..


Saturday, December 21, 2019

IMPEACHMAS--Government, Blasphemy and --INVOKING THE 1ST (COMMANDMENT)

EXCLUSIVE TO DER PUTSCH PRESS///SATURDAY, THE WINTER SOLSTICE, 


 "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me."
 blasphemy--the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

     Lately, there appears to be an incursion of the Church into the State and blame it all on the impeachment of the President last week by the US House of Representatives. During debate over the vote on HR755, the resolution to impeach the President, Marita Gaganan reports from Time on the comment by Rep  Barry Loudermilk.  (R-GA)


Republican Congressman Suggests Trump Is Being Treated Worse Than Jesus Amid Impeachment Debate

A Republican lawmaker compared President Donald Trump to Jesus Christ during a debate on the House floor about impeachment.
     Next, the President has to comment on the current afterlife status of a respected congressman, Brett Samuels and Morgan Chalfant report from The Hill;

Trump's Dingell insults disrupt GOP unity amid impeachment Trump's real-time response to Wednesday's impeachment vote in the House was to throw bitter and personal insults at rivals during a raucous rally in Battle Creek, Mich. But it was his remarks about the late Rep. and his widow, Rep. , that were too much for a number of Republicans.

#impeachmas--As if that isn't enough in the ongoing assault on blasphemy, the word Christmas has been subverted to #impeachmas relating to the House vote last week. Note Wally's subversion of "Seasons Greetings" to "Seasons Impeachment;"


     The most damaging blow to the separation of Church and State came from Christianity Today in an article reported by Mark Galli;

Trump Should Be Removed from Office In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

In response, the President used the tried and true technique of rebuttal, calling those responsible "communists;"

"I guess the magazine, 'Christianity Today,' is looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion. How about Sleepy Joe? The fact is, no President has ever done what I have done for Evangelicals, or religion itself!"

After pro-impeachment editorial, Trump accuses Christianity Today of communist tilt

President Trump continued his attacks against the evangelical magazine that supported impeachment in a recent editorial. Christianity Today announced its support for removing the president from office in an editorial published on Thursday. The president accused Christianity Today, which was founded by Billy Graham, of having a socialist or communist tilt on Twitter on Friday afternoon, hours after he blasted them for being " far-left."
     Surprisingly, the President received support from the son of the founder of the magazine, as reported by David Badash in The New Civil Rights Movement;

Franklin Graham Rushes to Defend President Over 'Elitist' Evangelical Magazine's Attack: My Father 'Voted for Donald Trump'


     Trashing The Savior isn't anything new by those in the spotlight. Back in August, 1966, John Lennon compared the Beatles to Christ in his infamous quote;
     "Christianity will go, it will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I know I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now. I don’t know which will go first – rock & roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.

When John Lennon's 'Jesus' Controversy Turned Ugly

"If I'd said, 'Television is more poplar than Jesus,' I might have got away with it!" John Lennon lamented as cameras rolled from each of the three major American TV networks. The cheeky remark drew a laugh from the assembled crowd of journalists, but recently Lennon hadn't been so lucky.


Sources
1st Commandment, https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson16.html
Blasphemy, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/blasphemy
Loudermilk, https://time.com/5752453/trump-jesus-comparison-impeachment-debate/
Dingell, https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/475374-trumps-dingell-insults-disrupt-gop-unity-on-impeachment
#impeachmas, https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Impeachmas
Removed, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
Graham, https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/12/franklin-graham-rushes-to-defend-president-over-elitist-evangelical-magazines-attack-my-father-voted-for-donald-trump/
Beatles, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/when-john-lennons-more-popular-than-jesus-controversy-turned-ugly-106430/
Heston Image, https://achuckallen.com/2018/01/16/my-ten-commandments/

Thursday, December 19, 2019

IMPEACHMENT AFTERBATH--The "Post-Impeachment Defense Fund"--A REDACTED EMAIL

JOUR107.1003
James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020

     Never let a good opportunity slide when it comes to promoting. That also holds true of yesterday's vote in the House of Representatives to impeach the President. Today, an email arrived from The Daily Grind News in affiliation with the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, 138 Conant Street, 2nd Floor, Beverly, MA 01915.



"Friend,
Nancy is a (redacted) and a (redacted). We just witnessed the most PARTISAN SCAM in American history and it resulted in the House officially IMPEACHING me.
229 (redacted) Democrats just voted to take away YOUR vote and undo the 2016 election.
Three years of taxpayer-funded WITCH HUNTS all concluded the same thing - I DID NOTHING WRONG.
This is an attack on democracy. An attack on freedom. An attack on everything we hold dear in this country. And it’s an attack on YOU, Friend.
It’s US against THEM in this impeachment war. And we need to (redacted).
I’m upping our goal to (redacted) MILLION in the next 24 HOURS. Only the power of the American people can defend me in this fight and end Democratic (redacted) once and for all.
Previously a group of donors had agreed to double-match all contributions, but with this Impeachment vote, I’m upping the stakes…"


     Along with the note from the President is the address to contribute the money, as the message continues;

     "We need to show Nancy and her (redacted)  Democrat followers that REAL AMERICANS still stand with President Trump.
Yesterday’s vote by Democrats was blatantly (redacted). We can’t let this go on any longer.
My team is sending me a list of everyone who does their part and donates in the next 24 HOURS. I need you on my side in this Impeachment Fight, Friend. Don’t let me down. "


     Be advised, in the interests of the Impeachment Caucus, the Mueller Report, the Mueller grand jury testimony, Counselor Giuliani and, of course, "Nancy," sensitive parts of the email have been redacted.



IMPEACHMENT BRIEF--The Lost Articles--OPERATIONAL POTENTIAL PARADIGM

JOUR107.1002
James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020

Historical Precedents: Climate of Corruption, State of Emergency and Diversion of Funds



     Now that a formal vote for impeachment has been reached, the case for removal from office of the President goes to the Senate. Already at least two variables have entered into the process; the suggestion that the case would be delayed in the House and that climate change in the Senate, with respect to the opposition, needs to improve, citing "rogue" elements. The case for impeachment has been based on two nebulous charges; that of abuse of power and obstruction of justice. The opposition in the Senate has quasi-officially stated in media briefings that the impeachment is dead-on-arrival and the President is expected to remain in office. Failure to remove the chief-executive has been speculated to play in his favor for the upcoming national election late 2020. The case is weak, the articles watered down; so what if there are other aspects of the overall case that have been overlooked; the so-called "Lost Articles?"
     At least three can be found with historical precedent that relate at least to some degree to the current resolution. Whether they were included or not due to plain lack of evidence, a total oversight or concern they would be rejected is not relevant. The fact that they could have been considered is. Below are the hypothetical articles with their historical precedents.

     Article III: Climate of Corruption. Following the release of the Mueller Report in April, 2019, a number of associates to the President were convicted on various charges ranging from campaign finance fraud to perjury. The sentences ranged from severe to lenient while others are yet to be handed down. These include Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and Rick Gates to name a few. (RT Beckwith, Time) Clearly, if unable to achieve anything else, the result of the Mueller probe established what might be considered a "climate of corruption."

     Historical perspective for the climate of corruption points to the President Grant administration and the case brought against his Secretary of War, William W. Belknap, in 1876;


     "It is to be remembered that the Centennial year was also the year of a presidential election. Credit Mobilier, Whiskey Ring, Sanborn, and De Golier contracts, Star Route, Mulligan letters-these placed the Republican party on trial. It was the high-water mark of corruption in national affairs (Rhodes, History of the United States, vii, 191). It was the nadir of national disgrace (Dunning, Re construction Political and Economic, 286). Belknap had been a personal friend and a companion in arms of the President. He had served as secretary of war since 1869. He was a political associate of many senators. He was popular in the circles of Washington society." (Belknap, 216)
     Belknap resigned just before he was charged with accepting cash payments, "gifts" according to the trading post operators at Fort Sill that appeared to be more than that. The fact that many more government officials had been indicted at the time lent a great deal of credence that Belknap himself was also guilty, but in the end he was acquitted. (senate.gov) Nonetheless, the degree to which Grant knew of the climate that existed in his administration was cause for alarm not just for the rank-and-file at the time but for historians as well.
     Indeed, by the time the next top-level impeachment proceedings came along, for Richard M. Nixon, the question as to his knowledge of Watergate led to his eventual resignation in 1974;
     "Nixon’s Attorney General of the United States John Mitchell served 19 months for his role in the scandal, while Watergate mastermind G. Gordon Liddy, a former FBI agent, served four and a half years. Nixon’s Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman spent 19 months in prison while John Ehrlichman spent 18 for attempting to cover up the break-in. Nixon himself never admitted to any criminal wrongdoing, though he did acknowledge using poor judgment." (Nixon)
Perhaps "Tricky Dick" was telling the truth, somewhere the answer is there but regardless, the climate of corruption did exist and leadership must necessarily have to assume responsibility for it.

     Article IV: State of Emergency. On December 22, 2018, the US government shut down for the longest period in its history, which lasted until January 25, 2019. (Wikipedia) Less than a month later, the White House announced a "State of Emergency" in an effort to free up money to build the border wall along the states contiguous with Mexico, as reported by Olivia W. Waxman for Time magazine;
     "President Trump announced he’s signing a proclamation on Friday declaring a national emergency to free up billions of dollars to build his wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The move is the latest in a two-month showdown that included a 35-day partial government shutdown. Congress only voted to allocate $1.375 billion for border barriers – far short of the $5.7 billion Trump wanted." (Time)
Although the article indicates that a de facto state had been in existence since 1976, the current decree only created more friction in the already radically partisan legislative branch. William Cummings and John Fritz for USA Today gave a brief account of the President's powers back in January related to national emergency;
    "Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens," says a 2007 CRS report." (USA Today)
The President managed to get part of what he needed but did his method justify his madness? Again there is at least some allusion to the possibility of impeachment as seen in the case of William W. Holden, the Governor of North Carolina.


     As chief administrator during his tenure of 1868-1870, Holden found himself in an existential battle with anti-Reconstructionist rivals, the Ku Klux Klan in particular. While Ewing Cortez argues in The North Carolina Historical Review that the Klan might have had primary interests in racial purity, he is "convinced" the Fifteenth Amendment was the target;
     "Hundreds of Negroes and a few whites were dragged from their cabins in the darkest hours of the night and whipped by hooded monsters, some of whom swore that their thirst had not been slacked since being killed at Shiloh, Vicksburg, or Chickamauga."  (Cortez, E., 206)
The Klan's criminal activity eventually led to Governor Holden's decision to declare martial law in certain rebellious counties with the arrest of ringleaders. By early, 1870, Democrats petitioned to have the prisoners to appear before a magistrate but the governor refused. Following a statewide election in late summer, the Democrats assumed control of the legislature and impeachment of the governor was in order and by early December;
     "Nevertheless, if the house judiciary committee conducted an investigation of Holden's official acts, it was of the most cursory character. The exigencies of politics rendered superfluous any real investigatorial  labors, for the legislators already knew enough of his 'malfeasance' to convict him in the highest court that they could erect." (Cortez, 211)
Holden faced eight articles including illegal arrest, refusal of habeas corpus, proclaiming martial law and raiding the treasury to pay out rewards. In March, 1871 Holden was removed from office and Cortez had this evaluation;
     "In conclusion, I believe that Holden should have been impeached on charges relating to martial law; he should have been called to an accounting for failure to use it to protect the lives of citizens of the State. Such use of martial law is always dangerous, and it takes courage, more courage than Holden possessed. Probably, however, if he had firmly called it into being to suppress the unpardonable crimes of the Klan organizations, and not for the purpose of immediately increasing the Republican vote, he would have been supported by the respectable members of both parties." (225)

 As in the present case, a State of Emergency is an invitation, an excuse, to enact martial law for political purposes and as Cortez points out, "always dangerous." It is equally dangerous as a threat and might infer an abuse of power if there is no justification.

     Article V: Diversion of Funds. Damage to the Marine Corps Base at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina exceeded $3 billion when Hurricane Florence flattened the base in mid-September, 2018. Money was allocated to rebuild the base but the White House found another use for it, to build the wall along the southern border., as Tara Copp reported in News-Observer;
     "In all, 34 installations in the United States and eight bases in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, will absorb $1.8 billion in domestic cuts to planned construction projects. Puerto Rico, which was devastated by Hurricane Maria in 2017, is losing more than $400 million in planned military construction projects." (News & Observer)
Reallocated, diverted, what's the difference, the money was stolen. The Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. Robert Neller, leaked memos related to the embezzlement, as reported by James Laporta in Newsweek;
     "When asked why Neller would allow internal memorandums to leak to press outlets, one Defense Department source expressed bluntly, "Because he didn't want the Marines and families at Camp Lejeune [in North Carolina] to get f***ed." (Newsweek)
It was a bad career move for the general, he retired soon afterward. But the diversion of funding issue didn't go away and in mid-December, a federal judge blocked the misappropriation as reported in the Military Times;
     "EL PASO, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from spending some Defense Department money to build a border wall with Mexico, the latest twist in a long-running legal battle over one of the president’s signature domestic issues and campaign priorities.
The ruling by District Judge David Briones in El Paso, Texas, prevents the government from spending $3.6 billion that was diverted in September from 127 military construction projects to pay for 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall." (Military Times)
A similar scandal emerged, once again during the Grant administration, involving his Secretary of the Navy, George Robeson. In his book, The Reconstruction Years: The Tragic Aftermath f the War Between the States, Walter Coffey gives a backgraound of the affair;


     "A Democratic committee in the House of Representatives exposed a scandal in which Navy Secretary George M. Robeson was suspected of awarding lucrative food contracts to Alexander Cattel & Company, a Philadelphia grain firm, in exchange for financial favors. An investigation of Robeson's finances revealed that he had deposited up to $320,000 while serving as navy secretary , a job that paid $8000 a year." (Coffey, 280)
In yeat another scandal involving the navy secretary, the New York Sun, in mid-February, 1872, accused Robeson of his financial shenanigans, found in John Niven's book on Gideon Welles;
     "Two days later came the 'Robberies of Robeson' and on the February 21st (Charles Anderson) Dana published  a comprehensive article charging Robeson with specific instances of graft in the Secors claim, the Tennessee conversion and the supply of coal to the navy, through a single agent, A.G. Cattell & Company." (Niven, 573)
Another accurate characterization of Robeson's shady deals can be found in the article by Gordon Calhoun in the Daybook;
     " A lawyer by trade, Robeson was a political supporter of Grant and exchanged in some very shady business practices.  Naval historian Robert Albion discovered that Robeson moved all of the Navy’s accounts used to pay for overseas operations from a well established and connected British accounting firm to an American firm on the verge of bankruptcy that had no offices in foreign ports. Despite his reputation, the 1872 investigation cleared him and the Department for the time being." (Calhoun, 6-7)
Once again, the climate of corruption, combined with diversion and reallocating of funds, appears to be very tempting grounds to investigate a political official with the intent to impeach.

     The current House resolution has impeached the President on two articles. There could have been more, proving them might have been difficult, if not impossible. But as in the case of his predecessors, it has been shown that in just about every example, as in life itself, more is always better. The President, by being subjected to far less accusations, will probably "beat the rap," but lurking underneath is the nagging sense of a corrupt administration, being part of the very "swamp" he promised to drain.

Sources
HR755,
Beckwith, RT,  Mueller Investigation, https://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
“The Belknap Impeachment Trial.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History, vol. 10, no. 2, 1926, pp. 211–218. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4630658.
Belknap Acquittal,
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm
Nixon, https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/watergate
Shutdown, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_United_States_federal_government_shutdown
Waxman, O.W., Trump Just Declared an Emergency at the Borderhttps://time.com/5496270/presidents-history-national-emergency/
Cummings, W., Fritz, J., President Trump could declare a national emergency, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/07/trump-national-emergency-wall-funding/2496357002/
Ewing, Cortez A. M. “TWO RECONSTRUCTION IMPEACHMENTS.” The North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 15, no. 3, 1938, pp. 204–230. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23513819.
LaPorta, J., Top Marine General Let Emails Leakhttps://www.newsweek.com/border-funding-general-trump-defense-1382113
Coffey, W., The Reconstruction Years: The Tragic Aftermath of the War Between the States, Authorhouse, Bloomington, IN 2014, Page 280
Niven, J., Gideon Welles; Lincoln's Secretary of the Navy,  Oxford, NY, 1973, Page 573)
Calhoun, G., "The Norfolk Navy Yard During the Navy s Dark Ages," The Daybook, Vol8., Issue 4, https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/Hrnm/files/daybook/pdfs/vol8Issue4.pdf




Monday, December 16, 2019

HR755 IMPEACHMENT REPORT--Determinism vs Relativism--THE BENEDICT CITATION

JOUR107.1003
James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020


PAGE 53-- The ML Benedict Citation-- (239)--A Close Reading


      "Scholars now largely agree that President Johnson’s impeachment was motivated not by violations of the Tenure of Office Act, but on his illegitimate use of power to undermine Reconstruction and subordinate African-Americans following the Civil War. (239)"

    The citation in the Impeachment report, 239, refers to author Michael Les Benedict's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson (1999) A journal article by the author can be found at JSTOR in which Benedict argues the schism between Johnson and the radicals within his own party as the catalyst for impeachment;
     "Unsympathetic--if not antipathetic--to black aspirations, Johnson broke with his party and began a bitter conflict with its congressional majority, the so-called 'Radical Republicans." (JSTOR)
Following in-House confusion to impeachment approach whereby cautious leaders recommended a caucus before a judiciary review, debate was delegated to under committees. The bottom line after attempts were made to adjust Reconstruction amendments to suit the various branches, exact interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" took to the chamber;
     "Conservatives, fearful of the institutional effects of impeachment on the stability of the country, turned to the theory propounded by the defense in several earlier non-presidential impeachments, i.e., that government officers could only be impeached for indictable violations of criminal statute or common law." (498)
From a legal standpoint, a strict "determinist" interpretation regarded the process have criminal footing; or a loose "relativist" interpretation, impeachment was brought about solely for political gain, having no basis in law where concrete evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was unnecessary. The other catchphrase, according to Benedict, was "violations of the oath of office" which he describes as "nebulous." More loose terms for grounds include malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance. (499)

     Regarding the Tenure of Office Bill, the London Daily News had this to say in 1868;



     "Moreover he alleges that at the cabinet meeting at which this Tenure of Office Bill, under which Mr. Stanton claimed his right to hold over, was discussed pending the President's approval or disapproval of it, Mr. Stanton was foremost in pronouncing it unconstitutional and unwarrantable." (Daily News) According to the article in the London newspaper, the President backs up his decision to fire Stanton based on a telegram sent by General Baird from New Orleans detailing the possibility of riots that was withheld from the President by Stanton.  

From the Andrew Johnson Articles of Impeachment;

ARTICLE I.
    "That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue and order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States," (Johnson, pdf)



     It might be noted that the opening paragraph of this report shows that the Impeachment Report states Johnson wasn't motivated by the Tenure of Office Act, which in fact Secretary of War Stanton called unconstitutional, but by Reconstruction. According to the actual Johnson impeachment pdf file, this is incorrect.  On page 51 of the current impeachment report, it correctly infers the charges were indeed related to the Tenure of Office Act and the firing of the Secretary of War. It may also be noted that President Johnson was allowed to respond to the charges. In addition, the impeachment resolution against Johnson contained 11 articles.(Johnson, pdf)

     Of course, in Johnson's case, the argument fell upon various appointments and regulatory acts designed to prevent not just Reconstruction to follow the idealistic path of the radicals, but to prevent as well his allies from rebellion. The feud eventually fell over control of the military. By late 1867, the House Judiciary Committee announced it had at least some desire to have Johnson relieved of command. The remainder of the Benedict synopsis of his own book walks through the various ups and downs of the power struggle between the radicals and the President. Two things come of it.
     First, in no way does the Benedict citation in the Impeachment Report show support for the current effort to remove the President, and it may be true for a number of others. Second, the era following the great Civil War was so incredibly distant from the current state of affairs that comparing the two for common ground borders on ludicrous. The zealots in the House out to get the President need to go back into their committees and hearing rooms and look for more substantial and relevant references and citations that have significant bearing on the current endeavor.

Further Reading:

IMPEACHMENT REPORT--A Critical Review-- IRAN-CONTRA NOT

JOUR107.1004 James L'Angelle University of Nevada, Reno Spring 2020 A Brief Summary of a Very Long Document. The official report, the long-version of the House Resolution 755, has been released today and consists of several sections. The opening still includes "Treason," and "Bribery" along with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," even though the president is only being charged with the latter.


Sources
Report, https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
Stanton, London Daily News, 01 Jan 1868, Page 5.
Benedict, Michael Les. “From Our Archives: A New Look at the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 113, no. 3, 1998, pp. 493–511. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2658078.
Andrew Johnson, Articles of Impeachment, http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Johnson%20Impeachment.pdf
Stanton Photo, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edwin-M-Stanton
See also, the Belknap Impeachment, https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2395&context=masters_theses

IMPEACHMENT REPORT--A Critical Review-- IRAN-CONTRA NOT

JOUR107.1004
James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020

A Brief Summary of a Very Long Document.


     The official report, the long-version of the House Resolution 755, has been released today and consists of several sections. The opening still includes "Treason," and "Bribery" along with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," even though the president is only being charged with the latter. The resolution is repeated in the opening.
     Following the table of contents, the Introduction divides the report into four sections; the first gives a look at the process, the second refers to impeachment standards, the third examination of the abuse of power charge, the fourth obstruction in line with the subpoenas. Page 3 gives a hint as to intent of the House;
    "Although the 2020 election is less than a year away, Congress cannot wait for the next election to address the President’s misconduct." The part of "cannot wait for the next election" confirms a cause for alarm by the President's foes to address their concern over defeat. Note in the same paragraph, the following;
     "the President’s private attorney was back in Ukraine to promote the same sham investigations,"
a politically charged statement with no direct evidence to back it up. The President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, had not testified officially regarding his mission to Kiev.
     In Part B of Section II, on page 8, the key inquiry components are mentioned: the allegation that investigation into the opposition candidate's  son was directly related to political gain for the President, the business with Ukraine being related to more political gain and the coverup by subpoena denial. This was initiated by HR 660. It was noted that no independent prosecutor was appointed. Witnesses gave testimony related to supposed vital national security interests related to military assistance to Ukraine. The report consumes the next 20 pages with justification for the impeachment inquiry and what protections the President has, citing various past efforts including those directed at Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
     The next section beginning on page 29 finally gets around to definitions of impeachable offenses, where again treason and bribery are dangled in front of the reader, enticing but unconvincing, and, irrelevant. As for the other;
     "In identifying 'other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' we are guided by the text and structure of the Constitution, the records of the Constitutional Convention and state ratifying debates, and the history of impeachment practice."
The category appears to be a catchall for all the other non-treasonable offenses and at the same time, a minefield for the executive branch where its actions can be construed as abuse of power, betrayal to foreign powers and corruption. Nixon is mentioned in the first, no one else in the other two. The criminality argument is dismissed on page 32, again referring to Nixon and Clinton;
     "Some crimes, like jaywalking, are not impeachable."
Six falsehoods are then addressed, in number four, the motives of the President are addressed. Abuse, Betrayal and Corruption aren't addressed again until page 42, following another history lesson, possibly a result of appearance by academia at the hearings. Note also, the saturation of this section with definitions of treason and bribery, charges that are not brought against the President, intended possibly to create the illusion of criminal activity, although crime isn't necessarily a requirement for impeachment. Again we are treated to another long-winded legal history lesson into definitions, precedents and at least one reference to Nixon. On page 46, it is noteworthy that reference to impeachment during the state ratifying conventions related to pardon power, for some reason hardly convincing that it relates to national security. In fact, the reference to national security has yet to be mentioned. At least the background on President Johnson's interference with post Civil War reconstruction might be considered in the interests of national security. In Section D., the conclusion offers little to support the charges against the President;
     "“the House has never, in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding, adopted either a comprehensive definition of ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ or a catalog of offenses that are impeachable."
     Article V discusses the "Criminality Issue" where A through D discuss the similarities of congressional and civil cases; including witness tampering. The document finally gets around to addressing the charges in HR755 on page 78.
     "President Donald J. Trump used the power of his office to solicit and pressure a foreign nation to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election."
Again, we hear more political academia about what the "Framers" intended for high crimes and misdemeanors. On page 83, the so-called facts surface as are already known, the phone call, the arm-twisting, the withholding of aid for anti-tank armaments. All of it makes sense but connecting the dots in the conspiracy is still far-fetched, even with expert professional testimony beyond the college historian crowd. On page 85, the document insists the "conclusion is straightforward." A long review of the wrong doing is then summarized, in detail no less, citing such reliable official sources such as The Washington Post on page 90.
     Next, the report brings up the suffering of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and that the military assistance was vital to the nation. It doesn't mention the fact that Ukraine is not part of NATO and thus could easily become a security threat to the alliance should the weaponry fall into the wrong hands. Again, on page 94, the report cites another reliable official government source, CNN. On a sidenote, it is curious that of all the assertions and assumptions made in the report thus far, that another, even more similar affair in foreign meddling has yet to be mentioned, Iran-Contra.
     Section 4 on page 115 attempts to establish a bribery effort, reviewing various US Codes related to the charge. None of this is included in the HR document passed by Judiciary.
     Next, if evidence doesn't support the case, what about "lack of remorse" and "egregiousness," in other words, character assassination. The report has now hit a low point and hopefully it will recover before fully read and understood by the public. On page 138, the second article of the impeachment resolution is examined. Once again, a long winded justification, historically based, on authority to impeach. The subpoena defiance list is included on page 156. It concludes with a brief review under the heading;
     "Judicial Review is Unnecessary and Impractical Here"
Many would agree the entire process of judicial review was unnecessary throughout the entire resolution. The entire preliminary justification ends on page 169 and the rest of the material in the pdf file released is actual hearing related text and testimony. Dissenting views begin on page 196 of the pdf document. It includes the refusal by the committees to hear minority arguments, witnesses, the failure of Article I to establish impeachable offense and lack of evidence. "Hyperbolic" is mentioned on page 205 but goes uncredited as to who said it. Criminality basis of prior impeachments is mentioned. The rebuttal, in effect, categorically refutes the charges and the methods used to lay the foundation for impeachment. It's signed by Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. The next rebuttal begins on page 217. It appears to be the long version of the Collins complaint and apes the information in more detailed description. It's documented with a John Bolton tweet on page 258. Most of the second, long-winded rebuttal is laced with testimony. Anyone who has been following the hearings with serious interest could wade through this without being surprised by the conclusions drawn.
     The next rebuttal is by Mike Johnson, in a neatly organized quasi power-point line-by-line examination of the resolution that begins on page 340. The appendix begins on page 360. Some of it reads like assumptions made by the prosecution when no evidence is available, or even better, that written by an aspiring investigative reporter out to establish journalistic credentials. One highlight, on page 400, reads;
     "Rudy Giuliani, on Behalf of President Trump, Led a Smear Campaign to Oust Ambassador Yovanovitch"
Refreshing to see that indictment by associate is still a popular method to convict the boss. On page 407, one of Giuliani's "tweets" is mentioned as proof of impeachable activity. We have now moved from the official Washington Post and CNN official sources to Twitter. On page 416, the New York Times becomes an official government source of information. ABC news officially enters the document on page 425. Again, most of the following is just a repeat for those who have good knowledge and have been following the story. Thankfully, "EndNotes" begin on page 511.
     On page 561, yet another long-winded document appears, similar to the others, alleging just about the same, with the same introductions, historical precedents and assumptions.

     Conclusion: Reading this entire document word for word is an enviable task but certainly, the recurrence of the vocabulary and text alludes to redundancy and a basic understanding can be gained without a close reading. Some parts require it, others can be skimmed. To what degree this will convince the Senate of guilt remains to be seen.



Back to Iran-Contra-- (pdf, Page 144)
     A search of the entire pdf actually indicates one, just one, reference to Iran-Contra;
     "Past Presidents have also produced documents and permitted senior officials to testify in connection with other Congressional investigations, including inquiries into Presidential actions.
 For example, in the Iran-Contra inquiry, President Ronald Reagan’s former National Security Advisor, Oliver North, and the former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, John Poindexter, testified before Congress.29  President Reagan also produced “relevant excerpts of his personal diaries to Congress. (809 See id. at 721-22; see also Ukraine Report, at 205-206)

Further Reading:

HR755 IMPEACHMENT REPORT--Determinism vs Relativism--THE BENEDICT CITATION

JOUR107.1003 James L'Angelle University of Nevada, Reno Spring 2020 PAGE 53-- The ML Benedict Citation-- (239)--A Close Reading "Scholars now largely agree that President Johnson's impeachment was motivated not by violations of the Tenure of Office Act, but on his illegitimate use of power to undermine Reconstruction and subordinate African-Americans following the Civil War.


This Just In: The Subpoena SNAFU  et. al. : According to at least two opinions from Justice, advisers to the President are not required to testify to Congress if ordered to do so. There is also some evidence to show that DOJ is not required to submit grand jury testimony of the Mueller inquiry to assist in the impeachment effort:

Congressional Demand for Deposition to the President, 23 July 1982
Memorandum to Edward C. Schmults
The Grand Jury Document:  "As discussed more fully below, HJC has identified the requisite “judicial proceeding” to be a possible Senate impeachment trial, which is an exercise of judicial power the Constitution assigned to the Senate." (Page 20)
     "Notwithstanding the weight of these precedents, DOJ maintains that an impeachment trial
cannot be a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e) because the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term refers to 'legal proceedings governed by law that take place in a judicial forum before a
judge or a magistrate.' " (Page 25)
     Note here the discussion falls back on the "determinist" vs. "relativist" interpretation of authority of the House with respect to impeachment being a criminal indictment. (see above: The Benedict Citation)
Grand Jury Disclosure, Rule 6(e)  "


Sources
Report, https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
Oliver North image, https://nationalpost.com/news/world/oliver-north-set-to-become-the-next-nra-president
President Reagan image, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/why-the-russia-investigation-could-end-more-like-iran-contra-than-watergate/554345/




Friday, December 13, 2019

IMPEACHMENT--High Crimes and Misdemeanors--WHERE'S THE BEEF?

JOUR107.1002
James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020

High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a background---& The House Resolution



     At the heart of the effort to bring down the President of the United States is the clause written into the effort by the House of Representatives' opposition;
  "Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States,  for high crimes and misdemeanors." (House Res.,)
Lines 4-16 in the document provide the background of the Constitutional authority for impeachment as "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
     The impeachment resolution is divided into two sections, the first titled "Abuse of Power," and the second titled "Obstruction of Congress." Lines 15-26 in Article Two repeat the allegations of Treason, Bribery etc. However, the initial line of accusation is for "high crimes and misdemeanors" only and it appears the other charges of "Treason" and "Bribery" are without merit and inserted to prejudice not just the proceedings, but the media and public opinion as well. If the House intended to try the President on the latter charges, they should have been included in the line immediately following the Resolution title. The President is not accused of Treason, and not accused of Bribery, but of "high crimes and misdemeanors." A background in historical context of the phrase is in order.
     The phrase originates in early 18th century British law and was coterminous with treason, sedition and other allegations that might not have been directly proven due to the inflammatory nature of those accusations. A catchall for whatever couldn't be pegged on the accused, it appeared a convenient way to tag someone if the evidence didn't support the indictment. A case in point was the trial of Henry Sacheverell in 1710. An Anglican clergyman and Tory sympathizer, he was brought up on charges due to his condemnation of the opposition;

     "However, when the government lawyers examined the sermon, they discovered that Sacheverell had chosen his words carefully to such an extent that they considered it uncertain whether he could be prosecuted for sedition. They considered bringing Sacheverell to the Commons' Bar on the charge of displaying contempt for the Commons resolution of December 1705. A vote in the Commons would be enough to convict him. However this approach would deny the Whigs the publicity they sought in prosecuting Sacheverell and he would be at liberty once the Commons' session ended. The Whigs wanted a punishment sufficient enough to deter other High Churchmen. A vote in the House of Lords on a charge of high crimes and misdemeanours had the power to achieve what the Whigs wanted and could also inflict a heavy fine with confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life." (Wikipedia)


The phrase became a catchall for the inability to exact a particular, more damaging charge of sedition, against the accused. Britannica notes that he was indeed tried for sedition and found guilty and notes he was found guilty but at least one publication at the time infers this was not so.




     Again, this time related to the governor-general of Bengal in the late 18th century, the dealings of Warren Hastings were brought under scrutiny and eventually led to a long drawn out affair that was engineered by the influential Edmund Burke;



     "But Hastings was vulnerable on episodes such as the execution of Nandakumar and his treatment of the begums of Oudh and Chait Singh and even on some aspects of his personal finances, where he had acquired money in excess of his official allowances. In 1786, when Burke introduced an impeachment process against him (a prosecution by the House of Commons before the House of Lords), these blemishes were enough to persuade the House of Commons and in particular William Pitt the Younger, the prime minister, that Hastings ought to be sent to trial. The trial before the House of Lords lasted from 1788 to 1795, when he was acquitted." (Hastings, Britannica)

     The prospect of getting a conviction that would stick, much less to more serious charges, appeared in these two cases weak even with the influence of high-profile actions by historical heavyweights such as Edmund Burke. Curiously, Burke was no stranger to the rights of the colonists during the War for Independence even as he engaged in prosecution of his own countrymen over "high crimes" charges. (Burke) In fact, the nature of the charge involved a rather convoluted interpretation of how Hastings achieved peace following a war involving the East India Tea Company and accepting offers from those who sought conciliation. (Hastings 001) His enemies interpreted it as a bribe. It appears again that the actual nature of high crimes skirts the requirements of sedition and treason and becomes useful to at least shame the accused for questionable behavior that can't actually be considered criminal.
     In the case of Judge John Pickering, the Vermont Gazette reported in 1804;

     "the said John Pickering, being a man of loose morals and intemperate habits, on the eleventh and twelfth days of November, in the year one thousand eight hundred and two, in and for the district of New Hampshire, for the purpose of administering justice, appear on the bench of the said court, in a state of total intoxication, produced by the free and intemperate use of inebriating liquors, invoke the name of the Supreme Being, to the evil example of all the good citizens of the United States; and was then and there guilty of other high misdemeanors," (The Vermont Gazette)

     Note here the reference to ill-will toward the people of the nation and not necessarily he badrapped the Lord, drunk on duty being the more realistic charge against the judge. However, it still does not give us a solid ground to walk on concerning the charge of high crimes. If spouting obscenities and intoxicated on the bench are grounds for removal from office, then falling back on the Whig-Tory disputes over impeachment in 18th century England have plenty of merit. In fact, just about anything can be considered high crimes and misdemeanors.

     Returning to the current case involving the President of the United States, an overview of the process can be found in the Congressional record;
     "The Constitution's grant of the impeachment power to Congress is largely unchecked by the other branches of government. Impeachment is primarily a political process, in which judgments and procedures are left to the final discretions of the authorities vested with the powers to impeach and to try impeachments." (Congress)



Looking back at the file, the redundancy of at least two sections, that of inferring treason and bribery in both articles doesn't  help convince the Senate that a high crime, much less a misdemeanor, was committed. Lines 20-24 in Article 1, The Abuse of Power, infer the President;
     "through a scheme or course of conduct,"
attempted to influence the upcoming national election by digging up dirt on his opponents, in particular  Joe Biden, through his  son's business connections in Ukraine. In addition, it is inferred that military aid was withheld as some "quid pro quo" until the dirt was sent over. The weak wording of "scheme or course of conduct" indicates the opposition may not have concrete proof it was the President's intent at all, as with the necessity of public opinion influencing the bribery interpretation against  Hastings from above.
     If we also consider the fact that impeachment may well have a criminal basis, as by the Henry Tazewell interpretation during the William Blount case in 1798, then the call for a jury would be in order. (Tazewell) The problem with a jury, and a "criminal basis" as such,  is that some of the basic rights of the defendent would surface, such as the very notion of "intent." The case would then represent more of a criminal, instead of a political, nature and evidence that appears fact may become circumstantial at best, weakening the case.
     In Article 2, Obstruction of Congress, it is unclear that any influence of the President to prevent witnesses to appear can only be judged in the eye of the witness. In the end, it is the responsibility of the individual to appear when handed a subpoena, regardless of pressure from the boss, the media, public opinion, or Congress itself. The allegation is extremely weak.
     In spite of the polls, the determination politically of his opponents in Congress, and the fact that the resolution, considering all of the months long effort in coming up with a concrete proposal, there appears little in the resolution to make the charges stick.

Recommended Reading:

Column: Democrats impeachment of Donald Trump is way too thin, like butter scraped over too much bread

Where did the Trump impeachment go? When House Democrats began selling tickets to their President Donald Trump Impeachment Theater - shouting their outrage, preening on those late-night talk shows - it was much meatier business. It would be full of collusion with Russia, blackmail of Ukraine, it would contain extortion and go heavy on bribery.

GOP lawmakers jockey for positions as managers

The GOP members most often mentioned as potential candidates include Reps. (Texas), (Ohio) and (Ga.). "I don't know the extent of the lobby from Capitol Hill. I think there's a general consensus that there's a small group of members that would be, certainly, in the first tier, and another group would be in the second tier," one GOP lawmaker told The Hill.


Cited
House Res., https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6572308/Articles-of-Impeachment.pdf
Sedition,  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-Sacheverell
High Crimes, The Penny London Post, 06 Dec, 1749, Page 1.
Hastings, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Warren-Hastings/War-in-India
Hastings, The Public Advertiser, 20 April, 1786,  Page 1.
Burke, https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/edmund-burke-and-the-american-revolution-the-whole-story.html
Hastings001, The Newcastle Weekly Courant, 31 March, 1787)
Pickering, The Vermont Gazette, 03 April 1804
Congress, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S2_C5_1_1/
Tazewell, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2867&context=mlr
Where's the Beef Image, https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/80s/2018/01/10/on-this-date-wendys-first-asked-wheres-the-beef/