that she and I worked on trying to figure out what the system was going to be. I think it was a mighty a labor to produce a mouse, to define one now. It was just not a successful thing.
I did not cite any claim challenging the Clintons. There are so many valid claims that the claims made by sneakypete are unnecessary, and as inexcusably absurd as the claim that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, or that Nixon committed no crime other than the coverup of “the break-in”. The proof that Obama did not lose his citizenship in Indonesia is that it was legally impossible. Indonesian law provided that adopted children under the age of 5 years could automatically obtain citizenship. Obama was not 4 years old. So, it did not happen under Indonesian law, which also prohibited naturalization if it resulted in dual citizenship. Even if Obama had been eligible and Indonesia officially had granted him Indonesian citizenship, there is not an act a parent can do which relieves an American born child of his or her citizenship. Remarriage to a foreigner does not do it. The parent cannot revoke citizenship for a minor child. There appears to be no evidence of an official adoption but it is irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf 66 Stat. 267, PUBLIC LAW 414, JUNE 27, 1952 NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952 LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN Sec. 349. (a) From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: And provided further, That a person who shall have lost nationality prior to January 1, 1948, through the naturalization in a foreign state of a parent or parents, may, within one year from the effective date of this Act, apply for a visa and for admission to the United States as a nonquota immigrant under the provisions of section 101 (a) (27) (E) ; or .... http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf See the scoresheet for birther futility in court (0-220) for decided cases.
Why should this thread have over 1,200 views? Why should anyone believe someone who posts urban legends? Why should anyone believe someone who cannot post any documentation for his or her claims? Cited and linked relevant official documents are not “documention”, they are just documentation. Presumably, you prefer fiction to fact.
His job is to find ONE detail in ANY argument or discussion that hasn't been proven to be true in court,and then imply if that one detail is not proven to be true,the whole argument MUST be false. Actually, I did not contest “ONE detail.” I contested every single detail in the 10-year old debunked urban legend that was puked up on the board by sneakypete. It is all false or baseless. The source is urban legends spun from and exaggerated from a Dan Calabrese column. You can't be ignorant enough to be serious! I am no fan of Richard "Wage and Price Controls,and lets open relations with China while we are at it!" Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime. On the other hand,BOTH Clintons have been involved in treason since their college days. Hillary was even caught manufacturing evidence against Nixon when she worked for the Watergate committee,and hiding evidence favorable to him and was fired for it by Archibald Cox with the recommendation that "she never be hired or appointed to any position of trust with the government in the future." Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) Nixon was guilty of much more than a coverup. There is no evidence the Clintons committed treason in their college days. Hillary was not caught manufacturing evidence. Hillary was not caught hiding evidence favorable to Nixon. Hillary was not fired. Archibald Cox was the former Special Prosecutor for the Senate. The alleged recomendation is a fairy tale. Of course, Hillary had a secret intel operation. She wiped her server clean. The Guccifer hack shows intel reports being sent to Hillary’s server. The events of Benghazi could still use some explaining. There are probably a few hundred other real items worth discussing.
“THE” BREAK-IN August 28, 1971 September 3, 1971 May 26, 1971 May 27, 1971 May 27-28 June 17, 1972 Of course, the above list of actual break-ins does not include the break-in of the Brookings Institution ordered by President Nixon. On the White House Tapes, Conversation Number 533-1, on June 30, 1971, Presdent Nixon is heard saying to H.R. Haldeman, “The way I want that handled, Bob, is to do it another way. I want—I want Brookings—I want them to just break in.” The head/co-chair of the White House Special Investigations Unit put a sign on the door of his office, Room 16 in the basement of the Old Executive office Building, DAVID R. YOUNG, PLUMBER. Thus, the unit became known as the plumbers. David Young was at the White House on July 1, 1971 and the Special Investigations Unit came into formal existence on July 24, 1971. Its existence as an extra-legal intelligence service was a crime. Everyone involved in bringing it into existence and supporting its continued existence were members of a criminal conspiracy and equally guilty of every criminal act entered into by any member of the conspiracy. While the break-in of the Brookings Institution was called off, the initial concrete step or overt act did occur. The formation of the criminal conspiracy was complete and it included President Nixon. He was subsequently criminally liable for their criminal existence, criminal funding, and all crimes committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of the conspiracy, whether he had any advance knowledge of the acts or whether he approved the acts or not. Nixon’s criminal acts predated the break-in of June 17, 1972. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41223.pdf Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview Charles Doyle April 30, 2010 7-7500 At 9: In the 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Report No. 93-1305, “Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,” August 20, 1974, at page 3, discussing impeachment Article 2, the report states, (4) He has failed to take care tat the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impete and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial, and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry ito the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities, including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveilance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practice of the Committee to Re-elect the President. (5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed. At page 35, under “Prior Covert Activities” is found, At 36, Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers in June 1971, the President created a special investigations unit which engaged in covert and unlawful activities. (Book VII, 620-23, 651) This organization (dubbed “the Plumbers) by its members) was based in the White House, under the immediate supervision of John Erlichman. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy worked in the Unit. (Book VII, 651) The Plumbers acquired from the FBI information about the Pentagon Papers investigation (Book VII, 952-53)), twice requested the CIA to prepare psychological profiles of Daniel Elsberg (Book VII, 898-99), 1401-03), and formulated a plan to acquire derogatory information about Ellsberg to leak to the press for political purposes. (Book VII, 1126-28) In August, 1971, after obtaining Ehrlichman’s approval for a covery operation, provided it was not traceable, Plumbers co-directors Egil Krough and David Young authorized Hunt and Liddy to undertake an operation to gain access to Ellsberg’s psyciatric records. (Book VII, 1240-44) On September 3, 1971, a team consisting of Bernard Barker, Felipe DeDiego and Eugenio Martinez (all of whom subsequently participated in one of the Watergate break-ins), acting under the direction and immediate supervision of Hunt and Liddy, illegally broke into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. (Book VII, 1281-87)
Article IV (failed 12-26 because “most Committee members believed that Nixon’s false tax return was a ‘personal,’ non-governmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President.” (1) He, during the period for which he has been elected President, unlawfully received compensation in the form of government expenditures at and on his privately-owned properties located in or near San Clemente, California, and Key Biscayne, Florida. (2) He knowingly and fraudulently failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the year 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000. In all of this Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Impeachment Inquiry, Statement of Information, Book X, Tax Deduction for Gift of Papers, page 19: On April 17, 1974, the President and Mrs. Nixon paid by check the amount of deficiency and penalty for 1970, 1971, and 1972, totalling $284,707.16. Nixon was not legally required to pay the amount for 1969 which was $148,080.97. He announced he was paying it but did not do so. The House Judiciary Committee rejected proposed Article 4. The evidence of fraud was overwhelming. The Statement of Information sets it forth in detail with supporting exhibits. That was not why Article 4 was rejected. It was rejected because filing fraudulent tax returns was not considered relevant to Nixon’s performance of his office. Congressional Record – House, V. 144, No. 154, December 19, 1998, pp. H11932 - H11933 [Mr. Brad Sherman speaking] Mr. Speaker, I would call this House a kangaroo court, but that would be an insult to marsupials everywhere. December 17, 1998. News Flash 1974: Judiciary Determined Lying Under Oath In Private Matter is Not Impeachable—a Review of Nixon Tax Perjury Article Dear Colleague: In 1974 the Judicary Committee established a precedent that a crime committed in private life (i.e., Richard Nixon's tax fraud) does not warrant the impeachment of the President. 1969 tax fraud, the Committee was swayed principally by the legal principles defining an impeachable offense, not by the lack of factual evidence against Richard Nixon. The crimes which the Judicary Committee found did not warrant the impeachment of President Nixon are virtually identifical to the two perjury charges against President Clinton. President Nixon knowingly filed a 1969 tax return which fradulently claimed that he had donated pre-presidential papers before the date Congress eliminated the charitable tax deduction for such donations. President Nixon, knowing his return was false as to this $576,000 deduction, signed his name under the words: ''Under penalty of perjury, i declare that i have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.'' In July 1974 Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), a Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced an Article of impeachment alleging that President Nixon had signed ''Under penalty of perjury'' a tax return which Nixon knew was false. while Mezvinsky argued that filing the tax return was an abuse of public power because Nixon knew his red-flag $576,000 deduction would not trigger an audit because he was President. However, most Committee members believed that Nixon's false tax return was a ''personal,'' nongovernmental crime, and thus did not warrant the impeachment of the President. The Judiciary Committee voted 26 to 12 against impeaching Nixon for his false tax return. Technically, Nixon committed ''tax fraud'' not ''perjury'' and was subject to prosecution under the Internal Revenue Code. Yet Nixon's crime (covered by his pardon) was almost identical to the perjury of which Clinton is accused (and is referred to here as ''tax perjury'') 1. Nixon signed a document under the words ''under penalty of perjury, i declare 2. He presented false information to a federal agency. 3. Nixon lied when he had a legal obligation, enforceable by federal felony statutes, to tell the truth. 4. Nixon's false statements related to a private matter—his personal liability for federal taxes. (Clinton testified regarding his personal liability to Paula Jones.) 5. Nixon ignored the ''rule of law'' and his legal obligation to tell the truth. Some have argued that the Judiciary Committee did not pass a Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Nixon only because the facts were unclear. A review of the Committee Report shows that some members thought the factual evidence against Nixon was weak, while other Members thought that a criminal act in the conduct of personal affairs did not warrant the impeachment of the President. (see attached excerpt.) Most of the Members of the Judiciary Committee did not speak on the record on the Tax Perjury Article. So how are we to know the reason for their vote and the precedent the 26 to 12 vote established. The person most aware of the reasoning of the Committee Members regarding the Article is its author Edward Mezvinsky (D-IA), who lobbied his colleagues on both side of the aisle to get his Article adopted. I called Mr. Mezvinsky yesterday and talked with him at length about his efforts in 1974 to convince his colleagues to vote for his Article. He told me that the clear majority of those who voted against his Article did so because they concluded that a crime committed in private life, which did not relate to an abuse of Presidential power and was not as heinous as murder or rape, did not warrant the impeachment of a President. Mr. Mezvinsky is a Democrat. Is he remembering or interpreting the vote on his 1974 Article of impeachment to establish a precedent favorable to our current Democratic President? Has his memory faded with time over the last 24 years? Fortunately, in 1975 Mezvinsky wrote an article for the Georgetown Law Journal describing the thought process of his colleagues and providing a contemporaneous statement of the legal conclusions reached in 1974 by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Mezvinsky first explains the staff guidance the Committee received, and then the conclusion of the Members of the Committee, which followed that guidance. ''The staff nevertheless injected a requirement of substantiality into the impeachment formula: to constitute an impeachable offense, presidential conduct must be 'seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.' [Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry, House Comm. On the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 26-27 (Comm. Print 1974).]'' ''Most opponents of the Tax Article felt that willful tax evasion did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal of the President.''—Edward Mezvinsky, Georgetown Law Journal, 1975, Volume 63: 1071 at pages 1078-1079. The record on the Nixon impeachment process further supports the conclusion that impeachment of a President is warranted only for an offense against our very system, an offense subversive of the government itself. A memorandum setting forth the views of certain Republican Members (including current senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) of the Judiciary Committee in 1974 similarly emphasized the necessarily serious and public character of any alleged offense: ''It is not a fair summary . . . to say that the Framers were principally concerned with reaching a course of conduct, whether or not criminal, generally inconsistent with the proper and effective exercise of the office of the presidency. They were concerned with preserving the government from being overthrown by the treachery or corruption of one man. . . . [I]t is our judgment, based upon this constitutional history, that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended that the President should be removable by the legislative branch only for serious misconduct dangerous to the system of government established by the Constitution." [Nixon Report at 364-365 (Minority Views of Messrs. Hutchinson, Smith, Sandman, Wiggins, Dennis, Mayne, Lott, Moorhead, Maraziti and Latta) (final emphasis added).] A 1975 law journal article tells the story. In 1974 a Judiciary Committee, dominated by Democrats, was confronted with a President who had lied on a tax return signed ''under penalty of perjury.'' That crime dishonored President Nixon, undermined respect for law, and called into doubt Mr. Nixon's credibility on public matters. However the Committee applied the following formula: seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. That same standard should be applied to President Clinton. The first two articles allege that President Clinton lied ''under penalty of perjury'' and through that action undermined respect for law, and his own credibility and honor. Yet President Clinton's actions do not warrant the impeachment of a President under the standards formulated by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and applied by most Committee Members in rejecting the Tax Perjury Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. I urge you to follow the standard enunciated and followed by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 and reject the first two Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton. I hope you will also join me in voting against the third and fourth Articles as well. Very truly yours, Brad Sherman. EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JULY 1974, ON AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF RICHARD M. NIXON, DEALING WITH TAX FRAUD/TAX PERJURY Mr. Railsback (R-IL)—I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. (Pg. 524). Mr. Hogan (R-MD)—The staff report on grounds for impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: ''As a technical term high crimes signified a crime against the system of government, not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one.'' (Pg. 541) Mr. Mayne (R-IA)—. . . even if criminal fraud had been proved, then we would still have the question whether its a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past six years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. (Pg. 545) Mr. Waldie (D-CA)—I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers . . . And though I find the conduct of the President in these instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a presidential power that has been so grossly abused that . . . [it is] . . . sufficient to warrant impeachment. (Pg. 548) Mr. Thornton (D-AR)—I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns . . . But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course in the regular process of the law. This committee is not a tax fraud court, nor a criminal court, nor should it endeavor to be one. our charge is full and serious enough, in determining whether high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of government must be brought December 18, 1998 to the attention of the full House . . . (Pg. 549) Zeifman, with reference to the Douglas Inquiry where the question was posed, "… What then, is an impeachable offense?" relied on the claim of that legal giant Gerald Ford, who famously replied, See CRS Report 98-882 A, Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials, Updated October 29, 1998, by Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist, American Law Division, at page 24. At pages 28-32, this same report presents some differing expert opinion: Charles Black “Omitting qualifications, and recognizing that the definition is only an approximation, I think we can say that ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ in the constitutional sense, ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather obviously wrong, whether or not ‘criminal,’ and which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make petulant and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator. The fact that such an act is also criminal helps, even if it is not essential, because a general societal view of wrongness, and sometimes of seriousness, is, in such a case, publicly and authoritatively recorded. “The phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ carries another connotation—that of distinctness of offense. It seems that a charge of high crime or high misdemeanor ought to be a charge of a definite act or acts, each of which in itself satisfies the above requirements. General lowness and shabbiness ought not to be enough. The people take some chances when they elect a man to the presidency, and I think this is one of them,” BLACK, IMPEACHMENT: A HANDBOOK, 39-40 (1974). “The ‘President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Convictions of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ was an English term of art that denoted political crimes against the state, and the choice of this phrase was a deliberate and considered action. By including that English phrase, our Founding Fathers intended to expand the scope of impeachable offenses beyond the scope of criminally indictable offenses. This language incorporates political offenses against the state that injure the structure of government and tarnish the integrity of the political office. As Alexander Hamilton observed, these political offenses include breaches of the public trust that a president assumes once he has taken office. Hamilton made this point in the Federalist, describing impeachable crimes as ‘those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuses or violations of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”, BARR, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, 2 TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW AND POLICY 1, 9-10 (1997). “The concept of an impeachable offense guts an impeachment case of the very factors — repetition, pattern, coherence — that tend to establish the requisite degree of seriousness warranting the removal of a president from office. . . . “The most pertinent precedent in this nation’s history for framing a case for the removal of a chief executive may well be the earliest — the Declaration of Independence. In expressing reasons for throwing off the government of George III, the Continental Congress did not claim that there had been a single offense justifying revolution. Instead, it pointed to a course of conduct; it ‘pursu[ed] invariably the same Object’ and evinced a common design; it ‘all [had] in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States.’ It was this pattern of wrongdoing taken together, not each specification considered alone, that showed the unfitness of George III to be the ruler of the American people. . . . [T]he unfitness of a president to continue in office is to be judged in much the same way: with reference to totality of his conduct and the common patterns that emerge, not in terms of whether this or that act of wrongdoing, viewed in isolation, is an impeachable offense,” LABOVITZ, PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT, 129-31 (1978). “It can therefore be concluded that impeachment is not a political tool for arbitrary removal of officials; that the standard for what constitutes an impeachable offense is not based on an inflexible historical precedent or on the judicial tenure clause; that impeachment is not limited to crimes, whether indictable or otherwise; and that the sanction of impeachment does not extend to noncriminal misconduct unless it involves violation of statutory law, the conduct of the respondent’s official duties or an abuse of his official position. “Within these limitations, it is extremely difficult to define the proper standard for an impeachable offense in affirmative terms. . . . “The only generalization which can safely be made is that an impeachable offense must be serious in nature. . . . “While there are no clear rules as to what constitutes a serious offense, there are a number of factors which are relevant. Thus an offense is more serious if it is a criminal violation or if it involves moral turpitude. In the words of one court, It may be safely asserted that where the act of official delinquency consists in the violation of some provision of the constitution or statute which is denounced as a crime or misdemeanor, or where it is a mere neglect of duty willfully done, with a corrupt intention, or where the negligence is so gross and disregard of duty so flagrant as to warrant the inference that it was willful and corrupt, it is within the definition of a misdemeanor in office. But where it consists of a mere error of judgment or omission of duty without the element of fraud, and where the negligence is attributable to a misconception of duty rather than a willful disregard thereof, it is not impeachable, although it may be highly prejudicial to the interests of the State,” Fenton, The Scope of the Impeachment Power, 65 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 719, 745-7 (1970). “Despite then-Congressman Gerald Ford’s well-known assertion that ‘an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be’, there is now wide agreement that the phrase ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanor’ was intended by the Framers to connote a relatively limited category closely analogous to the ‘great offences’ impeachable in common law England. In addition to treason and bribery, the ‘great offences’ included misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on or contempt of legislative prerogatives, and corruption. “There have been only two serious attempts to impeach American Presidents. In both instances, the offenses charged reflected the impact of the common law tradition discussed here: offenses have been regarded as impeachable if and only if they involve serious abuse of official power,” TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 217 (1978). “I have dwelt the longer on this point because many seem to think that a public officer can be impeached for a mere act of indecorum. On the contrary, he must have committed a true crime, not against the law of England but against the law of the United States. As impeachment is nothing but a mode of trial, the Constitution only adopts it as a mode of procedure, leaving the crimes to which it is to be applied to be settled by the general rules of criminal law. “. . . [A]s there are under the laws of the United States no common law crimes, but only those which are contrary to some positive statutory rule, there can be no impeachment except for a violation of a law of Congress or for the commission of a crime named in the constitution. English precedents concerning impeachable crimes are consequently not applicable,” Dwight, Trial by Impeachment, 15 AMERICAN LAW REGISTER (6 N.S.) 257, 268-69 (1867). “Many attempts have been made to define this power, quite commonly by those who were trying to make the definition fit the facts to a particular case, rather than to have it accord with the constitutional provisions only. A notable exception to this, however … is what was said by Manager (afterwards President) Buchanan in the Peck Impeachment: “Perhaps that statement should be broadened to include offences of so weighty a character, and so injurious to the office, that every official is bound to know that they are of the same general character as crimes, and might well be made criminal by statute; but the terra incognita beyond, no one can properly be asked to explore under the existing constitutional provisions, if for no other reason than because it is a fixed and salutary principle that penal provisions shall be so construed that the persons to be affected by them may certainly know what things they are forbidden to do,” Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 651, 881 (1916). “The . . . problem is how to identify those nonindictable offenses for which certain high-level government officials may be impeached. Given that certain federal officials may be impeached and removed for committing serious abuses against the state and that these abuses are not confined to indictable offenses, the challenge is to find contemporary analogues to the abuses against the state that authorities such as Hamilton and Justices Wilson and Story viewed as suitable grounds for impeachment. On the one hand, these abuses may be reflected in certain statutory crimes. Violations of federal criminal statues, such as the bribery statute, represent abuses against the state sufficient to subject the perpetrator to impeachment and removal, because bribery demonstrates serious lack of judgment and respect for the law and because bribery lowers respect for the office. In other words, there are certain statutory crimes that, if committed by public officials, reflect such lapses of judgment, such disregard for the welfare of the state, and such lack of respect for the law and the office held that the occupant may be impeached and removed for lacking the minimum level of integrity and judgment sufficient to discharge the responsibilities of the office. On the other hand, Congress needs to be prepared, as then-Congressman Ford pointed out, to explain what nonindictable offenses may be impeachable offenses by defining contemporary political crimes. The boundaries of congressional power to define such political crimes defy specification because they rest both on the circumstances underlying a particular offense (including the actor, the forum, and the political crime) and on the collective political judgment of Congress,” Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits of Impeachment, 68 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1, 83, (1989). “Moreover, leaving aside historical precedent, to limit impeachment to the commission of crimes is bad policy, such a limitation is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad because some crimes have no functional relation to the problem of malfeasance or abuse of office. For example, if an official in the executive branch, a judge, or a legislator, had been arrested once for driving while intoxicated, that crime should not merit the drastic remedy of removal from office. “The proposed limitation is also too narrow, for the `civil Officer’ might engage in many activities which amount to abuse of office and yet not commit any crimes. For example, if the President abused his pardon power by unconstitutionally pardoning a judge who had been impeached or summoned the Senators from only a few states to ratify a treaty, the President may have violated no criminal law, but he or she has abused the office. . . .” Rotunda, An Essay on the Constitutional Parameters of Federal Impeachment, 76 KENTUCKY LAW JOURNAL 707, 725-26 (1988). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon Black, Conrad (2007). Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. New York: PublicAffairs Books. ISBN 978-1-58648-519-1, page 978. Nixon faced all kinds of prosecutions for his well-documented multitude of criminal offenses. That is why, shortly after Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford pardoned him for all criminal acts he may have engaged in. Otherwise, the prosecutions would have gone in all sorts of embarrassing directions. Had Ford tried to specify all the offenses pardoned, he may never have finished writing the pardon. Nixon was guilty for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 tax fraud. He was saved by a pardon. The evidence is overwhelming.
Liar Pete. You are the chapmpion of faggot pretend rights on this site. You never miss a chance to stick up for immorality.
Comments (150 - 168) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#110. To: sneakypete (#98)
(Edited)
Some of the strongarm "bully boys" in leadership positions with the police in the early days were homosexuals,but they were pretty much killed off once Hitler took power.
#111. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#99)
#112. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#103)
(Edited)
Absurd claims that Barack 0bama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#113. To: Liberator (#112)
#114. To: Zesta, nolu chan (#113)
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway? Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people?
#115. To: Liberator (#109)
(Edited)
The Christian ethic and faith has indeed been the traditional foundation and underpinning on from America built its greatness.
#116. To: Liberator (#110)
You're agreeing *with* me in part:
#117. To: Zesta (#113)
Who is this all-knowing "nolu chan" anyway?
#118. To: sneakypete (#115)
(Edited)
Christianity doesn't own the patent on ethnic behavior.
#119. To: sneakypete (#116)
(Edited)
I do agree that both fundies and Hitler were/are big fans of the "Big Lie",though.
#120. To: Liberator (#118)
You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? `
#121. To: Liberator (#119)
So because sodomists, psychopaths, necrophiliacs, and other assorted mentally ill lunatics all declare themelvces "normal,"
#122. To: sneakypete (#120)
Linda Ronstadt
#123. To: Fred Mertz (#91)
#124. To: Biff Tannen (#122)
Linda Ronstadt
#125. To: sneakypete (#120)
You mean to tell me you can't tell whether America is a better OR worst place once the homofascist agenda kicked in? ` No,and if you were to be honest with yourself,neither can you.
#126. To: sneakypete (#120)
Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,
#127. To: sneakypete (#121)
It's normal for THEM,and I would love to see every single "sodomist" (sodomite) in your church outed as sodomites and kicked out of your church. If that were to happen,there wouldn't be enough members there next Sunday to hold a bridge game.
#128. To: sneakypete (#124)
Now she has some sort of disease that can't be treated that prevents her from singing.
#129. To: sneakypete (#124)
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051214084800.htm
webcache.googleuserconten...&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
#130. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Pete look in the mirror you're and meguro are the problem.
#131. To: A K A Stone (#126)
(Edited)
Jerry Brown from Ca is still in the closet,
#132. To: sneakypete (#124)
#133. To: A K A Stone (#127)
You're obviously a homosexual. You get bent out of shape if anyone criticizes your people.
#134. To: VxH (#129)
(Edited)
Evidence Links Cocaine Abuse And Parkinson's Disease
#135. To: sneakypete (#134)
ave no evidence at all that Linda Ronstadt ever did a lot,or any,cocaine back in her glory days.
she was still woman with an incredible voice and it is a shame she has lost it.
#136. To: sneakypete (#120)
Homosexuals as a group had ZERO political influence prior to the 90's,
#137. To: sneakypete, liberator (#120)
#138. To: VxH (#136)
#139. To: VxH (#137)
#140. To: sneakypete (#139)
(Edited)
It was a local event
#141. To: sneakypete (#105)
[nc #103] Absurd claims that Barack Obama was really Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, worked so well that you want to emulate it and drag out all the ridiculous claims about Hillary.
#142. To: sneakypete (#106)
Are you really so stupid that you think a mind-numbing list of accusations that were and are partisan in nature and never proven makes the criminals and traitors you support look any better?
On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a vote of 410-4 the following House Resolution 803:
#143. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#111)
With respect to Hitlery's "firing" or technically "let go" from her position and involvement in Nixon's Impeachment proceedings, the unofficial "word on the street" was that Hitlery was sloppy, ventured into darker gray areas, and acted inappropriately in any case (no, please don't ask for citations :-)
Mr. KASTENMEIER: In any event, I will ask our stafff, including the senior associate counsel, Joseph Woods in addition to Mr. Samuel Garrison to identify the other counsel present for the reporter and for the committee, following which I would ask you to start reading the draft to the committee.
Biographical Note
Naftali: What role did Mr. Doar play in these discussions?
Naftali: When your staff completed this memo in a month, I believe, it just took you a little over a month.
Naftali: Let me ask you before we move from the story of the memo on the constitutional grounds for impeachment, what role do you remember Hillary Rodham playing? What did she do as part of your team?
Woods: I tried not to take a position as to what the rules should be. I took a position on what the rules could be which was unlimited in their scope and let the committee express its views. Actually, it was more a subcommittee of the committee, express its views on what the rules ought to be and then we, Hillary and I, tried to write rules that reflected what we understood the committee – the subcommittee to be saying to us. I do not believe that we recommended to the subcommittee any set of rules other than to say that here is what we think you said. Committee, do we have it right? The subcommittee was chaired by Representative Casimir from Wisconsin and I remember that one of the members of the committee was Representative Hungate. I think he was from Missouri. Wherever he was from, Mr. Hungate was very clear about the importance of forwarding proper latitude to the defense and I would say that he, as much as anybody, was the architect of the spirit of the rules that were finally adopted and what Hillary and I did was try to put on paper our understanding of what was necessary. The details that were appropriate to give effect to that spirit.
Naftali: … Thank you. Mr. Woods, let me ask you whether you were involved at all in the decision to recruit Professor C. Vann Woodward to do a study of presidential abuses of power?
Naftali: Tell me a bit about – well, let me ask you this. Given the prominence that she would have later, what was it like to work with Hillary Rodham?
#144. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#112)
How can you state without reservation that ANY claim challenging either the 0webumas or the Klintoons are "ridiculous" when it's clear as day that in all cases, shenanigans is the rule rather than exception? It's easy to claim, "WHAT PROOF?!?" when people in high places are manipulating indictable evidence and eliminating witnesses. Or do you also dismiss THAT notion?
CHAPTER 3—LOSS OF NATIONALITY
#145. To: Zesta, Liberator (#113)
Why should anyone believe someone who finds it so very important to provide "documentation" on a website that is likely to be read by less than a hundred people?
#146. To: sneakypete, Zesta (#117)
A Dim drone hired to disrupt and stop any criticisms of Bubbette! as she heads off on her White House quest.
#4. To: redleghunter (#1)
These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.
#147. To: sneakypete (#4)
[sneakypete #4] Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, by Hunt and Liddy.
Office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, by Barker, De Diego, and Martinez. Hunt and Liddy stood guard outside.
Offices of the DNC, by Hunt and Gonzalez, McCord provided surveillance from across the street.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, McCord, De Diego and Pico. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Aborted, unable to pick lock.
DNC, by Sturgis, Gonzalez, Barker, Martinez, and McCord.
DNC, by Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, Gonzalez and McCord. Hunt and Liddy in Watergate room. Busted and arrested.
Congressional Research Service
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
www.crs.gov
R41223 Conspiracy is a crime which begins with a scheme and may continue on until its objective is achieved or abandoned. The liability of individual conspirators continues on from the time they joined the plot until it ends or until they withdraw. The want of an individual’s continued active participation is no defense as long as the underlying conspiracy lives and he has not withdrawn. An individual who claims to have withdrawn bears the burden of establishing either that he took some action to make his departure clear to his co-conspirators or that he disclosed the scheme to the authorities. As a general rule, overt acts of concealment do not extend the life of the conspiracy beyond the date of the accomplishment of its main objectives. On the other hand, the rule does not apply when concealment is one of the main objectives of the conspiracy.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
Beginning in May, 1969, the White House conducted covert intelligence gathering, not for reasons of national security, but for political purposes. In May, 1969, President Nixon orer the FBI to engage in electronic surveillance of at least seventeen persons, including four newsmen and three White House subordinates whose jobs were unrelated to national security. (Book VII, 142-47, 153).
During the same period, White House personnel also engaged directly in illegal surveillance for political purposes. In 1969, Counsel to the President John Erlichman hired Anthony Ulasewicz, a retired police detective, to conduct investigations under the supervision of John Caulfield, a subordinate to Erlichman. (Book VII, 336-44) In June 1969, Caulfield, at Ehrlichan’s direction initiated a wiretap on the residence telephone of newspaper columnist Joseph Kraft. (Book VII, 314-15). Ehrlichman discussed this wiretap with the President. (Book VII, 323) During the next three years, Caulfield and Ulasewicz, under Ehrlichman’s or Dean’s direction, conducted a number of covert inquiries concerning political opponents of the President. (Book VII, 342, 346-47)
#148. To: sneakypete (#4)
Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Untied States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did receive emoluments from the United States in excess of the compensation provided by law pursuant to Article II, Section I, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and did willfully attempt to evade the payment of a portion of Federal income taxes due and owing by him for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, in that:
On April 3, 1974 the White House issued a statement that the President has "today instructed payment of the $432,787.13 set forth by the Internal Revenue Service, plus interest."
H11932
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
December 18, 1998
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H11933 The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers 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 assused from office.
Impeachment: A Handbook
39-40 (1974) ‘What is misbehavior in office? In answer to this question and without pretending to furnish a definition, I freely admit that we are bound to prove that the respondent has violated the Constitution, or some known law of the land. This, I think, is the principle fairly to be deduced from all the arguments on the trial of Judge Chase, and from the votes of the Senate on the Articles of Impeachment against him, in opposition to the principle for which his counsel in the first instance strenuously contended, that in order to render an offence impeachable it must be indictable. But this violation of law may consist in the abuse, as well as in the usurpation of authority. The abuse of a power which has been given may be criminal as the usurpation of a power that has not been granted.’
“[A]ttempts to limit the scope of impeachable offenses have rarely proposed limiting impeachable offenses only to indictable offenses. Rather, the major disagreement among commentators has been over the range of nonindictable offenses for which someone may be impeached.
He met with Republican congressional leaders soon after, and was told he faced certain impeachment in the House and had, at most, only 15 votes in his favor in the Senate — far fewer than the 34 he needed to avoid removal from office.
#149. To: sneakypete (#121)
It's not for me to accept or not accept. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know about it. *I* am not the one obsessed with homosexuality.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]