This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (21 posts)

Nixon's Articles of Impeachment

  1. crankalicious profile image94
    crankaliciousposted 4 months ago

    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?

    1. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      GA

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        GA,

        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.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          I don't know that a comparison to Trump can be made with that. Can you point one out?

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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)

            1. GA Anderson profile image80
              GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              GA

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                Let'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?

                1. GA Anderson profile image80
                  GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. crankalicious profile image94
                    crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Okay, 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?

        2. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Well, three Articles - at least my memory didn't fail me, even if it didn't give me the specifics.

          GA ;-)

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        So, in other words, the things Nixon did, which I listed, only validated the first article of impeachment.

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          And... ?

          GA

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            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.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 4 months ago

    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!

    1. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      GA

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Not 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?

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          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

 
working