Featured High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Got a link for that report?

 

Wow, well that's a pretty offensive post in the OP.

First of all, President Obama isn't a dictator. Clearly you've never lived under one so let me help you out here: it isn't freedom, we still have freedom, President Obama still gets turned down by Congress. He isn't a dictator.

Mentioning his physical appearance really damages your argument as does claiming he is using his race to get around the rule of law is simply incorrect.

Listen, if you are going to oppose the President and his agenda feel free to do so and you should be allowed to voice your opinion, but please do so in respectful ways. You don't know this man and FoxNews is probably not the best resource for a complete view of the news. When you go off on an issue using this kind of language, you betray your deeper point of an insolence that is discrediting.

 

puh-leeze! (rolls eyes)

 

You might as well get used to it. The norm here is to call the president names and make unsubstantiated claims about his character. Talking about issues is secondary.

Be ready, you (and me now) are about to come under serious attack.

You must be a liberal Obama loving socialist if you defend the president in any way.

 

The norm here is to attack the opposing political party over it's corruption and cover up the corruption within our own chosen political party.

That's how we've been trained and that's how we behave.

It seems to be a really fun game to play but so far the results have been pretty predictable.

Corruption always wins, we always lose.

 

That's all true OR but you know as well as I do that if Obama and his democratic cohorts were replaced by republicans tomorrow the republicans would be acting just like the democrats are acting now.

The only difference would be instead of calling their opposition racists they'd be calling them pacifists and anarchists.

That's how we've been trained, that's how we behave.

And I'd just like to add, I agree with you Obama he is acting like a dictator. If the neocons hadn't been in favor of creating a "unitary presidency" under their anointed Obama wouldn't find it so easy to be acting like a dictator today.

I tried to warn the neocons way back when but they just had to have a "decider in chief" instead of a president. Now, they're getting what they asked for and they don't seem to be enjoying it much.

Live and learn? I doubt that very much.

 

Well two things here: 1) defining something by using the definition isn't a good practice; 2) you clearly have no idea what a dictator is.

It is respectful for you to use this kind of language to describe someone. You, as a Christian, are called to a higher mark.

Well living in a federal constitutional republic isn't an inherent human right nor a mandate of Christian living. One thing that is a mandate of Christian living is to be respectful in our discourse and how we talk about our leaders (cf. 1 Peter 3:14-17; Hebrews 13:17)

Why do you have this dichotomy that I must either listen to FoxNews or MSNBC?

You do realize there are more options out there right? I get that nuance is intellectual kryptonite for most evangelicals, but what if I listen to no talk radio, 24 news channels, or consume any regular digest of televised news?

Perhaps, perhaps...I've developed my perspectives by reading broadly and going to multiple media outlets (usually online.) However, in these issues I am guided by my conscience that is tied to the Scriptures that while I can, and do, disagree with our President over many issues, I am called to be respectful towards him and his office when I do voice disagreement.

 

Hmmm. Like you're affiliated with white supremacist groups if you're in the Tea Party. Like you want poor children to starve to death if you're against abortion. Like you hate the poor if you want to fight welfare abuse. Let's see…..oh yeah, you support slavery if you ask for a bible verse condemning it.

Nice generalization. Good to see you honestly adding to the discourse. Can't wait until the point when you decide this has become un-civil and end the thread.

 

I don't completely agree. I believe respect has to be a two-way street.

Also, I do believe there are people who still support Obama, and are crippled in fear of being critical of him, simply based on his race. Thankfully, that is not the norm, but it does happen.

You are correct in that he is not a dictator, and the O/P reads like an ill-informed rant.

 

So you're saying that he's number 4...cause the context of the OP is #1 and #2.

Remind me again when Congress didn't vote for the ACA? Remind me again when his executive orders aren't challengeable by law and judicial review?

I've not seen this charge leveled by anyone who is reasonable. In fact, President Obama has attempted to diffuse this charge at points. I think you're taking a minority view here that is clouding your judgment.

And we're off the rails again...

Sorry, autocorrect issue...disrepectful was supposed to be typed. This is what I get for posting on my iPhone while in a cab.

I've stated, without equivocation where I stand on this often around here since it seems to be the litmus test for one's faith in Christ for too many. Please focus.

Ah, yes the often "Let's drop three red herrings into the debate" approach...

Yes, because you can make this bold assertion based on having only met me a handful of times in an online bulletin board. This is offensive sir, and you should be more careful in how you criticize another Christian.

I disagree.

I read broadly, Huffington Post has some good religion articles. I also read Le Monde, Der Speigel and the Guardian for my international coverage. Perhaps you can critique me on those too.

Remind me again, is the Dow Jones Industrial Average higher or lower from when President Obama assumed office? Is unemployment higher or lower from when President Obama assumed office? Are we still fighting two wars from when President Obama assumed office? Are the big automakers that were (incorrectly) bailed out from before President Obama assumed office still in hock to the government? Are the major financial institutions rising or falling away?

I've had relatives who have been wounded and others who died in theaters of war in far away countries too. That doesn't give me the right to decry a man and call him names who has been properly elected into the highest executive office in our country.

And the Republicans have always opposed abortion?

Again, nuance and recognizing there are more than two options will certainly help you here.

For the record, I do not support many things President Obama does. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of the condition of our country and the prescription for what is need to heal our wounds. I have not voted for him in either national election. However, I do respect him as a leader and his office as I am required to do as a Christian.

I noticed you didn't answer my Scriptural citations. Does the Bible have no place in your political thought? What about 1 Peter and Hebrews and its command to respect our leaders and those who disagree with us?

 

I can understand and appreciate your point. It just seems hard to receive respect, or attempt to understand the projection of respect from a man I have never met nor will ever meet and whom I only know about via the lens of the media.

One thing that I have seen which has happened, and is a benefit, in our society is that we have stepped away from the race centered critiques and refusals and are understanding that you can be critical of someone else and it not inherently be racially motivated. I think the President has helped us turn that corner.

 

I have been talking to you for years C4K, and have never thought of you as a liberal. I have you pictured as basically someone who supports the Constitution with a libertarian tilt maybe. You also view things in a wider perspective than most Americans because you live overseas.

Now, the issue of "high crimes and misdemeanors" should not be based on what we think of Obama. I did not vote for him either time, and only 36% of the population in my state did. So really, this is not a Obamacare issue, or a wealth redistribution issue, but what the intent of the Framers was. Here is a partial excerpt from the Constitutional Rights Foundation that I found interesting.

" The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

Only three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson was the only senator from a Southern state who stayed loyal to the union during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln, seeking to reconcile with the South, tapped Johnson, a Democrat, as his vice-presidential running mate in 1864. When Lincoln was assassinated at the war’s end in 1865, Johnson assumed the presidency. He immediately ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over Reconstruction of the South. The Radical Republicans supported military rule in the South and voting rights and redistribution of land for blacks. Johnson disagreed and favored a quick return to civilian rule. The two sides grew increasingly farther apart as Congress repeatedly passed Reconstruction legislation, Johnson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. Over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed a Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get permission from Congress before firing any member of the executive branch who had been approved by Congress. Johnson responded by firing the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, a Radical Republican. His firing violated the Tenure of Office Act. But Johnson believed the act was unconstitutional. The House passed 11 articles of impeachment. Eight involved Johnson’s violations of the Tenure of Office Act. One charged him with sending orders through improper channels. Another accused him of conspiring against Congress, citing a statement he made about Congress not representing all the states. The last summarized the other 10 charges and charged him with failing to enforce the Reconstruction Acts. At the end of the Senate trial, only three charges were brought to a vote. Johnson was saved from conviction on each by one vote.

History has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. The charges are generally seen as politically motivated, based on the extreme disagreement over Reconstruction between Congress and the president. They are not viewed as “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of removing a president from office. Most commentators look on this impeachment as a severe threat to the separation of powers.

Richard Nixon

The next presidential impeachment case did not arise for more than 100 years. Before taking a look at the Nixon impeachment case, it’s worth examining a famous comment made a few years before (in 1970) by then-Congressman Gerald Ford, who would later succeed Richard Nixon as president. For years, Ford had urged the House to impeach a liberal justice on the Supreme Court. Although Ford’s attempts failed, he uttered memorable words about “high crimes and misdemeanors.” He stated that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” Ford argued that “there are few fixed principles among the handful of precedents.” In one sense, Ford is right. If the House votes articles of impeachment, the vote cannot be challenged in court. The Constitution gives the House sole authority over impeachment. So if the House votes articles of impeachment for any reason, the official is impeached and must stand trial in the Senate. But in another sense, Ford is clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution did not give Congress absolute power to remove judges and executive officials. It wanted Congress to use its impeachment power only in extreme circumstances, when an official had committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separation of powers depends on Congress limiting impeachments to these cases.

In 1972, Richard Nixon won a landslide reelection to a second term as president. During the election, burglars, with links to the White House, had been caught breaking into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. The burglary drew little press attention at the time. But it would lead to events that ultimately brought down the president. Nixon may or may not have had advance knowledge of the burglary. He probably feared, however, that its investigation might uncover evidence of political spying and the illegal use of campaign funds on the part of his administration. So he took an active role in obstructing the investigation. He discussed raising hush money for the burglars and enlisted the FBI and CIA in squelching the investigation. In 1974, the House Judiciary committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents. Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles.

The committee had declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax evasion. The committee did not believe this was an impeachable offense. It based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which the committee had ordered prepared before beginning its investigation. This report traced the history, precedents, and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:

Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. . . . Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.

The same year Yale Law School professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book, Impeachment: A Handbook. Black agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously. Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.”

Black’s book cited two examples of presidential misconduct that would not merit impeachment: (1) a president brings a female minor across a state line for “immoral purposes” in violation of federal law and (2) a president obstructs justice by helping hide marijuana for a White House intern. Black considered it “preposterous” to impeach a president for these acts. These examples would prove relevant to President Clinton’s impeachment case more than 20 years later.

 

Part 2

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and reelected in 1996. During his first term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate Whitewater, an Arkansas land deal involving Clinton that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation later expanded to include scandals surrounding the firing of White House staff in its travel office, the misuse of FBI files, and an illicit affair that the president had with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a report to the House Judiciary Committee. It found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal. Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of committing perjury before a grand jury convened by the independent counsel. The second charged him with providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in a civil case related to the scandal. The third accused him of obstructing justice to “delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The fourth charged that he misused and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and other employees so that they would mislead the public, asserting executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.

During the Judiciary Committee’s hearings, experts testified on what constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The experts called by the Democrats argued that none of the allegations against the president rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” These experts echoed the reasoning found in the 1974 staff report and Professor Charles Black’s book on impeachment.

The experts called by the Republicans disagreed. They pointed out that federal judges had been removed from office for perjury. They further argued that the president had taken an oath to uphold all the laws and he had violated his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer."

I think the summation that high crimes and misdemeanors is a violation of public trust is the best. It does not have to be a specific set of crimes. Of the three Presidents impeached, IMO, Andrew Johnson's was the most unjustified. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton abused their power, although in different ways. Nixon's was pure power abuse, and Clinton's was not telling the truth in legal proceedings to cover up an immoral life style. There is not telling however, how much Clinton got by with in old scandals. Another difference between the two is that Nixon would have been removed from office had he not resigned.

So with all these standards, where does Obama stand? Has be broken the public trust? It is not in the same manner as any other President, but, yes, he has broken the public trust. The abuse of the IRS reminds me of Nixon. Misleading the American people about the results of Obamacare reminds me of Nixon. (I am not a crook)

We could get into a debate if reckless spending of American tax money is an impeachable offense, running up the deficit, but there are two problems with that. One is that every President, including Reagan was guilty of that, or everyone since Carter. Second, the President does not spend one penny, Congress does.

I think there is a theoretical case for impeachment and conviction, based on those offenses above, and things like the Benghazi affair, but lets look at reality. The Presidential election is approaching two years. Now, the Democrats own the Senate. By the time they meet next January, the election will be less than two years. IF the Republicans win the Senate, and that is a very big if, considering Mitch baby, it will be by a small margin, well short of the two thirds needed for conviction. In Nixons case, it took over two years from Watergate break in to resignation. The House had specific charges. All the ones above would have to be investigated.

Another problem is like some of the Obama posts here. The environment is so shrill, people are tired of hearing it. It is like the Hawaii birth certificate, the Muslim church membership, etc, etc........ The clock has run out on impeachment, in other words.

Why was Obama elected twice? Who elected him? You say, I did not vote for him. But guess what we did do, we nominated two pathetic Republican nominees, and Obama ran circles around both of them.

If the Republicans nominate another moderate liberal establishment big spender, and send people like McConnell back to the Senate, they will lose in 2016, even against Biden.