Impeachment: 1974 vs. 2016

“…SUCH CONDUCT, WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.”

by Sharon Rondeau

I am not a crook

(Jan. 3, 2016) — On July 27, 1974, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary formally announced that it had adopted Articles of Impeachment against President Richard Milhous Nixon, alleging “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS” as set forth in Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

The Articles of Impeachment consisted of three specific charges, also termed “articles,” with multiple items detailing the nature of the crimes alleged against Nixon and his political associates against Democrats by “conspiracy, burglary and bugging the Democratic Party’s Watergate headquarters, as reported by The Washington Post.

The second paragraph of Article 1 prior to the enumerated allegations of that section reads:

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.

In early June 2013, former Booz Allen Hamilton employee and former CIA and NSA contractor Edward Snowden abruptly left the United States with a vague explanation to his girlfriend, flew to Hong Kong, and told reporters from the UK Guardian that the content of virtually all telephone calls and email communications exchanged in the U.S. are collected by the National Security Agency (NSA) without a warrant. Snowden stated that he felt compelled to come forward because of the constitutional violations he saw while working for the government agencies.

As part of his revelations, Snowden presented classified documents explaining several of the methods and programs used to collect Americans’ electronic communications without their knowledge or consent.  One program, dubbed PRISM, “collects the Internet data of foreigners from major Internet companies,” according to The Washington Post.  At the time of the disclosure of PRISM, then-Attorney General Eric Holder offered the assurance that “Everything is done consistent with the law.”

According to The Guardian, quoting The New York Times, technology giant Microsoft, as well as Yahoo, Facebook and Google have “acknowledge[d] complying with secret N.S.A. court orders for specific data.”

Approximately three months before Snowden’s disclosures were made, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper told a Senate Intelligence Committee member that data was “not wittingly” collected on U.S. citizens not under suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity.  In a June 13, 2013 article describing the March hearing, ABC News reported, “The rub is that government officials do, indeed, collect data on millions of Americans, even if they don’t necessarily read it all.”

ABC then suggested that Clapper’s response, characterized as a “flub” to Sen. Ron Wyden, resulted from Wyden’s question as having been “confusing.”  In another report on the same subject  dated the same day, ABC wrote:

Sen. Rand Paul has sponsored a bill that would curb the National Security Agency’s ability to search phone records. Not a single other U.S. senator has signed on, and that’s good news for Rand Paul.

While the Washington establishment is fleeing a direct confrontation with the Obama administration over a slew of secret surveillance programs that raise questions about privacy, the Senate’s resident Tea Party libertarian aggravator is reveling in the relative solitude.

Now that both political parties have a hand in supporting national security policies that appear more aimed at catching terrorists than protecting privacy, the NSA scandal is the perfect playing ground for a senator with presidential ambitions who is building a brand as an equal opportunity agitator.

On October 23, 2013, the website ProPublica, which describes itself as “Journalism in the Public Interest,” reported that despite Obama’s assurances that “more than 50 terrorist attacks” had been thwarted by NSA surveillance, “there’s no evidence that the oft-cited figure is accurate.”

At the time, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner said of the NSA’s data collection that “There is heavy oversight of this program by the House Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan basis and the Senate Intelligence Committee. And that’s why I feel comfortable that we can operate this program and protect the privacy rights of our citizens.”

In November 2013, Former CIA, NSA and Pentagon contractor Dennis Montgomery contacted the Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) claiming to have documentation that more than 150,000 Maricopa County residents’ bank accounts had been breached and their data collected by a government entity. In an introductory conversation which took place several months prior but following Snowden’s public revelations, businessman Tim Blixseth told Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio that Montgomery had unsuccessfully sought whistleblower immunity from 18 different federal agencies and/or individuals in authority in order to reveal the information he allegedly possessed.

After Montgomery contacted the MCSO directly, Arpaio decided to hire him as a confidential informant to assemble the data on the Maricopa County residents’ bank accounts in order to decide to whether or not crimes against his constituents had been committed and could be prosecuted.

Montgomery worked for the MCSO as an informant for approximately a year, during which he experienced significant medical setbacks.  Arpaio instituted oversight of the project by two detectives and an uncompensated former police officer and lead investigator of the MCSO’s Cold Case Posse, which had conducted an investigation into Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form, finding both to be “computer-generated forgeries” after approximately six months of probing.

In April, while testifying in a civil contempt hearing naming him, four of his officers and the county as defendants, Arpaio stated that Montgomery ultimately provided his office with mostly “junk.”

The birth certificate investigation has continued and, as Zullo testified in the contempt case on November 12, was amplified to some degree by Montgomery.  Most of the questions Zullo answered, however, focused on Montgomery’s work on assembling evidence of the alleged bank breaches of Maricopa County residents, including that the presiding judge, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow, was one of the victims.

Neither the local or national press has appeared to show any curiosity toward nor investigated the findings of forgery and fraud in regard to Obama’s “documentation” or the reported breaches of banking data by approaching Zullo for an interview following his testimony.

Previously and unrelated to the contempt case, Zullo termed the birth certificate forgery “the foundational lie of this presidency” with its release an “intent to deceive.”

Names found in a massive database Montgomery possessed reportedly included Donald Trump, Zullo, a number of federal judges, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain, and a local restaurant owner, Earl Wilcox.

In an article dated December 29, 2015 published at The Wall Street Journal on the topic of the NSA’s “spy net,” the subheadline reads, “NSA’s targeting of Israeli leaders swept up the content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers,” revealing that, if accurate, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his close advisers, and their discussions with members of the U.S. Congress were captured by the NSA and audited by White House staff.

It has not yet been revealed who ordered or approved the surveillance.

On January 1, Atty. Larry Klayman wrote in his weekly WND column that his client, Dennis Montgomery, “has explosive the information about the sort of criminal conduct disclosed by not just Edward Snowden, but now the Wall Street Journal.”

On October 27, 2013, Fox News headlined an article with “Obama knew of NSA spying on [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel and approved it, report says,” quoting The Economic Times as having reported that “a high-ranking NSA official” told the German publication Bild am Sonntag that “Obama did not trust Merkel, wanted to know everything about her, and thus ordered the NSA to prepare a dossier on the politician.”

But ABC had reported on June 13, 2013 that then-NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander said during “a conference” that “The story that we have millions or hundreds of dossiers on people is completely false.”

Obama reportedly told Merkel after the spying became public that he “was not aware of the NSA’s spying” [on her].

An article by the same WSJ dated December 30, 2015 in the Dow Jones Business News reported:

President Barack Obama’s decision two years ago to limit the National Security Agency’s spying on certain allied heads of state didn’t sit well with some advisers, who worried that critical pieces of information could be missed, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Stung by disclosures in 2013 about the scope of the spy agency’s operations and under diplomatic pressure to respond, Mr. Obama settled on a revamped system. Certain allies, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande, were added to a so-called protected list, making their communications off-limits to the NSA. As a workaround, however, the White House authorized the NSA to target the communications of a select group of those leaders’ top advisers.

…In the case of Ms. Merkel, U.S. intelligence veterans feared losing access to her private communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin. They also questioned the wisdom of the move, especially given their belief that the intelligence agencies of many close U.S. allies, including Germany’s BND federal intelligence service, spy on the White House.

At the time, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned about the dangers of tying the intelligence community’s hands. He warned that the administration was asking for what he termed “immaculate collection,” meaning they wanted the information without getting their hands dirty, according to officials.

On Sunday, in an unprecedented move, Russian president Vladimir Putin identified the United States as a threat to its national security.  WSJ and Dow Jones authors Adam Entous and Danny Yadron additionally reported on December 30 that “The NSA has also long struggled to monitor Mr. Putin, which is why U.S. intelligence officials wanted to retain access to Ms. Merkel’s communications.”

After Snowden first released his revelations anonymously, U.S. Senate intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said that “whoever leaked the information should be prosecuted.” However, when information came to light that the CIA could have searched her committee members’ computers, Feinstein said “she had ‘grave concerns the search may have violated federal law regarding domestic spying as well as congressional oversight responsibilities under the Constitution.”

Of the same alleged event, CNN reported on March 12, 2014:

[CIA Director John] Brennan said in a statement last week that he was “deeply dismayed” that some members of the Senate have made “spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Barack Obama has “great confidence” in Brennan and the intelligence community.

However, on July 31 of that year, The Guardian reported:

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials.

Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture.

In a brief filed in a lawsuit against Obama and the NSA over its surveillance of Verizon Wireless customers following Snowden’s disclosures, Klayman wrote that Montgomery “has firsthand information that the constitutional violations that are at the center of this appeal are even more widespread than previously believed.”  Klayman continued on page 2:

On December 16, 2013, Klayman won a temporary injunction against the NSA’s collection of telephone data from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon which Leon stayed pending the government’s appeal; hence, Klayman’s above-cited brief.  The appellate court took two years to issue an opinion, which included lifting the stay and remanding the case back to Leon.  After several more hearings, Leon again declared the spying unconstitutional in November and ordered it to cease.  The Obama regime again appealed and obtained a stay of Leon’s ruling within just days of its issuance.

As background in his appeal to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit filed in March 2015, Klayman wrote of Montgomery:

On November 29, 2015, a provision of the USA Freedom Act passed in June of last year took effect which bars the NSA from collecting phone records directly, although they remain under collection by the telephone carriers themselves and can be subpoenaed with a warrant approved by a federal judge.

Klayman represents Montgomery in a separate lawsuit filed last February against New York Times columnist and author James Risen, who reportedly wrote in his book published last fall that Montgomery is a “con man.”  In that case last August, and again in November, Klayman reported that Montgomery has received two respective immunity agreements from the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice.

Regarding Montgomery’s information, Zullo stated that “it was always going to the FBI.”

“As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth.”

On April 27, 2011, after the long-form birth certificate image was released on the White House website, Barack Hussein Obama, in a brief press conference, berated the “sideshows and carnival barkers” which had led to that moment, fueled by speculation that he was not born in the United States and did not qualify to serve as president under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as a “natural born Citizen.”

During his remarks, Obama said, “As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth,” which the image indicated was “Honolulu, Hawaii” on August 4, 1961.

However, Zullo said publicly of Obama in September 2013 that “There never was a birth in Hawaii.”

The nine enumerated allegations contained in Article 1 of the Impeachment Articles against Nixon read:

  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.

The Articles conclude:

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.

The Judiciary Committee voted 27-11 to pass the Articles out of committee to the full House of Representatives.  On August 9, 1974, rather than face trial in the U.S. Senate as a result of impending impeachment in the House, Nixon resigned his office approximately 18 months into his second term.

In July 2014, Articles of Impeachment were drafted by the North American Law Center (NALC) and submitted to various members of Congress, with increased pressure placed upon members of the “House Freedom Caucus” over the last six months to introduce the Articles to the House Judiciary Committee. Despite reported recent pledges from three such members, not one has moved to introduce the Articles to the knowledge of this writer.

Over the summer of 2013, several House members appeared to believe that there would be enough votes in favor of impeachment were it to come to the House floor, and Rep. Ted Yoho said last month that his constituents are “clamoring for it.”

NALC has launched a state-by-state initiative to garner support for Obama’s impeachment and his cohorts and introduced a Resolution for Impeachment to the Republican National Committee for consideration at its January 16 conference.

The Articles consist of three main items with a plethora of enumerated allegations of crimes and abuses, including “criminal identity fraud.”  The document is 14 pages, including extensive footnotes.

A portion of Article II, “Malfeasance(iii), misconduct and abuse of the Oval Office,” states that “Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, 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” and includes 19 examples.

The Articles conclude:

In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama 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, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

One Response to "Impeachment: 1974 vs. 2016"

  1. Pingback: Where Were the “Conservatives” When Obama Was Running? | The Post & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.