Posted on 08/11/2004 6:45:03 PM PDT by Jeff Blogworthy
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has waffled again, this time on his own recollections of a supposed mission to Cambodia on Christmas of 1968.
On the Senate floor on March 27, 1986 (Congressional Record, page S3594), Sen. Kerry said:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what is was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khme Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; The troops were not in Cambodia…I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me....
In an October 14, 1979, letter to the Boston Herald, Sen. Kerry wrote of his vivid memories of his Christmas Eve spent in Cambodia (quoted in Unfit for Command, page 46):
I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.
But today, on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry Campaign Advisor Jeh Johnson had this to say to the show's co-host Brian Kilmeade:
JOHNSON: John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the recorded to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.
KILMEADE: I think the term was he had a searing memory of spending Christmas - back in 1986 in the senate floor in Cambodia.
JOHNSON: I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.
Thanks!
Anybody catch Lanny Davis on Scarborough w/ Buchanan?
Lanny was freaking vile as usual. Unbelievable!!!
Lanny Davis reminded me of someone playing a video game who knows he is about to run out of time and begins to insanely fire at anything that moves.
There are waffles, and there are flip-flops, and then there are pure, premeditated, malicious lies. And the libs worry about Bush's sixteen words. Sheesh.
It's too obvious. His imagination is his escape from "Mama T" and probably his first wife too. This is not to say the women are wrong but more his unsettled issues.
If a President can (and has been) impeached for perjury,
should not a Senator also be judged for perjury?
Impeachment:
Background on Impeachment
The United States Constitution grants the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment" and the Senate "sole power to try all impeachments" (Article I, Sections 2-3).
The House of Representatives impeaches a President or other accused with articles of impeachment (offenses drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee).
A majority vote by the House is required to do so. After passed in the House the Senate "tries" the accused.
A two-thirds majority vote is needed for conviction and expulsion from office.
According to the Constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."(Article II, Section 4)
(note: high crimes and misdemeanors means a "Serious Offense" or, in simpler terms, a felony)
What does 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' mean? Does it apply to perjury?
Contrary to popular belief, the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' does not translate by the modern meanings of this phrase. Nor was this phrase specifically left vague by the founding fathers for future interpretation. Within the course of debate at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the 'Ex Post Facto' law and the 'Bill of Attainder' be specifically banned from usage by Congress.
These two terms refer to common legislative practices of the time which allowed a legislature to pursue criminal action against individuals without a proper trial in court.
Such debate naturally prompted a discussion of impeachment.
James Madison quickly argued that, in order to prevent dominance by the legislature through the use of impeachment, impeachment must be specifically limited to the serious offense. Upon this statement George Mason proposed to substitute the old British law term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as terminology for what constitutes impeachment.
Neither James Madison nor the clerk recorded any further discussion of this matter.
The use of a British common law term to define grounds for impeachment gives us a very precise area by which to define impeachment.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the framers were educated in British law. For this reason, the framers spoke with British legal terms under a common understanding of their meanings.
Such interpretation is not only a natural assumption by which the Constitution is to be interpreted. Such interpretation is mandated in precedent by the Supreme Court.
In Smith v. Alabama the Supreme Court ruled "The interpretation of the Constitution of the Untied States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." (a ruling of similar terminology is also found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) From this ruling we draw the grounds for interpreting all Common Law terminology in the Constitution as such.
Naturally the next course we must investigate is what the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' means in Common Law definition.
The term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' specifically dates to 1388. Since word usage from 1388 differs greatly from that of today (misdemeanor alone has shifted from meaning an 'offense' or 'illegality' to a minor crime such as certain traffic violations. It is unthinkable to assume an official may be impeached for double parking). It helps to view this phrase as not a sentence of specified distinctions but as a legal term of art in itself.
If we turn to actual impeachment trials in Britain between 1388 and 1789 we discover 'high crimes and misdemeanors' translates loosely as a "serious offense" or "crimes against public justice" (as termed by William Blackstone).
Blackstone, among the most prominent expert of Common Law in Britain's history, included "willful and corrupt perjury" with what he described as "crimes against public justice." This association gives us natural inclination to believe that perjury is clearly included in what is described as 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
To further support this association we look to the reasoning behind the inclusion of perjury under 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'
A certain number of crimes (perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and subornation of perjury included) constitute crimes against the judicial system.
These crimes directly attack the system of justice at its roots by obstructing the process by which justice is carried through.
For this reason, all are crimes of precedence. All of these crimes run the danger, if not properly dealt with, of setting a precedent of great damage to the judicial system itself.
It is here we find the truth behind the argument that if a president is allowed to commit perjury without receiving punishment, such a precedent will be established in which perjury may no longer hold ground as a crime in court. Such a precedent would obviously be catastrophic to a system which relies on truthful testimony.
Being a crime of precedence, perjury clearly constitutes an impeachable offense. Because it is a crime of precedence in which the judicial system is directly at stake, material perjury in almost all cases is a crime against the state.
Perjury associates in all clarity with the constitutionally impeachable crime of Bribery as well as the standard of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' based on its position in the judicial system.
Perjury being established as impeachable, we now may look to historical impeachments in which perjury was the crime at issue.
The Constitution makes little distinction between the impeachment of federal officials (judges, etc.) and presidents when procedure is concerned. For all practical purposes the grounds are the same, "Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The only distinction is that the Chief Justice of the United States chairs impeachment trials for presidents.
Perjury has long been used to impeach federal judges. Two cases occurred in 1988 in which federal judges were impeached and convicted for perjury. Judges Walter Nixon and Alcee Hastings were both impeached on the grounds of perjury (Hastings was also accused of conspiracy to obstruct justice).
The House of Representatives impeached both these men.
The Senate convicted and expelled both these men.
In the course of trial a Democrat controlled Congress accepted perjury as clear and reasonable grounds for impeachment and removal.
Ironically Alcee Hastings currently serves as a Congressman from Florida. Hastings voted against all four articles of impeachment for Bill Clinton.
The definition of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is clearly set out for us to see by examination of historical definition. Further proven is that perjury is impeachable. For this reason Congress is fully justified for removing an official on the charges of perjury, be it judge or president.
Justice rests "not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." - Edmund Burke
1998 The Capitalist Conservative Republican Homepage
And maybe that's why the One of Seared Memory claims to have no need of intel briefings...
I agree. I'm just kidding about him losing his compass in '68 and finding out in just the past few days that, (whoops!) he made a mistake.
How about gutting the defense department.
When Lanny stated the boat couldn't turn he never specified which boat couldn't. He was trying to imply Kerry's boat couldn't turn but he never tecnically lied because we know the number 3 boat couldn't turn and Kerry's could because Kerry stated it did. Kerry's boat didn't get rescued either. This was his "proof"? My head was spinning so fast after listening to him.
You caught that too?
Lanny is a skillfull, skillful liar.
These Clintonistas have really killed truth in this Country. A Country can't get by without truth.
These guys make me ill.
Fixed it for you :)
Now Kerry states he was in Cambodia with the special forces and he got the dates mixed up? He won't provide dates or times though for the "Secret Agent Man" visit.
"My what webs we weave when first we tempt to deceive"
Alrighty then. He was CERTAIN he was in Cambodia, but not CERTAIN of the date. How could he be so certain of one thing and not the other. I mean Christmas Eve? Christmas Eve, not December 22 or December 27th, dates you might be uncertain about 30 years later, but CHRISTMAS EVE. He was also equally certain that Richard Nixon sent him there, even though Nixon would not take office for another month.
Maybe it was Kerry and not Willie that had "sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." And maybe Nixon made him do that too. Unfrekin believable. Even more unbelievable that people would actually vote for this idiot.
When did Kerry stop working with the CIA? Was he working with the CIA when he was with the VVAW?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.