[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 99202
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 148.

#1. To: out damned spot, TooConservative, tomder55 (#0)

The stinking plot thickens.

These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-30   0:17:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: redleghunter (#1)

These Xlintons learned much from Nixon.

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."

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-30   6:42:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: sneakypete (#4)

Nixon,but ALL he was guilty of was participating in the coverup. He had no part in the actual crime.

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.”

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:

(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 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."

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]

H11932
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE
December 18, 1998

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:

SUMMARY

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.

DETAILED ANALYSIS

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).]

CONCLUSION

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
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H11933

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,

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.

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:

VI.

Charles Black
Impeachment: A Handbook
39-40 (1974)

“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).

Bob Barr

“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).

John Labovitz

“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).

Paul Fenton

“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).

Laurence Tribe

“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).

Theodore Dwight

“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).

Alexander Simpson

“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:

‘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.’

“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).

Michael Gerhardt
“[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.

“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).

Ronald Rotunda

“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

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.

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.

Statement of Information, Book 10, House Jud Cmte Re Nixon (1974) Tax Deduction for Gift of Papers (Tax Fra...

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-17   0:21:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 148.

        There are no replies to Comment # 148.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 148.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com