On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave a very famous speech.  In that speech he said:

“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

The facts I am going to provide may cause aguish to some.  However, if you will follow me all the way to the end, I will show you that the knowledge of this precedent as preparation and instruction, could cause as much good as distress.

Impeachment is a provision within the Constitution the drafters, and those who ratified the Constitution, gave us as means to not only dismiss those from office who have violated their solemn trust, but to also ensure those impeached could never hold office again and therefore hold the opportunity to violate that trust again.  Impeachment is found in several sections of the Constitution; Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5; Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7; Article 2, Section 4; Article 3, Section 1- each section adding to the other the proper meaning, purpose and application of the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is a Criminal NOT Political Process

Impeachment begins when members of the House of Representatives draw up an Article(s) of Impeachment in which these members alleged that the “The President, Vice President and [any] civil Officer of the United States” has committed a crime.  Article 2 section 4 outlines the very specific terms for a Constitutionally authorized impeachment.  Every Article of Impeachment must find its origin in the conditions of the Constitution as outlined in Article 2 section 4.

Article 2 section 4:

“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.”

The standard for impeachment is criminal NOT political.  The only relevant question is Did a person in the trust of a federal office violate that trust by committing an actual crime?  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, gives us a bold warning of what will go wrong when impeachment is used for political punishments instead of strictly holding to the criminal terms of impeachment outlined in Article 2 section 4.

“In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

When the House votes and ratifies an Article(s) of Impeachment, that Article(s) becomes a criminal charging document.  When that criminal charging document is delivered to the Senate, the next stage of impeachment begins: The Trial by the Senate.  To reinforce the judicial nature of this process, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides over this Senate Trial. 

Senators are expected to review the Article(s) of Impeachment, conduct an evidentiary trial, and then judge the Impeachment based upon due process and criminal legal standards.  For the Senate to conduct a trial based upon political bias rather than evidence and due process makes a mockery of the process Impeachment and transmute America into a Banana Republic.

Precedent For After Office Impeachment

The “ALL CIVIL OFFICERS” phrase in Article 2 section 4 is a catch all that includes everyone who currently works for the federal government as an elected or appointed officer or has worked for the federal government in that past.  Some may argue that once a person leaves federal employment, the option for impeachment is no longer viable.  However, the precedent of impeachment tells us otherwise and a view of history can help us understand why.

William Belknap served as Secretary of War under Ulysses S Grant from October 25, 1869 – March 2, 1876.  While Secretary of War, Belknap’s extravagant life style came into question.  You see, Belknap only made $8k a year but was known for his extravagant lifestyle and expensive parties.  Congress launched an investigation into his finances and found corruption that extended back to 1870.

According to Senate records, in 1870, “Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory.  Marsh’s promise of generous kick-backs prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment.  Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.”

Some of the accusations against Belknap included, indirectly selling weapons to France and for accepting illicit kickbacks in exchange for making political appointments.  Gun running, kickbacks, political deals for financial gain…isn’t that exactly what evidence strongly suggests Hillary Clinton is or was involved in?

According to Senate records, “On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears.”

Belknap’s resignation did not stop his impeachment.  “Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment.”  What was Congress’ chief accusation against Belknap: “criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

Testing That Precedent

Precedent is often established in error.  Whether precedent is legally or historically correct doesn't stop the modern system from asserting it as authority and knowing that precedent is essential in creating an argument for or against it.  The precedent of Belknap has yet to have been tested, so in the legal world that makes it controlling.  But if modern politicians try to use the Belknap precedent to attack someone for political vengeance, they may end up getting more than they bargained for.  For example, Hillary Clinton was accused of a very serious federal crime.  Although the Department of Justice decided not to criminally prosecute her for that crime, under the Belknap precedent there would be nothing to stop Hillary from coming under the prosecution of impeachment, in today’s Congress, or any Congress in the future, causing her to lose her pension and to be blocked from running for federal office every again.  Do not forget, the Department of Justice disclosed very damning criminal evidence against Eric Holder in the “Fast and Furious” scandal.  Under this precedent Eric Holder could also be impeached. 

The character of Belknap can be seen in numerous modern politicians.  If members of this Congress choose to test the Belknap precedent, how many of them could find themselves on the impeachment chopping block in the future?  With this knowledge in hand, while civil officers in Congress are throwing around the threat of impeachments, there is no excuse as to why James Comey, Eric Holder, Lois Learner, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and yes several Supreme Court justices ought not be impeached even today.

So there is a precedent to allow impeachment after office for the president, vice president, and every civil officer.  The question remains, do those with the power to impeach really want to open that Pandora’s Box only to find themselves consumed when the change in political winds come, because all of history dictates they will come.

Share this post

written by JC Hall

 The anarchist movement has a long history and encompasses a wide range of movements from the labor movement to the free love movement, from anarcho-communism to Rothbardian economics. Anarchist theory is not inherently violent, but there is a violent faction within the broader anarchist movement which is revealing itself once again in America. As the violent wing gets exposed, anarchists of all stripes will rally to defend their particular branch of the family tree while largely ignoring their violent cousins - the revolutionary anarchists.  Hearings will be held about the events of January 6th and you will hear it framed as White Supremacists, Trump Supporters, ANTIFA or simply left versus right.  All of that will be a distraction and will miss the bigger picture, as usual and the Revolutionary Anarchist faction will continue remain a mystery to the American public.  Welcome to American politics!

• Revolutionary anarchist Luigi Galleani and his followers carried out assassination attempts and waves of bombings in cities across America and  from 1914 to 1932 in what they saw as attacks on "tyrants" and "enemies of the people." Mail bombs were sent to public officials, businessmen and law enforcement.  A bombing at the home of the US Attorney General led to the sweeping Palmer Raids in 1919.
•  Sacco and Vanzetti were famous anarchist martyrs who allegedly robbed a shoe factory as an act of Expropriation. The anger at the anarchists stoked a fervor that lead to their execution for the robbery. Having since become anarchist/progressive folk heroes, they were posthumously pardoned by Michael Dukakis.
•  In the anarchist Haymarket Square bombing in Chicago, a labor rally against "police violence," a bomb was thrown at a police officer. The incident left seven police and five civilians dead. 
•  Revolutionary anarchists also carried out the notable Wall Street Bombings and the assassination of President William McKinley.

Share this post

   

AUTHOR'S NOTE: If you are looking for some proactive measures to take to influence your US Senator, you have my permission and encouragement to send this to your Senators.  My thought is, even if you believe your Senator will disregard this settled law, you should send it anyway.  We should never be silent with truth and every elected officer should be presented with the truth so they cannot claim ignorance.  It would be a very powerful message if you could organize your circle of people to all send this Legal Memorandum.  If you have any questions, you can always reach me at KrisAnneHall.com 

Facts

              On January 6, 2021 a group of Americans assembled in Washington DC: some to protest the counting of Electoral College votes they believe were cast as a result of a fraudulent election, some to support President Trump, some to encourage the counting of the Electoral College votes, some to protest President Trump, and some to simply create chaos and destruction.  During this assembly some in this assemblage chose to engage in violence that resulted in damage to the Capitol building and the loss of life.  During this assembly of multiple groups and individuals, including President Donald Trump gave a speech, which transcripts are available.

              HR 24- Articles of Impeachment allege that the actions of those who carried out the violence are attributable to President Donald J Trump due to words uttered at a rally and thus subjects him to legal and constitutional impeachment from office pursuant to Article 2 section 4 of the US Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection.”

Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution reads:

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.

Questions Presented

• Is President Donald Trump guilty of “Incitement of Insurrection” by inciting violence against the United States?
• Is President Donald Trump subject to impeachment and conviction according to the Constitution under Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution for “Incitement of Insurrection?”

Answers & Discussion

Incitement has a very settled definition in law and the standard is referred to as the “Brandeburg Test” as resulting from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). 

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In Brandenburg, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally and, after speaking a laundry list of racial slurs, Brandenburg then said; "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken."   In this opinion, the Supreme Court held that the government can only infringe upon freedom of speech by criminalizing speech when a two-prong standard created by this court is met.  The standard is as follows:

• The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
• The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Further Supreme Court opinions give specific direction on the application of the Brandenburg Test.  The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which an Indiana University protestor said, “We’ll take the fucking street again” (or “later.”) The Supreme Court held that the university protestor's profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as speech that “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Mr. Evers made threats of violence against anyone who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg Test and found that Mr. Evers’ speech was protected under the principles of freedom of speech: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

The question is, Did President Donald Trump engage in speech that qualifies under the Brandenburg Test as inciting.  The only relevant evidence in this accusation will be the transcripts of President Trump’s speech.  In this transcript we see no language that fits the Brandenburg Test definition of inciting.  What a reader of this transcript will find is:

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Using the Brandenburg Test, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States, it must be concluded that President Donald Trump’s speech did not rise to the criminal level of inciting.  Consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinions, the speaker over a group cannot be held accountable for the actions of that group unless the speaker “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”  It is highly dubious to assert that directing a crowd to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” incites violence and insurrection.  There can be disagreement as to the appropriate nature of President Donald Trump’s words in general.  There cannot be disagreement as to the statements made in his speech, since they are recorded and freely available. 

This is the only reasonable and moral way to maintain the essential standard of freedom of speech as enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights.  Any standard that deviates from this test in favor of criminalizing speech oughto be unacceptable in a nation built upon the essential principles of personal liberty.

The Supreme Court held in Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989) that freedom of speech is "a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." In RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992), the Court held that even “hate speech” is protected under these terms of the First Amendment.  Finally, the Supreme Court held in Gregory v Chicago 394 US 111 (1969), “To let a policeman's command become equivalent to a criminal statute comes dangerously near making our government one of men rather than of laws. There are ample ways to protect the domestic tranquility without subjecting First Amendment freedoms to such a clumsy and unwieldy weapon.”  To allow disagreement over words and meanings, to allow political dissention to become the standard of criminal activity violates the Constitution and the standards established by the Supreme Court, transmutes America away from a land whose foundation is settled in due process and rule of law to the “clumsy and unyielding weapon” of politicians, mob rule, and arbitrary standards that are antithetical to everything that embodies our Constitutional Republic.

Because President Donald Trump’s speech does not meet the two-prong test as established by the Supreme Court, it must be concluded that his speech has not risen to the level of criminal activity.  Since the standards of due process lead us to conclude that no crime was committed, the House Impeachment accusation is unlawful as there was no violation of a "high crime or misdemeanor."  Finally, because the criminal elements of inciting are not met, President Trump cannot, under the law and the Constitution, be convicted by the Senate at trial.

Share this post

Stop The Steal Contact Scripts

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

KrisAnneHall.com

The calls and emails are making a difference, but we need to keep encouraging and demanding our Senators AND our House Reps join the objections to these fraudulent Electoral College votes. Please call and email both of your State Senators AND your House Representative and demand they Stop legitimizing fraud. We have included a sample script to help you.

If you don’t know how to contact your US Senator please go to this link: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If you don’t know how to contact your US House Representative, go to this link and enter your zip code: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Together we can save our Constitutional Republic.

Call and Email script for Senator “Stop the Steal”

I am contacting the Senator because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want the Senator to know that we demand to be heard and the Senator is our representative with the duty to speak on behalf of our State. The Senator MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. The Senator must make every intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. The Senator must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never vote for the Senator again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.

Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

Call and email script for Representative “Stop the Steal”

I am contacting Representative (NAME) because I am alarmed and outraged by the evidence of voter fraud of our last election being exposed through the various State hearings. The American people are being disenfranchised by this blatant violation of the laws. I want you to know that we demand to be heard and as our representative you have a duty to speak on behalf of our district. As my Representative you MUST second the objection to the Congressional certification of the Electoral College votes in question. As my Representative you must make your intention to object immediately public to encourage others to take a stand and do the right thing. You must publicly and actively stop the theft of this election or I will never, in good conscience, be able to vote for you again. The actual fate of America’s election process rests upon our representatives to Stop This Fraud.

Thank you for your time and public efforts to save our Constitutional Republic.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

Share this post

A New York Bill to Imprison and Force Vaccinate Without Due Process is Up For Vote

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

On January 6 New York Assemblymen will be asked to vote on a bill that will authorize the Governor and/or health officials to seize custody of New Yorkers, imprison, and force vaccinate them without due process.  This bill is not only a threat to the Constitution of New York, the people of New York, but also everyone in America if you consider the way certain legislation can spread throughout America in the age “crisis.”  We must stay vigilant, not only of our own legislation, but also of that which could impact other States.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Nick Perry (District 58) is titled A-416 “An Act To Amend the public health law, in relation to removal of cases, contacts, and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.”  This legislation is not only dehumanizing by referring the people of New York as “contacts or carriers” it violates multiple sections of the New York Constitution and robs New Yorkers of their fundamental, inherent rights. 

If passed this legislation will place in the hands of the Governor, or his designated agent, the full and autonomous authority to “order” the “removal” and “detention” of every person the Governor or his “delegee” determines “may pose” a “significant and imminent threat to public health.”  The bill refers to these people as a “carrier” or “contact” of COVID-19.  Once some health department worker thinks a New Yorker is a carrier or contact to a carrier, that person will be seized and held without hearing, trial, due process, or bond for a period of time to be determined by the health department. 

A-416 does graciously establish that any person once detained “shall not continue to be detained once the health department determines” that person is “no longer is or will become contagious.”  What is the standard for that completely arbitrary determination by the health department you might ask?  The legislation leaves that entirely to the discretion of agent of the health department and their personal “due diligence.”  Only if and when the person detained formally “requests” to be heard will the health department be required to grant the “opportunity” to be heard…within 3 – 5 days.  To give some real due process perspective, if a New Yorker is arrested and accused of murder they are guaranteed, automatically without asking, a hearing within 24 hours.  If a New Yorker is picked up on the whim of some health department worker, they will have to wait at least 3 days to have a hearing -- but only after a hearing is formally requested, from your detention cell, in a yet to be determined State designated facility. 

In short:

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. A-416 arbitrarily reduces the well established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some worker in the NY Health Department which violates New York’s constitutional principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process related to a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  New Yorkers cannot allow that to happen. Everyone in New York needs to contact their Senator and Assemblyman and DEMAND they vote no on A-416.  Everyone in America needs to contact their State and demand that such legislation never be drafted.

**NOTE:  Here is a sample script created by Liberty First Legal, INC. for every New Yorker to use if they want to contact their representatives and demand they vote NO!

Dear Assemblyman (insert name)

I am writing as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416.

On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.

A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution. 

1. A-416 removes every New Yorker’s Right to due process before forcing them into the custody of health officials.  New Yorkers will not be given their right to a trial as required by Article I sec 1 and Article VI Sec 18a of the New York Constitution. 

2. This bill arbitrarily reduces the well-established standard of strict scrutiny required for the infringement of these fundamental rights to the lesser standard of “clear and convincing evidence” which will be determined solely by the Governor or some executive bureaucrat in violation of the essential principle of separation of powers.

3. A-416 is a bold violation of Article 1 sec 5 and Article 1 sec 12 of the New York Constitution as it potentially deprives every New Yorker of their inherent Rights to due process before a search and seizure of their property and their body.

These are just a few, but very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker, I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.

Sincerely,

Sample phone script for New York A-416

I am calling as a citizen of the State of New York and your constituent asking you to VOTE NO on A-416. On January 6 you will be asked to vote on Assembly Bill A-416 to amend the authority of the Governor in health emergencies.  This bill will authorize the Governor and health officials to seize New Yorkers and force-vaccinate them without due process.  A-416 cannot be supported as it violates several provisions of the New York Constitution.  These are very serious violations that will result if A-416 is passed.  We cannot allow that to happen. In defense of the rights of every New Yorker I am strongly requesting you VOTE NO.  Thank you for your time and service.

Share this post