High Crimes - Why Politicians Are NOT Allowed To Lie!

I decided to post this because there seems to be some confusion about whether or not politicians are "allowed" to lie to people. How on earth do people rationalize this??? A duly elected official, to represent the People, is not allowed to deceive or mislead the public.

The following is a full explanation of what the actual intent of the language around "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. If a public official isn't allowed to commit a misdemeanor, since when would it be ok to lie to people?

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".

The language alone is enough to see that what is being stated here is correct. Bill Clinton is a perfect example of what is considered a "high crime". What he did would NEVER have been considered a crime, but because he held a position of such high power as a public servant, it was considered a "high crime" and was punishable with impeachment. Just because the impeachment didn't go through and he was never fully impeached, doesn't mean anything since the proceedings were still brought against him, which meant that under the definition necessary for a "high crime", his fit. How many other public officials have "stepped" down before they were charged with "high crimes"? Weiner comes to mind, Patraeus too. I'm sure you all can think of more. These guys didn't commit any statutory crimes, but given their status of being in very high positions of power, they were considered crimes, therefore high crimes.

The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.
periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.
iurator, oris, m., a swearer.
iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.
ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.
per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

Make sure you read that again. ANY PUBLIC STATEMENT IS PERJURY IF IT IS A LIE NOT MEANT TO DECEIVE AN ENEMY!!!!!! And this is the crux of the argument. Public officials ARE NOT allowed to lie.

It goes on to say:

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.

I think what most people are failing to recognize is that WE, the People, CHOOSE to be governed by those we elect, and it is a PRIVILEGE for them to be in office, not a RIGHT. As such, those that we elect are taking an oath to represent us, which cannot be done through lies, deception, cover-ups, or any false representation, UNLESS it is a matter that constitutes National Security, which most of the time, does not.

Source

(continued)

(continued)

An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.

He is responsible for everyone under him, and any and all misconduct that he is aware of.

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.

The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

I hope this gets others to realize that we still have the power to bring these liars and crooks up on charges and thrown them the HELL out of office, every one of them.

To close, I'd like to remind everyone of what the Founders meant in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

The Founders made it very clear that when the Government begins to erode or destroy the People's right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that it is our RIGHT and our DUTY to abolish and destroy that Government and replace it with one that respects our unalienable rights to Happiness and Safety. The Founders also said that history has long shown, that as long as we can tolerate the evil acts perpetrated by the Government, we would rather suffer through it instead of fix the problem, simply because of how used to doing things the way we've been doing them is easier for us to accept.

It's time to stop the madness folks. Let's put this to an end now, before we lose the honor to call ourselves Americans.

Source

~Namaste

Sign me up!

I feel all patriotic now just for reading that, but for any of this to work you have to have the governed want it.

Other than some members on ATS I'm not seeing the want, our fore fathers were some insightful dudes on that note, unfortunately.

Originally posted by terriblyvexed
Sign me up!

I feel all patriotic now just for reading that, but for any of this to work you have to have the governed want it.

Other than some members on ATS I'm not seeing the want, our fore fathers were some insightful dudes on that note, unfortunately.

I agree, the message needs to be spread to other people so that they stop believing the lie that politicians are allowed to lie.

It's like that saying... "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people he doesn't exist"...

Not to say I believe in the devil, but the analogy applies. If they can convince everyone that they are "allowed" to lie to us, that means we'll accept anything they say, and anything they do since they can just cover up their acts with lies that we'll all believe.

It has GOT to end. We are drowning in this country, and we have the ability to stop it if people would just open their eyes.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Politicians do plenty of lying before they are elected, I hardly believe that they can just turn this aspect of their personality off once they are elected.

Honestly, if you take this one trait alone, for politicians, I think they ALL fail on this one, and do so monumentally.

Agreed. Lying under oath before a court of law and breaking the oath of office (ie. "swearing to defend the Constitution) constitutes a "high crime" for which an official can be impeached. It seems that our threshold for such crimes against the people tho has been raised since Nixon left office.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Thanks for providing this.

I find it quite saddening to see people defend the lies and having the government play "victim" when they (government) are the ones who have been victimizing the American public.

This "meme" of Snowden being a traitor because he outed a corrupt government has to be fought.

I agree with your op in principle but I submit that we're not dealing with a logical situation to apply it to. It's the Golden rule here. He who has the Gold, defines the rules. In this case, they define reality by what we see, hear, think and feel as well. So... What's a lie vs. a statement out of context? An innocent lapse of memory?

There is the way any mere mortal would be judged on these issues and then there is how anyone within the power structure is judged. We don't have a Rich / Poor problem in this country (People have no problem becoming poor, I've noticed). We have a Power/Powerless problem. They have gold by the truck load and we have a few trinkets in the old jewelry box to make us feel good. As if our opinion on anything, matters to anyone in those rarefied levels we're just too simple to understand.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I agree with your op in principle but I submit that we're not dealing with a logical situation to apply it to. It's the Golden rule here. He who has the Gold, defines the rules. In this case, they define reality by what we see, hear, think and feel as well. So... What's a lie vs. a statement out of context? An innocent lapse of memory?

There is the way any mere mortal would be judged on these issues and then there is how anyone within the power structure is judged. We don't have a Rich / Poor problem in this country (People have no problem becoming poor, I've noticed). We have a Power/Powerless problem. They have gold by the truck load and we have a few trinkets in the old jewelry box to make us feel good. As if our opinion on anything, matters to anyone in those rarefied levels we're just too simple to understand.

Oh, come on Wrabbit! The glass isn't empty, it's still half full...

It's 545 of them against 300 million of us. All it really takes is to get people on the same page, THAT's the hard part, because to your point, they use their power to tear us apart and distract us, spin us around and around and keep us completely oblivious to the fact that WE, the American people, usually DO agree on most things of principle...

For example, in a case like this, I think we all know it's NOT OK to be lied to by our elected officials, but we've been conditioned to believe otherwise. That creates a situation where they can basically make the rules, and do whatever they want, because at the end of the day, they can just lie about it even though the truth is in plain sight. And since they can do that, there will always be people who foolishly believe anything that they're told. "Oh, I forgot"... well, you CAN'T when you hold a position of power. "It was out of context".... well, you're supposed to be smart enough to know what you say before you say it. "I was not aware of...".... well, your job is to be aware Mr. President, or Mr. NSA Director, or Mr. Head of the FBI. This whole "plausible deniability" crap is the biggest con played on us since the inception of Government.

It's our responsibility as Americans to change that. It's our responsibility to abolish any form of Government, whether now or in the future, that usurps the prime directive of our Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. We put them in office, we can take them out of office, every single one of them. It's up to us to impeach them ALL, but our judges and police don't believe they have the power to walk up to a government official and arrest them or force them to step down, when in fact, they CAN! They took the same oath, to uphold the Constitution, and when those rights are infringed upon or usurped by ANY public official, they should be arrested or impeached immediately.

We've gotten so complacent, it's time people get fired up. Don't give in yet Wrabbit...

~Namaste

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Thanks for providing this.

I find it quite saddening to see people defend the lies and having the government play "victim" when they (government) are the ones who have been victimizing the American public.

This "meme" of Snowden being a traitor because he outed a corrupt government has to be fought.

Absolutely agree about Snowden. So many people I know jumped on the bandwagon as soon as the media mentioned that he was working for the Chinese. All of the propaganda came out - "traitor", "double-agent", "spy"... yet not a SHRED of evidence that he gave any secrets to anyone. Not only that, but he had access to CLASSIFIED information, NOT TOP SECRET, which is where the real secrets are kept. The documents Snowden gave up are 6+ years old, and I seriously doubt the Chinese didn't know what our capabilities are prior to him revealing what he knew. He named no names, no secure locations, no protocols, nothing that wasn't already known by our enemies, just enough for him to wake people up to the crimes being committed against us by our own government.

When my kids lie to me, they get punished. This is what we teach our children, yet we become hypocrites with the people who we choose to represent us? What does that do for our children? Other countries think we're fools for allowing this to go on....

I can't in good conscience, any longer, sit back and watch a nation that my grandparents and great grandparents fought for, fall apart because we lack the spine to walk into a press conference or a Congressional session and arrest every one of these folks. 545 of them... 300+ million of us... There's no way they could escape and nowhere for them to hide that once pissed off enough, Americans wouldn't find them. On that day, I will proudly claim to be an American.

~Namaste

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Thanks for providing this.

I find it quite saddening to see people defend the lies and having the government play "victim" when they (government) are the ones who have been victimizing the American public.

This "meme" of Snowden being a traitor because he outed a corrupt government has to be fought.

Absolutely I agree.

But lets not forget Manning, who is still languishing in detention.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Thanks for providing this.

I find it quite saddening to see people defend the lies and having the government play "victim" when they (government) are the ones who have been victimizing the American public.

This "meme" of Snowden being a traitor because he outed a corrupt government has to be fought.

Absolutely I agree.

But lets not forget Manning, who is still languishing in detention.

You're right. Manning and several others have tried and failed to do the right things on principle, and are chewed up and spit out by the propaganda machine. Although, Manning's information was far more "destructive" to our foreign relations than Snowden's documents. Snowden damaged the relationship between the American Government and Americans, where Manning's damaged the relationship between the American Government and everyone else.

~Namaste

For one "enemy" needs to be more clearly defined. Foreign enemy such as another nation, or a political opponent within the same country? The Senate and Congress claim to be enemies of one another. Politicians appear to feel the people are the enemy. So the language of enemy must be more clearly defined, if you plan to paint them into a corner.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
For one "enemy" needs to be more clearly defined. Foreign enemy such as another nation, or a political opponent within the same country? The Senate and Congress claim to be enemies of one another. Politicians appear to feel the people are the enemy. So the language of enemy must be more clearly defined, if you plan to paint them into a corner.

edit on 15-6-2013 by CAPT PROTON because: (no reason given)

That is the same semantic garbage that they try to use to excuse their behavior.

This falls right into the same category that Clinton used when he was caught lying - what the definition of "is", is...

We all know what an enemy really is, it's someone who wants to cause harm to American interests. The parties don't claim to be enemies, they just don't like each other, and even that is for showmanship, to create an illusion that you have a choice or an option if you're not happy with one set of values of one of the parties.

There's no need to paint them into a corner, they have outed themselves for what they really are and what their intentions are. If and when a revolution happens, then we'll really get to see who the enemy is, us or them.

~Namaste

A congressman usually skirts the subject instead of lying. Another thing they can do is accumulate a lot of evidence to support their claim so the blame can be shifted to others that created the evidence. It almost takes a law degree to run for congress Knowing exactly what can and cannot be said and how to say it. They hire experts to write their speeches. People who understand the rules. Try to get a straight answer from a politician. Maybe you can get them to say it is in my opinion or evidence shows. How about saying something like "Well this is not as bad as Benghazi" to change the subject.

There is a hundred ways minimum to get around the law on this Seems like the devil wrote the loopholes on these laws.

Any public servant in congress, the exec branch, or otherwise that is caught lying should be executed for treason.

We are too soft, and too lackadaisical in this country when it pertains to outright treachery.

Public hangings from lamp posts for rogue members of government would be a great deterrent, imo.

Thank you for the quoted legalese. It's useful. Putting on my politician cap, the one with horns on it, I sifted through it all and turned it upside down.

So a public official, the person who does the swear-in and holds the seals and signs the law stuff and does speeches in government, can't lie except through the effort to deceive an enemy.

Well that's easy then. Forgive me for thinking devil's advocate, but can you see the loophole? All they have to do is increase the list of enemies and think about them when they are spinning their facts.

Guaranteed the federal enforcement groups are all over every politician that takes office. Being watched for error is part of the job, which is part of being accountable and responsible. It's all under legal technicalities though, which is probably one of the reasons why lawyers do well transitioning into public office jobs.

There is going to be "on the record" and "off the record" statements by public office holders, and they do issue press statements and quotes as reactions to news. They don't always speak from their heart, and, sometimes their speech writers and secretaries write their stories for them.

That's the big step people have to make when they transfer their life into the public office job, that honesty is the best policy. Great. And the path to getting that, what about that? As they are in the military taking orders on secret projects, what about that? As they are agents for agencies who have the ability to have classified enemies, what about that potential loophole for deception? I mean the necessary evils changing the way the officials say things.

Certainly it never benefits to hide the truth in a job where everybody is watching and some people happen to be clairvoyant and see the truth anyways, but the choice of words makes a difference. Then when the media and public interprets that choice of words, that's when public official's terror begins. And we all know about that policy regarding terrorists don't we? Well we should, because they're the enemy, which changes everything about what politicians can get away with.

Well I found out where some public officials believe the public is an enemy. That explains a lot actually.

Then there is that other side about perjury, which involves the law enforcement layer over the public official. The technicality there is charges of "high crimes" never get pressed the obstacle of perjury is less likely to occur. This is why once they get elected they rip out the others in an administration that are less likely to be unhappy with their performance. It's the nasty truth behind corrupt law enforcement, that if the attorney never presses charges, even in the middle of an unlawful act, the person under suspicion is free to go. That's harder to find and root out. I don't like that fact but it's there.

I hope this doesn't go full circle into why Obama's records are confused and then qualifying for lying. There was the same problem with Hillary Clinton's birth origins: she had two astrology charts on her to hide data about her, to mislead people. Uncomfortable to mention but some groups of people still manage the world by astrology and geomancy arts and so through their odd techniques they use that data to plot against US public officers. That's a weird tidbit to finish out how inaccuracies in big names of public offices go unresolved.

So there is the dirty sticky side of the law that you might get in some people and none in others, because some people just don't have time to make up stuff.

I think people accept the lying because some people live vicariously through politicians and they invest their egos in the politicians and political parties because it makes them feel like they are a part of something bigger.

They don't care if these people lie as long as their "team" is wining. To them, it's not about the truth anymore it's about my team is beating your team.

Wonderful work and impeccable logic, now if we can only get more Americans to understand what taking and keeping an oath means.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Wonderful work and impeccable logic, now if we can only get more Americans to understand what taking and keeping an oath means.

Thank you very much.

As the saying goes, it's only a drop in an endless ocean, but an ocean is made of many drops.

If we can spread the word, help inform others, raise awareness, we might be able to stop this madness. I wish just one person would have the backbone in Congress to start the criminal proceedings.

~Namaste