Rep. Green’s Draft Amendment on the Presidential Pardon: A good unnecessary deed!

On the 25^th of July 2017, the now Texas Democratic Party Representative Al Green has written a resolution to clarify and secure none obstacle and secure the laws of the land. Since, there is clearly a dispute going-on, if the President can pardon himself from self-conflicting crimes. Even if there been studies of this in past, like in the 1970s and 1990s when it came to both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, therefore, Trump should not be different from any of them.

The Draft Resolution is very specific and rare. It would be an amendment to the Constitution for the simple matter of the authority and legislative branch of the Presidential Office. In simple terms, this is what he wants to be added as law:

“The President shall not have no power to grant himself a reprieve or pardon for an offence against the United States”.

It is so powerful, even as the codes and the discussion around it shows it would be self-inflicting wounds if he would dare to pardon himself or anyone around him. That being family-members, associates and political allies. So, President Trump. Must feel the heat, as even Representatives will try to add on the constitution to secure that he will no code or law, that his lawyers can twist in his favor. Even if the past cases that has stated the fact and proven that he cannot do so. Since, the law clearly are addressing the functions of the office and if the President happen to do criminal activity previously to being elected into office.

This sort of amendment seems more of a precaution if someone more criminal and sinister are elected into office. However, this sort of idea would not have come under Barrack Obama, One of Bushes and even Jimmy Carter for that matter. This just proves the liability Trump is and are for the Republic. That their own representatives see the need to amend the constitution. So that the President cannot question his powers.

Since that is something, he is up to and that Representatives are clearly following up now. President Trump is only proving his guilt and that the deed is done, if he starts pardoning himself or others. Then, you know by his acts that he is a crook. Since he had to use the state to forge himself and by the seal of office. In addition, it should not be necessary, since the investigations are just beginning and the digging are just revealing more and more every single day.

But the documents of Marcy C. Lawton of 1974 should be clear enough, though not as direct and clear for a President of Trump preempted mind. Who stated on the 5^th August 1974:

“Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President: Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself. If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon the President” (Lawton, 1974).

If that is too deep for the President to understand. Then, some of his advisers or the Mooch should explain the matter to him. The constitution should not need a new amendment in this case, because the powers are already clear. However, to bury a body twice sometimes helps the criminals to understand that the victim is already dead. Peace.

Pardon me Trump, you are not above the law Part II

I have to continue since you are so persistent in your belief that you are greater and grander than the law. It should be insulting the American people and the Constitution to have such a President like you Trump. Who has the audacity to put himself on the pedestal and think he could do anything to anyone and then get away it with it. It is insulting and beneath the office and beneath the possible position your are holding at the moment. Donald J. Trump, you act like thief and act like disgrace in the White House. If you we’re innocent and your family we’re the same? Why need to be pardoned. If the Trump Campaign and the Trump Organization was clean of guilt, why need the pardon? Do you think the American people are that ignorant and stupid, to not see this. The whole world see it and how you are eaten inside by the guilt of your association and use of Russian questionable financial transaction to keep yourself afloat.

Because of this and your continues allegations and attacks on peers. Your misuse of power and your wish to undermine the American democracy and institutions. It is time to again. Go back in time, last time it was the advice Richard Nixon asked for days before his impeachment for obstruction against justice. The same sort of acts President Trump is currently doing and undermining the law as much as he can. Therefore I have to go back to a document based in 1998, when Law Professor Rotunda are writing to Judge Kenneth Starr on indictment. This was on the matter of then President Bill Clinton. But worth noting certain fragments of document to show the capacity President Trump has under current legislation. Not that he understands it, unless it 140 words or explained to him on ‘Fox and Friends’. Still, worth noting though!

“For Example, if the President in a moment of passion slugs an irritating heckler, he has committed a criminal battery. But no one would suggest that the President should be removed from office simply because of an assault. Yet the President has no right to assault hecklers. If there is no recourse against the President, if he cannot be prosecuted for violating the criminal laws, he will be above the law. Clinton vs. Jones rejected such an immunity; instead, it emphatically agreed with the Eight Circuit that: “the President, like other officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all citizens”. The “rational for official immunity is inapposite where only personal, private conduct by a President is a issue”. The President has no immunity in such a case. If the Constitution prevents the President from being indicted for violations of one or more federal crime statutes, even if those statutory violations are not impeachable offences, then the Constitution authorizes the President to be above the law. But the Constitution creates an Executive Branch with the President under sworn obligation to faithfully executive the law. The Constitution does not create an absolute Monarch above the law” (Rotunda, P: 5, 1998).

“As Nixon vs. Sirica carefully noted: “Because impeachment is available against all ‘civil officers of the United States’ not merely against the President, it is difficult to understand how many immunites peculiar to the President can emanate by implication from the fact of impeachability”. Moreover, it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, P: 7, 1998).

“Later, in Clinton v. Jones, the Court rejected any notion of Presidential immunity (even a temporary immunity) for the President who is sued by a private civil litigant for damages involving acts not within his Presidential duties. In that case, President Clinton’s “strongest argument” supporting his claim for immunity on a temporary basis, the Court said, was the claim that the President occupies a “unique office” and burdening him with litigation would violate the constitutional separation of powers and unduly interfere with the President’s performance of his official duties” (Rotunda, P: 36, 1998).

“These factors all buttress and lead to the same conclusion: it is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting President for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the President’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).

“This conclusion does not imply that a President must be required to serve an actual prison term before he leaves office. The defendant President could remain free pending his trial, and the trial court could defer any prison sentence until he leaves office. The defendant-President may petition the courts to exercise its discretion in appropriate cases. It is one thing for the President to petition the court to exercise its discretion; it is quite another for the President to announce that he is above the law and immune from criminal prosecution” (Rotunda, P: 55, 1998).

This letter of Law Professor Rotunda states very clearly the provisions and special place within the Republic the President has and the laws that needs to be extended to prosecute him/her. So with this in mind, no one not even President Clinton was above the law. The same scenario remains today with President Trump. That Nixon tried to find ways to pardon himself is clear, the same does now President Trump.

The possible collusion and collaboration with foreign officials and entities will be more clear as the investigation and drops of information leaks to the press. The more meetings, lack of disclosure from the Trump Organization and the Trump Campaign. The same is it his family and associates, as long as the narrative still exists and there are plot-lines to define. The story will live on and the investigators will look into the possible breaches. The Office of Special Council Robert Mueller has lots of power. Something, President Trump cannot stop. Therefore, Tucker Carlson and others trying to gain leverage and saying the investigation makes everything in Mosciw illegal, like buying cigarettes in Moscow. That show’s the disrespect of a criminal investigation by the Trump Friendly Press like Fox News and Sinclair Media.

While that goes on, the 1998 letter show’s that the President can be prosecuted and is not a person who cannot be put on trial. What is different unless there is a special court and trial, the criminal offenses done before his Presidential Term and his sentencing has to be served after his term. That because of the Executive Branch and the august role of government the President are. Certainly, ironic writing that while describing Trump.

This will be lines from the letter, that says the most for me, because the criminal offenses before the Presidential Term: “it would be anomalous and aberrant to interpret the Impeachment Clause to immunize the President for alleged criminal acts, some which occurred prior to the time he assumed the Presidency and all far removed from any of the President’s enumerated duties: witness tampering, destruction of documents, subornation of perjury perjury, illegal pay-offs” (Rotunda, 1998).

So obstruction of justice, which is witness tampering and destruction of documents are likely things that people knows Trump has done or wanting to do. That is why Special Investigator Mueller has asked the government and White House to keep their documents relating to Russian affairs and the known meetings with Russians. So the investigation looks into the possible crimes of the Presidency before and also, within, but the impeachment would happen with a federal grand jury, where the President is sentenced for crimes, which is not in the President’s Office duties. So, the possible grand jury are there as much as it was for Nixon and was for Clinton. No difference for Trump, unless the House of Representatives and Senators at the Congress are spineless individuals who are all loyal to Moscow and Russians like Trump. Peace.

Reference:

Ronald R. Rotunda letter to Judge Kenneth W. Starr – ‘Re: Indictability of the President’ (13.05.1998)

The historical call between Kissinger and Marder: Shows how the NSA became a WaPo source!

In December 12, 1972 there was a unique phone call between Journalist Murray Marder at the Washington Post and the then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under President Richard Nixon. Here we can see allegations from the Washington Post and the Nixon Government warfare in Vietnam. How it is explained and how the sudden approach of Marder get the truth and also get Kissinger to explain the situation, instead of getting angry and stop listening to press. Something, today’s government should learn, since this is not stopping the spin, but explaining the facts. Also, come forward. We are even seeing that Kissinger went to become “government source”, instead of being named in paper. Just take a look!

Let me show you pieces of the conservation between Marder and Kissinger to give some context:

“Kissinger: Yes, Murray.

Marder: Henry —-

Kissinger: Not that goddamn paper deserves a return call –

Marder: Ah, you mean the editorial or me or what?

Kissinger: The Editorial. No you’ve been 80 % rational. But for a newspaper that’s accusing us of not showing enough goodwill; now to accuse us of naivety is almost more than one’s morality can stand. But go ahead, you’re not responsible for the editorial”

He later continues:

“Marder: This is what I wanted to get at because the Press Office response was it was untrue that Kissinger asked for 126 charges. But we said, well, we thought it was too much because that leaves the question: “well, was it 125 or was it anything or was it –”

Kissinger: The last day we asked for none whatsoever. You know, I don’t know how the sons-of-bitches are counting – they might, during the course of 15 days, if they count every word that was ever suggested in these discussions, they might amount to something, I don’t know. We did not – – there were never more than 8 points seriously at issue at any time during the 15 days. All of this is off-the-record”

Later again:

“Marder: Which I’m not trying to do obviously because of this is the kind of thing you get a sweeping accusation from somebody of 126 charges.

Kissinger: The major issue that was discussed occurred in one place and did not recur through the document.

Marder: um-humm.

Kissinger: It is just not true.

Marder: Right.

Kissinger: You know, it might be hard to accept it. The U.S. Government may be telling the truth and Hanoi may be lying but it’s just barely conceivable.

Marder: No, the question here was just simple the way the way he is slinging the 126 around, it was obvious to anybody following this that there are not 126 charges probably in the entire agreement in any substantive form and he has gone on to say that – –

Kissinger: Look, can anybody really believe that having negotiated the Berlin agreement, the Shanghai communique, the SALT agreement, that one could be so wrong at the end of October as to think that 126 issues could be settled in three or four days?

Marder: No, I would think absolutely not.

Kissinger: Or is it more likely that we raised exactly the issues that I mentioned at the end of October? Issues on the assumption of a decisions to settle are easy. And on the assumption of a decision not to settle become insoluble.

Marder: Yeah, yes. I would have no problem with that”

Later in the conversation:

“Marder: What is not clear to me is do you see a probability of them dumping everything into that record? That would mean a break and everything if they would go that far.

Kissinger: They wouldn’t do that; they wouldn’t look to good.

Marder: I would think there is a limit. The point is that they probably do not want to break off the negotiations but want to register some great indignation and dismay and generate whatever support pressures from China and Moscow to support them there.

Kissinger: I think that’s right. Murray, I’ve got to run but will you write this please by keeping White House or anybody else out of it.

Marder: All right but I must use something – – Administration sources said the charge of 126 has no foundation whatsoever.

Kissinger: That’s right”

Finally:

“Marder: This is why I called you because the White House thing left that hanging.

Kissinger: Hell, it wasn’t anything like 10. I mean, in fact, only 10 things that were ever seriously discussed.

Marder: Right.

Kissinger: There may be a lot of things but all of this is basically irrelevant because all of those issues have in fact practically been settled.

Marder: Right, right. Just one brief thing, the timing discernible at all on any next move on their part?

Kissinger: I have no estimate on that.

Marder: Um-humm.

Kissinger: Okay, Murray.

Marder: Thank you, Henry.

Kissinger: Right. Tell ______ that I deeply appreciate his editorial.

Marder: I will”

If you see how the conservation was between the National Security Advisor and Washington Post Journalist. Shows how the political game is played and what efforts being made. How it went from I hate that editorial, to I appreciate it. Certainly, politician will act first in defense and say the papers are wrong. But when he changed and listened to Kissinger, the story got altered and the information being given made sense. So it wasn’t a spin. Maybe, the White House of today could learn from it today.

U.S. History: H.R. Haldeman note on Nixon order to “monkey wrenching” Vietnam-War Peace Negotiation (22.10.1968)

During a phone call on the night of Oct. 22, 1968, Richard M. Nixon told his closest aide (and future chief of staff) H.R. Haldeman to “monkey wrench” President Lyndon B. Johnson’s efforts to begin peace negotiations over the Vietnam War. Nixon long denied giving such an order, but Haldeman’s notes, which were quietly made public in 2007 and were recently discovered by the historian Jack Farrell, prove he was lying.