W. Mark "Deep Throat" Felt

Lying under Oath in a court of law.

He was neither...yes he did the right thing but not for the reasons everyone thinks. He let the cat out of the bag because he didn't like that Nixon put an outsider in as head of the agency after Hoovers death and he also felt slighted that he wasn't offered the position as he was the #2 man.

Clinton was accused of lying under oath. He was not found guilty of lying under oath.

CLinton was impeached - he was therefore found guilty by the only system that has juristiction over him as sitting President.

His punishment didnt include removal .. thankfully , since that would have been an insane miscarraige of justice.

Incorrect.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm




Just because the impeachment process was started does not mean that the impeachment was successful. Clinton was, in fact, found not guilty.

Clinton was acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate of both articles of impeachment brought against him. Impeachment is an indictment, not a sentence.

Perhaps you can educate me ... where in the FBI oath does it say that you aren't allowed to tell anyone about criminal activities perpetrated by the President? Where in the oath does it say that the President is above the law?

He's just the one that got caught. My guess is that presidents before him set the standard for what he was doing and he continued it.

* smiles*

no he wasn't a hero... because he destroyed the confidence of a nation of people at a crucial time.

no he wasn't a traitor... maybe he was doing his job, maybe he was sticking to his own morals, maybe a lot of things.... but it's all water under the bridge, except the fact that his daughter is making money off this and whining about being poor. Awwwww

"life's a *itch!( at times) get over it and learn to deal like the rest of us."

I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and
directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I
enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever,
so help me GOD.

He never followed the directives of those above or before him. He broke his security clearence by divulging sensitive information about a sitting President (lawful activities or no, he is oath sworn to follow the directives (i.e. protocols) described by his position to follow the chain of command.

Education complete, gimme an apple.

hmm he was impeached. But like Johnson he was not removed.

Ive read this over and you are right it says aquited of the charges. However the Impeachment Stands, it was not retracted, he is therefore was still "guilty".

I think impeached is far more serious thing then an Indictment.

I took it to mean more a guilty verdict then sentencing. BUT it could be less than that.

The senate .. I beleive decides whther the punishment (removal) is warranted , The House determines the Impeachment.

Hmmm is a cover up a lawful order?

Forget the Oath, I want to know what LAW was broken.

By who?

Nixon
Felt

Clinton
Tripp

Nope..But we're not talking about Nixons cronies here, we're talking about Felt. Two wrongs never make a right, and an end never justify the means. Dig deeper, the USAG was already investigating Nixon over Watergate before Felt even went to W&B, all Felt did was scream "fire" in a theatre. As for his motivation, Talen stated it best a few posts up.

The articles of impeachment meant that the Congress felt there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The acquittal meant there was not sufficient evidence to convict.

Stipped of the political tug-of-war, that's all that happened. He was not found guilty nor punished in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

In Clinton's case, while the impeachment process was started, he was not impeached - i.e. there was not a 2/3 vote of guilty of the crimes he was accused of. I can find no mention of how to "retract" an impeachment, if you can find such documentation, please share.

I don't see your logic or any factual basis backing up your claim that since the impeachment process was started, he is still "guilty". That's like saying that just because someone was accused and arrested for a crime, but was found not guilty in a trial, then he's still "guilty". I hope its obvious to you why that just doesn't stand, at least in the U.S.

Also, in the case of impeachment of executive officers (the President being one), removal from office is automatic if the impeachment is successful and the subject is found guilty.

I do remember at the time a very big deal was made over the fact that the Impeachment would stand .. indefinitely .. unless the House made a resolution to recind it. There was talk of an effort to do this.

Actually I do see your thinking on where being impeached in the house does not mean guilt.

As far as Impeachment it is a house only.
**
Article 1, Section 2 Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
**
I still think after reading it is more than an indictment .. but I think now it doesnt mean guilt.

As you said the trial and removal are in the Senate .. However I think the removal has to be spelled out in the articles of impeachment prior to sending them to the senate. If you remember, there was a lot of talk of changing the penalty to "Censure" so they would be sure it passed the Senate.

**
Article 1, Section 3 Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
**

Clinton did, durring disbarment proceedings make a deal accepting responsibilty for what hed done. Im not sure if that amounted to admission of guilt for purjury though.

--------------------------
My main point though, was although Clinton did in fact do soemthing wrong. In no way was that comprable on an abuse of power level to what Nixon attemped.

Nixon and his people attempted to do something illegal that would give the Repulicans an unethical advantage of some sort over the Democrats -thus subverting the Democratic process.

It was hugely worse then anythign CLinton was even accused of doing.

I agree with you completely.

Well the topic is about Felt. So I would say him. But any and all.

I don't like Clinton but I have to ask why is the Republicans are bring him back in to this? Come on he is not in the news. The fact is Nixon and Felti is. So why not leave Clinton alone or are you just deflecting?

Nixon -
Conspiracy to obstruct justice
Espionage against officers and representatives of the United States (ie democrats in office)
Accessory to Breaking and Entering (definitely after the fact, most probably before)
Accessory to Theft (those papers that were stolen in earlier break in)

Felt -
evidently he may have been guilty of breaking
Title 18 USC §641 - which forbids theft of United States Property , its worded such that anything of Value includes information about the government. http://slate.msn.com/id/2120069/


Clinton -
though his guilt was not technically proven, he may have committed purjury. He settled out of court on Sexual harrasment. He delay justice and was general uncooperative - Though technically he could simply have said he was immune to all legal proceedings while sitting as President. He would either have had to been removed from office or his term expired before he was technically subject to juristiction.

Tripp-
violated wiretapping laws in the state she lives. Becuase she did not inform Monica Lewinsky that she was recording their conversations.

The whole recent Felt thing was to deflect the various news related problems of late...so they dug up DT (ok...in a show of hands, who cared who DT was a month ago?). Since that situation dealt with a President who resigned under the cloud of possible impeachment, it's natural to examine the other recent case of a President who faced impeachment.

Blaming Clinton is step #2 in the Republican guide book.

It is easy to do, but in this case he had nothing to do with Nixon and Felt

Who are "they"?

I did think the whole thing was of less significance than the Downing Street memo, which the establishment media barely touched.

But the movie had a certain goofy low-budget charm to it