Time: Sat Nov 29 07:25:41 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA18943
for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:02:07 -0700 (MST)
by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA14715;
Sat, 29 Nov 1997 07:01:50 -0700 (MST)
via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd014679; Sat Nov 29 07:01:37 1997
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:57:51 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Considering an Inquiry of Impeachment (fwd)
<snip>
>
><< From http://www.house.gov/barr/i_nove.htm >>
>
>November 5, 1997
>BOB BARR (GA-7)
>
>AN INQUIRY OF IMPEACHMENT
>
>Given the increasingly specific and damaging evidence surfacing
>on a regular basis now against the President and his Administration,
>I believe it is both responsible and essential that we very carefully
>consider the matter of impeachment at this time.
>
>I believe in several fundamental premises. First, this is a rogue
>administration; consciously and systematically operating outside
>the bounds of the laws of this land, and outside the common and
>historical norms of political conduct for our country. Second, this
>President and his Administration must be held accountable for their
>misdeeds. If we in the House of Representatives, as the body
>charged with oversight of the executive branch, do not hold him
>accountable, then we have no legitimate claim to governing this
>country. Third, to a large extent, and as noted recently in the
>Wall Street Journal, President Clinton enjoys a relatively high
>approval rating because he has not yet been held accountable for
>his misdeeds. Fourth, this is a most serious matter for consideration
>which must be approached knowingly, deliberatively, with an eye
>toward both past and future history, with each step weighed very
>carefully.
>
>I have concluded after very careful and exhaustive research and
>consideration of all these matters, that the appropriate step to be
>taken at this time is the filing of an Inquiry of Impeachment.
>
>An Inquiry of Impeachment, is not the same in substance or process
>as Articles of Impeachment or a Resolution of Impeachment. This is
>an important distinction.
>
>For example, as noted in Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual, "[a]
>direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the
>House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order." On
>the other hand, a "resolution simply proposing an investigation . . . is
>not privileged" (Section 604, Jefferson's Manual). This latter directive
>refers to an Inquiry of Impeachment, which is one of the five specific
>"methods of setting an impeachment in motion" set forth in Section
>603, Jefferson's Manual. The specific language in Section 603 is that
>an Impeachment may be set in motion "from facts developed and
>reported by an Investigating Committee of the House."
>
>A number of Inquiries of Impeachment were introduced in October
>1973, in the 93rd Congress, against President Nixon. (Interestingly,
>a number of Members who signed one or more of those resolutions,
>several of which were introduced in late October 24 years ago --
>remain in the House today, including the ranking member of the
>Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.) I have reviewed all of them.
>
>An Inquiry of Impeachment does not set forth specific grounds for
>the Impeachment of the President or such other person sought to
>be impeached. However, an Inquiry of Impeachment, as a Resolution
>passed by the House, would have the very important and I believe
>necessary result of placing this issue squarely where it belongs, in
>the Committee tasked with Constitutional matters of high importance:
>the Committee on the Judiciary.
>
>When an Inquiry of Impeachment is filed, it is referred to the
>Committee on Rules (Section 605, Jefferson's Manual). This is
>precisely what transpired in October 1973, when a number of
>Inquires of Impeachment resolutions were introduced against
>President Nixon.
>
>Following consideration of the Resolution, pursuant to such
>deliberations and after receiving such evidence or testimony as
>it deems necessary, the Rules Committee would vote out the
>Inquiry. It would then go to the Full House where it would be taken
>up, but not as a privileged matter. The Inquiry of Impeachment
>would be voted on by the Full House, and if passed by majority of
>the Members thereof (and this is the operative language), it would
>provide:
>
> "Whereas, considerable evidence has been developed from
>a broad array of credible sources that William Jefferson Clinton,
>President of The United States, has engaged in a systematic effort
>to obstruct, undermine and compromise the legitimate and proper
>functions and processes of the Executive Branch:
>Now, therefore, be it
>
>Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to
>investigate and report to the House whether grounds exist to
>impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
>Upon completion of such investigation, that committee shall report
>to the House its recommendations with respect thereto, including,
>if the Congress so determines, a resolution of impeachment."
>
>At the heart of this matter is "abuse of office," which is also at the
>heart of the notion of Impeachment in our Constitution, and which
>cannot, by any measure, be considered in any other form (e.g.,
>oversight hearings by the Judiciary, oversight or investigative hearings
>by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, any action by
>the Department of Justice, or, perhaps most importantly, any action
>by an Independent Counsel).
>
>Not one of these other mechanisms has the ability or mandate to
>address what Impeachment is explicitly designed to address, and
>for which it was expressly placed in our Constitution. Impeachment
>alone, of all powers possessed by all three branches of our government,
>can protect us against abuse of power, by removing an official from
>office. It is designed to deal with "misconduct of public men," or, in
>other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust that is
>"of a nature . . . political." (See, Federalist Number 65, Alexander
>Hamilton; and Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,
>"Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry," Committee on the
>Judiciary, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, Second Session,
>February 1974.)
>
>Prosecution of a President by a U.S. Attorney or an Independent
>Counsel cannot remove him from office. Action by an Independent
>Counsel cannot remove a President from office. The Judiciary
>Committee cannot, except through Impeachment (and conviction
>thereof by the Senate), remove a President from office. The
>Government Reform and Oversight Committee cannot, through
>any action it takes, remove a President from office. Impeachment
>alone, provided as a tool to do precisely this by our Founding Fathers
>220 years ago, is the only tool to remove a high civil officer from his
>position of trust for abuse of that office.
>
>Impeachment not only does not require conviction of any crime (felony
>or misdemeanor in modern terminology) in order to be sustained, the
>very notion of Impeachment explicitly was not intended to reach the
>same issues as conviction of a crime.
>
>However, notwithstanding this last point, clearly we are seeing
>evidence that federal laws have been violated by the Administration.
>A number of these were very eloquently set forth in a letter to the
>Attorney General dated September 3, 1997, by Henry Hyde and
>signed by all other Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee.
>Recent newspaper accounts support this conclusion; such as John
>Fund's article in the Wall Street Journal of October 22, 1997, Paul
>Gigot's article also in the Wall Street Journal of October 17, 1997,
>and Mark Helprin's eloquent editorial on Impeachment in the October
>10th edition of the Wall Street Journal. Numerous other recent
>accounts also clearly set forth evidence of specific laws that have
>been broken, such as 18 USC 607(a) (relating to the prohibition on
>fundraising from or in a federal office by a federal official); 18 USC 641
>(conversion of government property); 18 USC 1505 (obstruction); and
>others.
>
>More important, we see a clear pattern of activity that establishes an
>intent or scheme to defraud the citizens of the United States of the
>honest and faithful services of their President; converting the Office
>of the President and the attributes thereof to the personal (i.e.,
>campaign) use of the President; circumvention of our federal election
>laws; laundering of campaign and labor funds; violation of tax laws (the
>Buddhist temple incident, for example); bribery; obstruction of justice
>in failing to respond to lawful congressional subpoenas and withholding
>evidence; and tampering with evidence. This is but a partial list.
>
>In summary, I believe the vehicle of an Inquiry of Impeachment provides
>a measured, interim and fully responsible mechanism to place this
>matter squarely where it ought to be, and that is, in that Committee of
>the House tasked with addressing matters of a high constitutional
>nature: abuse of office by the highest constitutional officer in the land.
>
>This matter, thusly handled, would not necessarily preclude other
>specific oversight or investigative efforts by the House. However, it
>provides a very necessary vehicle and direction for which and through
>which to consider these allegations, mounting evidence of which will
>be surfacing with increasing frequency.
>
>===========================
===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail