This just in: It's not a "federal crime" to violate the Constitution
"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."
Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle." - Salon, December 22, 2005
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
Seems like that might well make what happened here a criminal offense. You need to work through the definitions, of course, which I'm too tired to do at the moment. I can think of the beginnings of a few creative arguments. In particular, you might be able to drive a truck through the phrase "under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes" in clause (1) of the "electronic surveillance" definition. It seems that "and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes" imports a huge amount of fourth-amendment jurisprudence into the statute, and "law enforcement purposes" is awfully vague.
What really struck me was this part of the quote: "The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution." The Constitution is not a criminal statute and violating the Constitution is not, in and of itself, a crime. Salon does its customary poor job of catching and pointing out such nuances. Again, too tired to recall whether "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually have to be crimes, but it seems like they can be whatever the House of Representatives says they are.
posted at 1:05 AM
1 Comments:
1) Sometimes the Salon War Room sections are just bits;
2) I assume that the statute you have referenced is FISA, but I'm too tired to make sure;
3) The quote in the War Room bit is referencing that the President may have violated a federal statute repeatedly and that arguably those violations meet the standard for impeachment.
So, either you are being unfairly harsh or I'm missing something from your post.
Post a Comment
<< Home