“It is more proper that law should govern than any one of its citizens.” – Aristotle
On Feb. 21, 2019, The Rachel Maddow Show’s team uncovered a telegram sent by then-Vice President Spiro Agnew seeking Saudi Millions to fight the ‘Zionists’. Agnew had then pled guilty to tax evasion charges, paid a $10,000 fine and “resigned from office with disgrace.” But, the criminal enterprise he headed was not proportional to the punishment he obtained as he was still able to live as a private citizen.
Agnew had sent a telegram as a private citizen seven years later to the Ahmad Abdul Wahab, Chief of Royal Protocol, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, seeking an audience with Crown Prince Fahad for his “personal emergency” and got a response to see the Crown Prince on August 15, 1988.
On August 25, 1988, he wrote the Prince to obtain financial support of $2,000,000 in a secret account for a political campaign against the Jews, using the interest of $200,000 for three years. Isn’t it nuts that this former VP secured a loan from Saudi Arabia, living off from the interest to fight the Jews? NBC’s historian validated these documents that Rachel Maddow obtained from Greg Schneider as true. Agnew later thanked the Saudi Prince for the financial help he obtained.
Agnew then became an advisor to then-U.S. Presidential Candidate George Herbert Bush in October 1988. Bush had chosen Dan Quayle to run as VP and one who was ridiculed by the media for spelling potato as potatoe.
Why should these historical facts matter today?
Folks mistakenly believe that a sitting U.S. president cannot be subject to indictment. There is no such protection that is written in the U.S. Constitution.
Instead, there is a 1973 memo written by Robert Dixson, head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
J.T. Smith, who was then working with Attorney General Elliott Richardson, affirmed that the memo was written to expressly support the indictability of Agnew to remove him from the line of succession, given Nixon and Watergate.
Smith, in an interview with Rachel Maddow, said that the intent of the memo was not on the question of indictability of the president. It was focused on the indictability of the vice president.
At that time, Agnew was getting cash and kickbacks for government contracts as the top city official of Maryland and continued getting kickbacks as governor of Maryland. The criminal enterprise continued while as VP inside the White House, according to the Rachel Maddow Show, as Agnew was literally taking cash bribes in envelopes, while a 40-count indictment was waiting to be served on him.
From that 1973 memo written specifically to support the indictment and removal of Agnew, it somehow got stretched to support the conclusion that a U.S. president cannot be indicted and a conclusion that there is a de facto immunity from prosecution for country’s top office.
So where does this historical artifact-digging lead us? In fact, what we know is that the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanor.
Yet there is a distinction between an indictment and an impeachment. Indictment, as you know, is arrived at by a grand jury voting on a proposed felony charge, witnesses’ testimony and other evidence presented by the District Attorney, while impeachment is a process coming from the legislature against a government official and is based on a statement of charges. It is like an indictment with the charges listed, but only it is coming from Congress.
So now we await current Special Counsel’s Robert Mueller report and with baited breath, we predict that it contains all the criminal charges traceable to all the president’s men and those who have been arrested, indicted, pled and have served their jail time: Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Alex van der Zwaan, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, 13 Russian nationals and three entities, 12 Russian military intelligence officers and Konstantin Kilimnik, according to Andrew Witherspoon of Axios.
If all the president’s men have been indicted, arrested, served time, could his inner circle be reached, as well as the president himself?
What we know is that, from the history of U.S. governance and its adherence to the rule of law, U.S. President Richard Nixon resigned because of Watergate, and a vice president paid a $10,000 fine and resigned with disgrace from his office. Would any of these be the fate of this sitting U.S. President Donald Trump?
* * *
Prosy Abarquez-Delacruz, J.D. writes a weekly column for Asian Journal, called “Rhizomes.” She has been writing for AJ Press for 10 years. She also contributes to Balikbayan Magazine. Her training and experiences are in science, food technology, law and community volunteerism for 4 decades. She holds a B.S. degree from the University of the Philippines, a law degree from Whittier College School of Law in California and a certificate on 21st Century Leadership from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. She has been a participant in NVM Writing Workshops taught by Prof. Peter Bacho for 4 years and Prof. Russell Leong. She has travelled to France, Holland, Belgium, Japan, Costa Rica, Mexico and over 22 national parks in the US, in her pursuit of love for nature and the arts.
