Nixon's Articles of Impeachment
If you know your history, you may know that Richard Nixon was going to be impeached, but resigned before that could happen. Here is the qualifications for the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon (the rest of the articles are below):
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
So, in other words, these were actions that warranted impeachment. Does this have any similarities to what's going on right now?Hello again Crankalicious, I have been expecting a Nixon/Trump Impeachment comparison - it just took longer than I thought it would. ;-)
Although I don't think such a comparison is completely nuts, I do think it is a wild one that will have to stretch to find any validity.
For instance; Your list, (you are testing my memory here, but a Google search will probably validate one of us), is a list of proposed articles of impeachment - not accepted articles. As I recall, there was a lot of discussion in the committee responsible for drafting the articles, as to which articles could be proven - and should be adopted, and which were only apparent - but could not be proven, and thus were not adopted. The latter articles were never accepted as articles of impeachment.
So you should refine your list to include only the accepted articles of impeachment to offer as Nixon/Trump comparisons. I mostly guessing here, but I think I recall that there were actually three articles, (maybe four), accepted and prepared to present as formal charges.
I think you will still have plenty of meat for your point.
GAGA,
I didn't research this fully. I didn't list the articles of impeachment, but the reasoning used to validate the first article. Here are the three articles approved:
Article 1
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 United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. (the items I listed were used to prove article 1)
Article 2
Using the powers 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 United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
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.
Article 3
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his 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 United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
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.I don't know that a comparison to Trump can be made with that. Can you point one out?
I think most of them apply, if it can be proved that Trump initiated them (which has not been proved yet).
1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; (his administration has consistently given false and misleading statements to investigators. However, there's no evidence that Trump has done so, but were those statements given at his behest?)
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States; (there's a lot potentially here, but nothing I know of specifically)
3. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings; (Steve Bannon's congressional testimony??)
4. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees; (this one is pretty clear to me. Firing James Comey falls under this)
5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities; (no proof of this point, though the payment to the porn star suggests that when Trump wants something quiet, he'll do this)
6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States; (doesn't apply)
7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability; (nothing here either)
8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or (he's made misleading or false statements over and over again - Comey telling him he wasn't under investigation...)
9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony. (He has a history of doing this - talking about pardoning various people, so this has potential, but nothing has been proved)You see Crankalicious, I told you it would be a wild comparison with quite a bit of stretch .
The items on your list were the result of completed investigations. Except for your FBI/Comey point - which is the "stretch" I mentioned, the rest are just conjecture and speculation - at this point. I am not predicting the investigation results, I am only saying that - at this point - they are un-validated claims. To consider them as comparisons, would - again, at this point, be the "wild" part I mentioned.
Take your Steve Bannon testimony example - he did not lie or mislead, he just refused to answer - based on what he said to be White House Counsel. It's true White House counseling was a factor in the comparison, but it is the effort and intent of that counseling that would be the determining point of the comparison. At this point, it seems to invalidate the comparison.
However, I think you might be able to find some traction for #9 - if there turns out to be substance in the other eight.
GALet's just focus on the firing of Comey for a second. In your opinion, why did he fire James Comey?
Is it really a stretch to think that he fired him to slow or even stop the investigation into his campaign? After all, it seems that he expected Jeff Sessions to remain in control of that investigation, not to recuse himself. Reports are that he was furious Sessions recused himself.
So is it really a stretch to think Comey's firing was obstruction of justice?That is a good discussion question crankalicious. Since there are no proven motivational facts, any answer will be a subjective opinion. The kind I prefer over link wars.
To keep the focus on the point of your OP, I will neatly sidestep your first question, and answer the second, which is does Trump's action of firing Comey compare to Nixon's actions using and manipulating the FBI as a tool of the executive for the explicit purpose of obstruction.
I don't think the comparison is valid. Nixon's actions were provable; the documented false testimony of the FBI Director, (Gray), the destruction and hiding of document evidence, (the contents of Hunt's office safe), and the tape documentation of the collusion between Gray and Nixon to use the CIA as a misdirection. My point that the comparison is a "stretch" is that I don't see any comparable actions by Pres. Trump.
At this point all we have is a supposition that Pres. Trump thought or hoped that firing Comey would take the wind out of the FBI's investigation. Or at least, affect, (lessen), the driving force of the investigation. Whether that is obstruction can only be an opinion - until the investigation can provide substantiating evidence, but it clearly, (in my view), is not comparable to Nixon's actions concerning the FBI. So, I think the comparison is a stretch.
GAOkay, I think that reasoning is sound in terms of what we know.
Hypothetically, let's say that Trump told somebody that his reason for firing Comey was to stop the investigation. Would that qualify as obstruction of justice?
Or let's provide another, more likely alternative, let's say that he told somebody that he was frustrated with the pointless investigation and thought Comey was playing political games and fired him for that reason. Would that qualify as obstruction of justice?
The most likely scenario, I think, is that he fired Comey to stop the investigation specifically because he thought Sessions would conduct a more favorable investigation or act on his behalf and stop it completely. Would that qualify as obstruction?Well, hypothetically speaking....
The answer to your first question would depend on the "why." If he did it to protect himself, then I would see it as obstruction, but if he did it for the reasons in your second scenario question - then obstruction becomes less clearly obvious to me. I do not believe the second scenario would be obstruction. I think that reasoning could be successfully defended as a good thing.
I think that your last scenario is the more likely one - except for the "stopping" part. If we accept the assumption that he was afraid of the investigation, then I can see where your final scenario of a friendly Sessions-run investigation would appeal to him, but I am not certain that would raise to the level of obstruction. Corruption on Sessions' part would have to be proven first.
And still hypothetically speaking, I think your second scenario of firing Comey to stop a pointless, divisive, and expensive investigation, is just as worthy of consideration as the more popular "He's guilty!" perspectives. There is proof for neither, and depending on your perspective I think there is equally supportive assumptions for both.
GASo here's the thing: I think all three are obstruction and abuse of power.
Why stop an investigation if you have nothing to fear from it? When was the last time a sitting president tried to stop an active investigation into himself? A president may not like it, but you don't interfere.
In these cases, usually the most obvious answer is right. If Trump has nothing to fear from an investigation (other than prosecution of his staff), he should let it run its course. If he has something to fear, then the course of action would be to taint the investigation, taint the investigators, and try to interfere. What's been happening?
However, given the number of leaks about stuff that Trump doesn't want out in the public, like his tax information, I can see where he's be frustrated by being constantly investigated.
Now, if you're asking me what proof we have so far, I would say we don't have anything yet. However, the implications do seem pretty bad. It's kind of like the porn star thing. He keeps denying he had sex with the porn star, but nobody can explain why they paid here 130k from a mysterious account they opened up just before the election. We have no proof he slept with her, but it certainly looks bad.You made me blink on that one crankalicious. The part about all three being obstruction - in your view.
Sticking with your hypothetical examination, I find it hard to see obstruction in stopping a pointless, (beyond the point of bowing to public pressure), divisive, and politically driven investigation.
Take Trump's name out of the context for a moment, and admit the assumption that an investigation can be accepted as being really pointless, really divisive, and really politically driven, would you still call stopping it obstruction? I would call it acting for the good of the nation.
A fleeting thought occurred that a comparison to Pres. Ford's pardon of Pres. Nixon might be a fair analogy. There was legitimate public demand for Nixon's prosecution, but Ford's perspective, (that I agree with), was that the issue was harmful to our nation, that our national priorities demanded a resolution, and that a smaller sacrifice of public angst for complete justice was worth the national benefit of putting the issue to rest. Would you consider Pres. Ford's action as obstruction of justice?
Without addressing the specifics of the rest of your Trump points, I will agree that things do seem bad. But I won't accept "seem" as proof - we have both lived long enough to know how frequently things aren't what they "seem." And I have also lived long enough to know that regardless of appearance, I can't always blindly accept what my "lying eyes" see.
GAI can at least understand from his perspective how he would think it was pointless and a witch hunt (he's said as much). Thus, it's a waste of time.
From an objective perspective, given the number of false statements that have come out of the White House about the subject of the investigation, interfering with it would seem unwise. Further, President Trump's own false statements about pretty much everything create an environment where, no matter what he says, it's hard to believe.
Again, let's go back to the porn star. Deny, deny, deny. But now there's the lawyer paying her out of a front company he created just before the election (this comes from the Wall St. Journal, I believe, not exactly a liberal rag). If the investigation into collusion with Russia and money laundering is nothing, Trump makes it next to impossible to believe his side of things.
Well, three Articles - at least my memory didn't fail me, even if it didn't give me the specifics.
GA ;-)
So, in other words, the things Nixon did, which I listed, only validated the first article of impeachment.
And GA, thank you for your logic and kindness. I've grown very tired of discussions (if you even want to call it that) that don't deal in facts or provide links to sites that just provide propaganda. There are too many people here who can't reason and are unwilling and/or incapable of examining an issue from many sides.
The recent revelation of Trump having Sessions put pressure on Wray to remove McCabe could also be construed as obstruction of justice. And Sessions was interviewed by Mueller for hours... The game's afoot!
Hey there Randy, I took a peek at the Wray fray, and I don't see how that can be seen as obstruction, re. Mueller's investigation. There might be several other choice descriptors for the action, but I don't see an obstruction connection.
What makes you see it as such?
GANot saying this will be used as obstruction GA, simply another possibility. Sessions has recused himself from anything to do with the Russia investigation, but Trump let it be known he wanted McCabe gone through his twitter feed. The report says Wray threatened to resign rather than pressure McCabe to quit just as Wray reported to the intel committee he would. I think McCabe would be considered involved in the Russia investigation and therefore out of bounds for Sessions. Disagree?
Hey Randy, I don't know much about McCabe - other than Pres. Trump wanted him gone. If he had something to do with the Mueller investigation, then maybe there is room for your speculation. If not, then I don't think there is any relation to obstruction charges.
GA
Related Discussions
- 23
The non-impeachment of President Trump
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Throughout the last three years, we've seen political maneuvering like never before - the Democrats have spent the entire time trying to undo an election, find a crime where one didn't exist, slander and demonize the President, go after anyone who was associated with the Trump campaign or...
- 21
US Rep. Greg Steube Files Articles Of Impeachment Against Biden
by Sharlee 8 months ago
U.S. Rep. Greg Steube Files Articles of Impeachment Against Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., President of the United States, For High Crimes and Misdemeanors"118th Congress State of the Union Address, President Joe Biden – February 7, 2023WASHINGTON — U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.)...
- 22
A Vote On the Impeachment Inquiry... Has Nancy Called Trump's Bluff?
by Sharlee 4 years ago
“Today Nancy Pelosi wrote a Dear colleague letter announcing she will bring a resolution to the Floor that will stand to affirms the ongoing, existing impeachment inquiry investigation. Pelosi said in a letter made public Oct 28 the resolution will establish the procedure for...
- 996
Impeachment of a President
by WeStand4Freedom 14 years ago
Impeachment of a President One would think that the impeachment of a president is not conducive in showing him support.”Give him a chance,” people say. President Obama, to be exact, has been in office for a year now. He has done a lot of damage in that year. I have seen not one promise...
- 57
We have a bigger fundamental problem if no one is held accountable...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
The Trump investigation by Mueller is sign of a much bigger problem with our justice system.If someone like Hillary Clinton who has committed numerous crimes... can be “exonerated” by Comey and the FBI and DOJ, and a Trump who has been investigated for two years and no crime found and no evidence...
- 56
Impeachment Articles are Out - The Laughter is Deafening !!!
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
The Democrats held a glad-handing press conference today and presented Articles of Impeachment to the American public....the American public responded with a resounding and hearty laugh. Where is the so called quid-pro-quo charge, or bribery, or extortion, or pay for play, or any of the other...