What's got your panties in a bunch?
For the false statements to lead the nation into war, let's copy Article 1 from Nixon's impeachment:
Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/obstruction+of+justice
In his conduct of the office of the 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 subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
.... work for you?
For the Writ of Habeas Corpus, let's copy Article 2:
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
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, imparting 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 purposes of these agencies.
And for good measure, let's add Article 3:
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
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 the 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, had 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 judgement 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 Constitution in the House of Representatives.
T.
For the false statements to lead the nation into war, let's copy Article 1 from Nixon's impeachment
Article 1 doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with false statements leading the nation to war. Do you even bother to read shit before you copy and paste it?
None of the rest of that says, or even suggests, that Nixon authorized the Watergate break in. So I ask you again, what's your point?
You're just trolling.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
Or are you illiterate? It's so hard to tell the difference.
You're just trolling
No, James, Nixon was not impeached because of, "false statements to lead the nation into war."
You're right, Nixon wasn't impeached, but it wasn't because of false statements.
Do you have some sort of impression that false statements leading to war are somehow less of an offense than other false statements to "duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings?" What if the falsehoods had been unsuccessful? Since they wouldn't be "false statements leading to war," would they then be grounds for indictment?
You're right, Nixon wasn't impeached...
I wasn't arguing about whether Nixon was impeached or not. Are you even bothering to read my comments before responding?
Do you have some sort of impression that false statements leading to war are somehow less of an offense than other false statements to "duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings?"
It's not only my impression, US law says so.
What if the falsehoods had been unsuccessful? Since they wouldn't be "false statements leading to war," would they then be grounds for indictment?
To which false statements are you referring?
Are you even bothering to read my comments before responding?
I have wondered if you read them before you post them.
US law says [false statements leading to war are OK]
Interesting claim. Which statute is that?
US law says [false statements leading to war are OK]
Interesting claim. Which statute is that?
No statute, as far as I know. I didn't say it either.
Your memory is awfully bad. Perhaps I should quote more liberally:
Do you have some sort of impression that false statements leading to war are somehow less of an offense than other false statements to "duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings?"It's not only my impression, US law says so.
"[S]omehow less of an offense" is not the same as "OK."
You've been arguing "not criminal," or, as I paraphrased it, "less offensive" or "OK."
Most people do the work of keeping up with their own arguments. But then, you aren't actually arguing, are you, you're just beating on the keyboard and clicking the "post" button.
You've been arguing "not criminal,"
Why do you find that so hard to understand? Lying by a politician about political matters is not a criminal offense.
When did Bush make false statements to "duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings?"
Article 1 is about making deliberately false statements as part of obstructing justice. That's pretty much what Bush is accused of. And my POINT was that the articles did NOT say that Nixon authorized the Watergate break in. The Articles of Impeachment said that he deliberately misled Congress and investigators, that he made false statements knowingly, he deliberately violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and that he exhibited Contempt for Congress. These parallel almost precisely the accusations against GWBush.
T.
Article 1 is about making deliberately false statements as part of obstructing justice. That's pretty much what Bush is accused of
He
is?! Who has accused him of that?
And my POINT was that the articles did NOT say that Nixon authorized the Watergate break in
Of course they don't:
you're the one who claimed that Nixon authorized a break in.
The Articles of Impeachment said that he deliberately misled Congress and investigators, that he made false statements knowingly, he deliberately violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and that he exhibited Contempt for Congress. These parallel almost precisely the accusations against GWBush
The difference is that there was actual evidence that Nixon did those things - the accusations against Bush are merely the product of the opinions of people with overactive imaginations.
Also, Nixon wasn't impeached because "he exhibited Contempt for Congress." You made that up.
