Draft Grand Jury indictment: Speaker of the House Pelosi

This is a draft Grand Jury indictment against the expected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The information may or may not be the basis for an ethics review by the House of Representatives.

The expected Speaker is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The following information is not a charge of a crime against Nancy Pelosi, merely a discussion of her alleged unconstitutional, criminal conduct.

* * *

Overview

The danger of the House, in failing to review unconstitutional Presidential conduct, is the failure of the House to recognize similar unconstitutional conduct within its own chamber: The illegal assertion of non-delegated power; and a culture of intimidation to dissuade independent review of unlawful abuse of non-delegated, unconstitutional powers.

See also: Draft Disbarment Investigation: John Conyers.

* * *

Other Links

Ref Relevant Statutes: Title 50 and Title 28 -- May be useful to have these open while you review content.

Ref Oath of office: Defining what "Not faithfully asserting ones oath" means, as it relates to alleged war crimes, malfeasance, and failures to do what they should have done [Pelosi, Members of Congress in re Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports in re war crimes reporting and prevention.

Ref Discussion: Sample War Crimes Tribunal Investigation plan related to the alleged failure of Pelosi and other members of Congress to prevent war crimes.

Ref Draft War Crimes Indictment

Pelosi, in re alleged failure to assert oath, act on information she as minority leader knew or should have known; and allegedly did not timely report to US Attorney and Inspector Generals related to failures of President and Attorney General to keep her, as minority leader, fully informed of illegal activity. [ Statutes ]

Had Pelosi timely acted on the information she had, or knew she was supposed to have had, she allegedly would have been able to prevent war crimes from continuing.

Pelosi and other Members of Congress alleged failure to faithfully assert their oath materially contributed to war crimes, and may be punished by the death penalty. Oath of Office Requirements

Ref Lessons of Watergate Grand Jury: What Pelosi allegedly knew, but failed to review.

Ref April 2006: The unanswered question on the Constitution -- Silence, A sign of a problem.

Ref: Discuss

Ref: Discuss your views of this commentary.

Ref Archive: Why Congress Needs to Provide leadership, not excuses for the President.

* * *

Authorities

Article 1 Section 2

272 U.S. 52

506 U.S. 224

Relevant Statutes

Allegations

1. Illegal usurpation of powers expressly delegated to the House, not to any single legislative officer or individual;

2. Illegal presumption of authority and review power not expressly delegated to the Speaker of the House or judicial officers;

3. Illegal amendment to the Constitution without going through the Article V process;

4. Threats, promises, and inducements to other Members of the House to comply with her illegal interpretation of the Constitution;

5. Illegal prevention of the House of Representative to make decisions about the impeachment clauses in the Constitution;

6. Conduct in violation of 5 USC 3331, failing to preserve the Constitution;

7. Unlawful conspiracy to abrogate the US Constitution, dissuade enforcement of the document, and other alleged criminal conduct related to fraud and other implied threats to induce other Members of Congress not to comply with the Constitution; and

8. Incorporation by reference all relevant information contained in Draft Disbarment Investigation: John Conyers.

Discussion

The expected-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is allegedly unconstitutionally asserting powers the Constitution did not delegate her, or the leadership.

These powers have only been delegated to the House of Representatives at large. The Constitution delegates the power of impeachment not to an officer, nor a small body, but to the entire body of the House of Representatives.

State Proclamations may trump the Speaker, and when correctly crafted, compel the entire House of Representatives to review the proclamation related to an impeachment issue.

The Speaker does not have any power to make any decisions on impeachment; nor may she prevent the House of Representatives from reviewing the President's alleged criminal conduct. The power of impeachment is expressly and broadly delegated to non-officers: The House of Representatives, not the Speaker.

* * *

The Constitution expressly distinguishes between the officers of the House and the House of Representatives itself.

The presumptive Speaker has not been delegated any power to interpret the Constitution; nor as a leader define the delegation of the power to the House as a delegation of power to her alone.

The framers were clear in the danger of delegating the impeachment/trial decision to a small body.

The objective of conducting impeachment-removal proceedings in the legislature was that the elected representatives [plural] are more closely connected to the people, unlike the Supreme Court which is appointed.

For the speaker to self-delegate powers of interpretation, and deny the House the opportunity to review the definition, much less review the evidence is inconsistent with the Framers intent of placing impeachment-removal decisions in the legislature, not the leadership.

* * *

The Constitution distinguishes between the House of Representatives and the Elected officers.

The Speaker of the House is identified separately in the Constitution. The Speaker is not the same as the legislative body; and the power delegated only to the legislative body is not one the Speaker can decide to exercise or not exercise.

[ Article 1 Section 2: ] The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Again, the Constitution clearly distinguishes between the House and the officers. The Speaker is not the same as the House; and the officers are not the same as the House. Whether the House does or does not agree to vote on an impeachment is a different matter than whether the Speaker does or does not have the power to decide impeachments. She does not.

The Constitution states that the House of Representatives, not the Speaker of the leadership, has the power of impeachment.

It is important to consider what the Constitution does not say. Again, to contrast, the Constitution at Article I Section 2 says, "The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment." The Constitution does not say, "[The] speaker and other officers. . .shall have the sole power of impeachment

The Speaker has not been delegated any power to decide whether there is or is not an impeachable offenses. This power has only been delegated only to the House of Representatives, not to a specific officer or the Speaker.

The Framers were clear that a small body, like a single Speaker, or a small group was dangerous to delegate power to decide whether there had or had not been a crime; or whether there was or was not sufficient evidence to convict someone of a crime.

[ 506 U.S. 224, citation omitted ] "The awful discretion, which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons."

The Framers Expressly Denied The Power of Impeachment to A Small Group For Fear They were Not Connected to the Will of the People

Precedent clearly establishes and recognizes the Founders intent: That the impeachment power lies with a legislative body, not a select group of people, making decisions outside public scrutiny.

[ 506 U.S. 224, citations omitted ] The Supreme Court was not the proper body because the Framers "doubted whether the members of that tribunal would, at all times, be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task" or whether the Court "would possess the degree of credit and authority" to carry out its judgment if it conflicted with the accusation brought by the Legislature -- the people’s representative.

The Speaker is not the same as the Legislature. The Speaker's responsibility is to recognize the Constitution’s grant of narrow power only to the House of Representatives, not herself or the leadership; and permit the elected representatives of We the People in the legislative body, to discuss the impeachable offenses. Any other decision is contrary to the intent of the Founders, and defies the Supreme Law and oath.

State Proclamations May Compel The House of Representatives To Review An Issue Related to Impeachment

The Speaker has not been delegated any power to prevent the House of Representatives from reviewing a matter of impeachment; nor has the Constitution delegated any officer or single person the power to decide or not decide something that the Constitution expressly, narrowly delegates to the body, nor a broad delegation of review power to an individual. The Speaker has no power to create additional hurdles to the House reviewing matters of impeachment; and the Constitution has not expressly delegated those powers.

It is irrelevant that the Speaker may encourage the House of Representatives to not vote for impeachment. Until the House chooses to go on the record to vote up or down, it is reasonable to assume that the possibility of impeachment remains on the table. Moreover, because each of the fifty states by issuing an appropriate State proclamation may compel the House of Representatives – as a body – to face the issue of impeachment, the expected-Speaker’s assertion to the contrary defies the language of the Constitution.

Precedent Clearly Establishes That Other Standards, Outside the Constitution Were Not Intended, nor Constitutional

When considering the requirements for impeachment, the analogy of the Senate is instructive. The criteria defining for the Senate its powers related to reviewing Presidential conduct could not, by extension, be broadened to include other standards outside the Constitution:

[ 506 U.S. 224 ][By] their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings by the use of the word "try" in the first sentence

Similarly, there are no specific limitations in the Constitution on whether the House does or does not have the power to impeach. The Speaker has no power, and the Framers did not intend, that there be additional requirements or standards on whether there is or is not an impeachment, vote on impeachment, or House review of impeachable offenses.

The Speaker may not devise reviews; nor craft powers and requirements not expressly in the Constitution; nor supplant her judgment over the express language and intent of the Framers: To subject the impeachment decision to the entire legislative body. The intent of the Framers was to ensure the impeachment decision was linked with the elected representatives; not hide the decision behind closed doors to a small group not subject to public oversight or accountability, as the Speaker has done.

The Speaker’s Legacy Is Not in Harmony With the Will of The House

The House Majority has already defied the Speaker. Despite her preference for one candidate for Majority leader, the Members of the House have supported another candidate. This is not a matter that remains behind closed doors, but is an issue of public interest.

It cannot be presumed, not is it lawful to presume, that because the House Speaker or the leadership have or have not decided something that the House -- as a body -- will or will not agree. The Speaker's decisions and interests have been shown to be not in exact harmony with the House. Rather, the House, when given the latitude to make an informed decision, does speak with clarity, distinction, and independence, not matching the Speaker's statements.

The Speaker Does Not Have the Power to Dissuade the House From Reviewing Matters Based on Specific, Implied, or Indirect Threats

It remains to be understood to what extent the Speaker has subjected Members of Congress to illegal interpretations of the Constitution using unlawful promises, or other inducements to dissuade them from individually starting the impeachment process.

272 U.S. 52 "The power of control through fear is a dangerous power to lodge in the hands of any one person."

Regardless what the expected Speaker may or may have promised, she has no lawful power to dissuade anyone from doing or not doing anything. The power of impeachment is not up to her, but the House of Representatives.

* * *

Conclusions

The Speaker or a small group in her party, cannot claim that her decision on a specific legislative matter, like impeachment, does or does not match the will of the House of Representatives.

The Speaker has not been delegated in the Constitution any power to speak for the body; nor is the Will of the Speaker the same as the Will of the Legislature.

Adverse Inferences

The expected speaker has illegally agreed to some to-be-understood arrangement that would include Members of Congress not to go to the well of the Chamber, and individually charge the President with a crime.

The nature of this agreement, the form of its arrangement, and the relationship to other legislative matters remains to be understood, examined, and questions. Until the Speaker fully cooperates with an open discussion of her alleged violations of the Constitution, it is reasonable to conclude that she, like the President, has a loyalty to something other than what is in the Constitution.

Whether the loyalty lies with an unspoken agreement with a potential candidate for the 2008 election is meaningless. The Speaker in 2004 took an oath to the US Constitution. This oath was an obligation and agreement to protect the Constitution, not serve a lesser political advantage.

The public, based on the disparity between the Speaker's conduct and the clearly promulgated provision in the Constitution, has a reasonable basis to, as with the President, challenge the basis of the leader's authority; and question the implications, effects, and scope of the participation.

Public Oversight and Ongoing Ethics Monitoring

It remains to be understood what specific arrangement the Speaker has made with individual Members of Congress to induce them to assent to an exercise of non-delegated power; or to re-interpret the Constitution.

___ What is the reason the expected Speaker is asserting powers she was not delegated;

___ Why is the Speaker delegating to herself a power of review the Framers expressly denied to another small body in the Supreme Court

___ Is there a reason that the Speaker is apparently unconstitutionally asserting that a decision for the House of Representatives to make cannot be made

___ Can the Speaker point to any language that would make her word supreme above the Framer's intent that the House of Representatives make the decision on the impeachment

___ How does the Speaker distinguish her individual decision on impeachment from the Framer's observation that another small body in the Supreme Court, was not connected with the people

____ Does the Speaker Comprehend that the action or inaction on impeachment was, by design, linked with the Legislature on the presumption that the action or inaction of that decision would be a material voting decision for the public

____ What information does the Speaker have to suggest that inaction on Presidential criminal conduct would be constitutional, or inspire voters and the population

____ Where in the Constitution does the Speaker find the language that delegates to her the power to trump the expressly delegated power to the House of Representatives to review the issue of impeachment

____ Is it the Speakers Position, regardless the will of the people at the polls, or the will of the States through State proclamations, that the House of Representatives shall be denied the power to review a matter

___ What was the form of the arrangement between the Speaker and the GOP

___ Please discuss the specific reasons the DNC leadership has been induced to accept to believe that asserting the oath may be at odds with the interests of the Party

___ Could the case not be made that the "reasons" for not taking action may have been provided by the GOP to ensure there as no accountability on the Executive

___ Is it possible that these 'reasons for inaction' were crafted by the GOP to protect their political allies who might be better disciplined if the President was denied the pardon power

Summation

The Constitution’s distinction between the Speaker, Officers, and the House of Representatives as a body is significant, noteworthy, and important.

The House of Representatives, not the Speaker, has the sole power to decide impeachment. We the People can compel the House of Representatives to review the impeachable offenses with a state proclamation, regardless the position of the Speaker or the officers of the House.

The Speaker has no power to block the House of Representatives from reviewing the matter. The Speaker does not have the power to decide whether the President will or will not be impeached; nor can this power of decision be delegated to the House leadership. This power is expressly delegated only to the House of Representatives at large.

The House has defied the speaker on her decision for majority leader. There is no credible basis for the expected Speaker to argue that her will or wish will speak for the House of Representatives; or that the Constitutional provision, granting only to the House of Representatives a power of impeachment, can be decided by her alone.

Any Member of Congress, under the House rules, may go to the well of the House, and charge the President or any other officer with a crime. Nothing before us suggests any Member of Congress, despite the overwhelming evidence, has any inclination to assert this power.

The expected Speaker has no lawful power to deny anyone anything of value on contingent that they agree to non-delegated powers; or that they agree to remain silent about non-lawful assertions of the Speaker to speak for the House of Representatives, when she has no power to do so on matters of impeachment. Only the House of Representatives may speak for itself.

The House Rules permit State Proclamations and Members of Congress starting impeachment proceedings. It remains to be understood what agreement there exists to dissuade Members of Congress from asserting their 5 USC 3331 oath; or what implied threats, duress, or other unlawful retaliation they have been subject to dissuade them from doing what they have the power to do: Review evidence, and decide whether the President has or has not committed a crime.

Whether the House of Representatives does or does not impeach is irrelevant. The Speaker ha snot been delegated any power to supplant her view for a decision only delegated to the House of Representatives. Just as the President is not the decider on the law, so too is the Speaker not the decider on who violated the law. The House of Representatives, like the Judiciary, has the power of review. No Speaker, and no President may induce others, or threaten them with potential loss of something of value if they choose to lawfully assert their powers, or do what is expressly within their oath: To protect the Constitution.

Multi Branch Abuse of Constitutional Power

The lesson of Iraq is simple: Abused powers, when not examined, will continue. This President has ignored the Constitution; illegally changed the Constitution; unlawfully delegated powers to himself not expressly granted; illegally relied on non-delegated powers to abuse and induce others to comply with other agreements; and illegally changed, amended, and adjusted the language of the Constitution.

The Congress and Executive are doing the same: Creating rules as they go along; retroactively justifying decisions without regard to the Supreme Law; ignoring the Constitution; relying on hidden agreements which are not compatible with the oath of office; and rely on abuse to stifle oversight.

This President and the Speaker should be called to account: Does their loyalty through their oaths of office lie with only the Constitution; or is there something else that would induce the Article I and Article II leadership to jointly agree to the same result: Illegal assertion of non-delegated powers to supplant their minority positions over the positions of We the People as expressed through the law, our elected representatives, and the Constitution.

Oversight
Indicators

Alleged Pattern Of Conduct

___ Illegal amendment to US Constitution

___ Unlawful plan to prevent legislative review

___ Illegally abusing role as House Speaker

___ Exercising non-delegated powers

___ Loyalty to personal objectives higher than oath of office

___ Illegal abuse of authority to dissuade Members of Legislator from reviewing matters within the power of the legislature to review, not the Speaker's role to block or prevent

___ Inconsistent statements on whether the Speaker's word is or is not something that speaks for the entire body on matters related to impeachment

___ Dissuading Members of the Legislature from reviewing issues which the Speaker cannot prevent review

___ Unlawful assertion by the Speaker that her words trumps the Constitution, and express power of the House to review a matter as a legislative body

___ Members of Congress well understanding the definition of "non-delegated power" and "creative twisting of the law", yet not holding themselves to the same standard

___ Making decisions behind closed doors to deny the legislative body to review a matter, defying the intent of the Framers mandating that the review be outside a small group, but in public within the Chambers of the Legislature

___ Illegal removal of the impeachment power from the choice of the legislative body, and supplanting the non-representative decision of an individual, small group, or other officers contrary to the Constitutional delegation to the legislative body

___ Illegally twisting the words of the Constitution to arrive at pre-determined outcomes which unconstitutionally deny the legislative body the power, right, and option to independently review as a body the evidence, and arrive at conclusions which may or may not be consistent with an individual, officer, chairman

___ A pattern of refusing to do what one took an oath to do, suggesting a broader pattern of alleged malfeasance, unknown agreements, and other standards being applied which are not Constitutionally recognized nor Consistent with the Framer's intent

___ A pattern of conduct which illegally denies to We the People a full review in the legislature the misconduct of the President

___ Side agreements, other unwritten cooperation, and other things which is not intended to fall under the House Ethics Review, thereby repeating the errors of the House Page Board Scandal

___ A failure to assert ones oath

___ A joint, illegal agreement or conspiracy to subordinate the Constitution to other non-lawful oaths, promises, and agreements

___ Illegal assertions of non-delegated powers

___ Unlawful assent to illegal Amendments of the Constitution

___ Unlawful assent to exercises of non-delegated powers

___ Unlawful amendments, change in language, and selective cherry picking of the Framer's intent within the US Constitution outside Article V, as required by the Constitution

___ Illegal efforts to dissuade others to exercise powers, authority, privileges established in the House

___ A course of conduct which unlawfully denies the legislative body the right, power, and option to review State Proclamations calling for impeachment

___ An illegal decision by an individual to trump the Constitution, not permit the legislature to review an issue, and otherwise prevent lawful legislative body review of unlawful conduct

___ Misleading the public over whether leadership does or does not have the power to make a decision related to a non-delegated power of review of impeachment issues, only granted to the legislature

___ Illegally self-delegating powers not granted, recognized, nor consistent with the Framer's intent

___ Illegally asserting a non-delegated power of the House

___ Illegally absorbing as a personal power a power delegated only to the House, and unlawfully incorporating that legislative power into an individual, unconstitutional power not delegated by the Constitution

___ Incorrectly confusing the powers of the legislature with the power of an individual, and expecting others to assent to a non-constitutional confusion between the Legislative Body and the individual officer

___ Unlawfully assigning herself non-delegated power to dissuade others from taking action, and compelling others to agree, and not challenge what is not constitutional

___ Pointing to something, other than the oath, as a basis to submit to a non-constitutional standard of conduct

___ Failing to comprehend that the Article I powers are reviewable when the individual members of Congress engage in a course of conduct that defies 5 USC 3331

___ Illegally denying consideration of lawful State Proclamations requiring the legislative body to review a matter related to impeachment, Presidential misconduct, and other evidence warranting legislative body review

___ Retroactively devising new rules outside the Constitution; ignoring the Constitution; taking an oath without the intent to fully implement all that is attached with that oath, when it contradicts less party goals; retroactively justifying illegal, non Constitutional decisions without regard to the Supreme Law

___ Illegal changes to the Constitution

___ Unlawful self-delegation of power expressly denied, and contrary to the intent of the Framers

___ Illegal reliance on non-delegated powers

___ Illegal changes, adjustments, and twisting of the Constitutional language without going through the formal Amendment process

___ Relying on the voters trust to assert standards of review not specified in the Constitution; retroactively creating new criteria outside the Constitution, above and beyond what Precedent has recognized as within the Framer's intent

___ Failing to explain why powers, delegated only to the legislative body, are being approved, denied, enacted, or not permitted on the basis of a decision by a single person

* * *

What You Can Do

If you have additional information of interest to investigators, feel free to contact the people at this link.

Discuss with your friends whether this proposed New Constitution would or would not mitigate the above alleged misconduct; if not, what improvements would you like to see.

Ref Review whether Speaker Pelosi has or has not inappropriately influenced other Members of Congress to vote against investigation or impeachment of the President.