Is this enough evidence of betrayal with the Biden’s act of “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” ?
Greetings. As a brief introduction, my name is Humphrey Humberto Pachecker JD-LLM founder of the largest and most important Association for foreign lawyers in Florida NAFA LAW. For the last two decades I have been a law professor at NAFA LAW. Today I share with you a debatable question, a question which was presented to me by a foreign lawyer colleague; This question was the following:
Why does the legislative branch, specifically the House of Representative, not prosecute President Joe Biden for treason, by allowing open borders, leaving open the possibility that enemies of the United States have entered and continue to enter the country to eventually carry out acts of aggression war, sabotage and terrorism against the United States?
Well, the question is really deep and complex, therefore my answer will be somewhat deep and extensive, citing some articles of the Constitution, also citing precedents, also citing other opinions from other writers, and at the end I will present my final and personal opinion.
First. The United States Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” (Article I, section 2) and “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments … [but] no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (Article I, section 3). The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States are subject to impeachment.
Has an American president ever committed treason?
“Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Andrew Johnson (Punishing the states that were confederate; not truely his action but done under his presidency)
Woodrow Wilson (ceding previously sovereign rights of the US to the League of Nations – blocked by Congress not ratifying treaty)
Barak Obama (Arming drug warlords through “fast and furious”, leading to deaths of his own officers; Benghazi and the lies following it giving comfort to governments hostile to the US)
As others have mentioned both Lincoln, Tyler, and franklin Roosevelt can be argued to have done so.
A few others:
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe (Against England)
James Buchanan (Arming the states soon to be confederate)
Andrew Johnson (Punishing the states that were confederate; not truely his action but done under his presidency)
Woodrow Wilson (ceding previously sovereign rights of the US to the League of Nations – blocked by Congress not ratifying treaty)
Barak Obama (Arming drug warlords through “fast and furious”, leading to deaths of his own officers; Benghazi and the lies following it giving comfort to governments hostile to the US)
All of these are debatable (along with Nixon, George W. Bush, and several others) as no president has been formally accused, let alone convicted. Presented opinions by: Aubrey Denton. Tim Shimeall. & C.E. Newsom.
The Constitution specifies two specific crimes — treason and bribery — that could merit impeachment and removal from office. In addition to that, it mentions a vaguer, broader category of “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Unlike ordinary trials, evidentiary standards and even the charges themselves don’t necessary have to be grounded in law; it’s all up to Congress to decide what matters. If a party has the votes then Impeachment is possible, but for the Senate to convict requires 2/3’s and not a simple majority.
Of course if the impeachable offenses are serious enough the non-partisan voting becomes more possible.
President Andrew Johnson was overwhelmingly impeached by the House. See Articles of Impeachment presented against Presdient Andrew Johnson with 9 of the 11 counts in the Articles of Impeachment dealing with the firing of Secretary of the War Department, Edwin Stanton, in violation of the Tenure of Office Act while Congress was not in session. A 10th involved talking meanly to Congress and the word “ treason” is used in the other count. He was replaced with war hero General Ulysses S Grant. In May 1868 the Senate came within a single vote of convicting Johnson and making him the only President to be successfully impeached and convicted. But the impeachment was for much more than violations of the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson, the only Senator from a succeeding Southern State, Tennessee, to support the Union, became Vice President in 1864, prior to Lincoln’s assassination . After becoming President his impeachment was politically motivated due to his liberal stance regarding enforcement of Reconstruction and his veto’s of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act. President Andrew Johnson impeached Not only did Johnson lenient policies toward the defeated South, including almost total amnesty to ex-Confederates, a program of rapid restoration of U.S. state status for the seceded states, but he approved of new, local Southern governments, which were able to legislate “Black Codes” that preserved the system of slavery in all but its name.
In the Senate Trial, the House of Representatives acts as a prosecutor — designating certain impeachment managers to argue their side in the Senate. The president’s lawyers are the defense team — the president does not have to appear in person and historically has not. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides and is responsible for making procedural rulings during the trial — however, the Senate can vote to overrule his decisions.
Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868 looked a whole lot like a real trial. Witnesses were called, sworn testimony was given, and evidence was presented. The outcome truly was in the balance. At the end, Senators had to vote on whether to convict or acquit on particular articles. A two-thirds vote on any one article would have convicted Johnson and removed him from office. However, in the three articles the Senate voted on, Republicans fell short of this margin by just a single vote all three times — so he was acquitted, and remained in office. The man whose impeachment vote saved Andrew Johnson
The other two Presidents facing impeachment were Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974 , after Articles of Impeachment were referred by the Judiciary Committee to the House on July 30, but before a vote on the House floor. Clinton was the only other President besides Andrew Johnson to be tried in the Senate. Both were formally impeached by the House, tried in the Senate and acquired.
In contrast to Johnson’s Senate Trial, Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 was a bit of a joke. It was clear to everyone in advance that Republicans weren’t even close to the two-thirds of senators they needed to convict Clinton, since the president was popular and the impeachment effort was viewed as partisan. During the trial, Chief Justice William Rehnquist “made only a single substantive ruling” — he ruled that the House prosecutors shouldn’t keep referring to the senators as “jurors.” (Rehnquist later said, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”) In the end, Clinton was acquitted 55-45 on one count and 50-50 on the other, with Republicans not even coming close to the 67 votes they needed to remove him from office.
Former Vice President Aaron Burr, who was Veep during the first term of President Thomas Jefferson’s was charged and tried for Treason. The Treason Clause of the Constitution was carefully worded to limit the charge to the most serious of crimes.
Aaron Burr’s trial and the Constitution’s treason clause
“The trial, was presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a Federal Circuit Judge in Virginia. Burr was indicted and tried as he was no longer Vice President when the alleged treason occurred. The only President or Vice President to be indicted and tried in a court of law for treason was Col Aaron Burr, for acts occurring after his term had ended. The trial began on August 3. Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution requires that treason either be admitted in open court, or proven by an overt act witnessed by two people. Since no two witnesses came forward, Burr was acquitted on September 1, in spite of the full force of the Jefferson administration’s political influence thrown against him. Burr was immediately tried on a misdemeanor charge and was again acquitted.
Jefferson reportedly wanted the House to bring an impeachment charge against Marshall after the Burr trial. But he had failed in a similar attempt in 1805 when the Senate tried another Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, after the House brought charges at Jefferson’s urging for more information on Burr’s Treason trial see Burr conspiracy – Wikipedia
Section 4 of the Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office. Not only the President, Vice-President, but provided that Cabinet Seretaries and other executive officers, as well as judges, may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.
Any official convicted by the Senate is immediately removed from office. The Senate may also choose to bar the removed official from holding any federal office in the future.
No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.
I know of one US president that can definitely be considered for committing treason: John Tyler was the first Vice President to become President upon the death in office of a president. Many in government, including the Cabinet, decided that he would be “Vice President acting President” but Tyler insisted that the Constitution gave him full presidential powers and had himself sworn in as president.
He didn’t have a lot of friends while president, but that’s another story. To the treason part: In June, 1861, Tyler was elected to the Provisional Confederate Congress representing Virginia. Five months later, he was elected to the newly established Confederate House of Representatives. He died before the first session of the congress actually opened, but he was still a former US President who served in the Confederate Congress.
I think I’d call that treasonous.
You can make a coherent argument for three Presidents having committed Treason, two of them while in office. The two in office were two generally considered to be among our greatest, Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who both violated, knowingly, the Constitution during War Time, Lincoln by suspending Constitutional Rights, especially Habeas Corpus, which empowered Confederate Propaganda about him attempting to become an emperor, and Roosevelt by his internment of Japanese Americans without trial or crime.
However, those are arguments you can make…. But they may or may not be accepted. In both cases, strong counter arguments can be made.
John Tyler , the tenth President of the United States, who, served from April 4, 1841 to March 4, 1845. John here was a Whig, and a fervent States Rights Advocate hailing from Virginia. He was not elected President, but took over from his elected position as Vice President on the death of William Henry Harrison. He had, in fact, been a Democrat until he broke with Andrew Jackson over the Nullification Crisis, the precursor some 20 years before the American Civil War. He was pretty much abandoned in office by both parties due to the workings of Henry Clay.
Well, John here as a fervent States Rights Virginian lived until 1862. And as you can expect, when his home state seceded from the Union, John went with it. Technically, it would be one of those yeah, “but is it really treason things”…. Except for one thing. John had one last political run in him, and so he ran for the House… the Confederate House of Representatives, that is, representing Virginia. He was elected, too, and took office, but died before the first meeting of the House of Representatives of the Confederacy, at age 71.
Which might actually rise to full on Treason, as he was set to serve in the legislative body of a government at war with the US. Or it might not. Regardless, he’s the guy closest to that Treason line.
Oh, and one last thing…. the word “Treason” is different in US legal terms from any other country in the world. It takes specific acts to qualify, as it’s the only crime which is outlined in the US Constitution. In most countries, it’s defined as doing something against the leadership of a country, or against the good of the country, but in the US, it takes a bit more. Which is another reason that even Tyler here might not have actually committed it.
Finally it is here where I conclude this writing by providing my personal opinion.
A law professor like me could argue that President Joe Biden’s action in eliminating the administrative immigration restriction measures implemented by President Donald J. Trump’s administration intentionally led to facilitating free entry for enemies of the United States to commit crimes acts of war and sabotage against the US nation.
Furthermore, once President Joe Biden was warned and alerted of the danger of this danger of free entry of terrorist to commit acts of war and sabotage against the US nation, as well as President Joe Biden with his advisors and the current Secretary of Homeland Security of the US, Alejandro N. Mayorcas may easily have committed treason against the country by facilitating and committing the crime against the United States by aiding, abetting, advising, ordering, inducing or procuring its commission deliberately allowing, this by one of both: by criminal negligence and by free and deliberate or intentional action, allowing the free entry of millions of undocumented immigrants among whom there may clearly be entire “armies” of terrorists enemies of the United States who will commit war and sabotage against the nation and all the people of the United States. All these in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code § 2 by facilitating and allowing open borders, leaving open the possibility that enemies of the United States have entered and continue to enter the country to eventually commit acts of war, sabotage and terrorism against the United States.
Title 18, United States Code § 2 now provides: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
Elements of complicity [AIDS AND ABETS INDUCES OR PROCURES]:
The elements necessary to convict according to the theory of complicity are
-
That the accused had the specific intention of facilitating the commission of a crime by another;
-
That the defendant had the requisite intent of the underlying substantial crime;
-
That the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive crime; and
-
That someone committed the underlying crime.
To convict as a principal of complicity in the commission of a crime, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted the principal(s) in each essential element of the crime. United States v. Bancalari, 110 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1997). The government must prove that the defendant associated with the criminal enterprise, intentionally participated in the criminal activity, and sought by his actions to make the enterprise successful.
Is this enough evidence of betrayal with the Biden’s act of “adhering to their Enemies, giving them, the terrorists, Aid and Comfort” by allowing them, illegal immigrants, among these terrorists, to enter freely to wage war and sabotage against the nation and against the US citizens?
This is my personal opinion presented with all due respect for public consideration. HHP.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
United States v. Landerman. United States v. DePace, 120 F.3d 233 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Chávez, 119 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Powell, 113 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 1997); United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Stands, 105 F.3d 1565 (8th Cir.), cert. denied (Oct. 6, 1997) (No. 96-9541); United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, __ US __, 117 S.Ct. 183, 136 L.Ed.2d 122 (1996); United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucas, 67 F.3d 956, 959 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Spears, 49 F.3d 1136 (6th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Bancalari, 110 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1997). The government must prove that the defendant associated with the criminal enterprise, intentionally participated in the criminal activity, and sought by his actions to make the enterprise successful. United States v. Landerman, 109 F.3d 1053, 1068 n.22 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 912, 928 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, __ US __, 117 S.Ct. 495, 136 L.Ed.2d 387 (1996); Pipola, 83 F.3d at 562; United States v. Lucas, 67 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Spinney, 65 F.3d at 238; United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1515 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729, 736-37 (8th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ritter, 989 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 1993). A defendant associates with a criminal enterprise if he shares the criminal intent of the principal, and the defendant participates in criminal activity if he has acted in some affirmative manner designed to assist the enterprise. Landerman, 109 F.3d at 1068 n.22. The level of participation may be relatively light. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d at 794. Furthermore, not much evidence is needed to satisfy the facilitation element once the defendant’s knowledge of the unlawful purpose is established. United States v. Bennett, 75 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 1996).