Mechanisms For Bringing Down A U.S. President

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli
How To Destroy A U.S. President.
Part Three

Get Trump Checklist
Mechanisms For Bringing Down A U.S. President
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -( The First Mechanism: The Ethics In Government Act Of 1978—Now Defunct.

One mechanism to bring down a U.S. President is through Congressional Statute that calls for appointment of independent counsel to investigate and to prosecute crimes of the highest Government Officials, including those crimes, most notably, of a U.S. President, but only after the Attorney General has concluded, after conducting a preliminary investigation of possible criminal conduct, that further investigation is warranted.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 was designed to ensure ethics and integrity in Government.

The expression, “independent counsel” refers here to counsel in private practice: an attorney who is not, then, an employee of the federal Government but who wields expansive authority to undertake criminal investigations and prosecutions of high Government officials.

The Act had a sunset provision. It would automatically lapse unless Congress reauthorized the Act and Congress did so: in 1982, 1987, and 1994. But the law lapsed in 1999 after Congress, under pressure from Bill Clinton’s Administration and by the Democratic Party, allowed it to lapse.

Fifteen plus years passed, and then two Congressmen, Republicans, Michael Turner and Rick Allen, sought to revitalize ethics and integrity in Government, introducing the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271, on May 20, 2016. The two Congressmen took this action when it became apparent to them that the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrated reluctance to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for numerous and serious criminal acts—criminal acts conducted during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016 would have required the Attorney General—at the time, Loretta Lynch—to make provision for appointment of outside counsel, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act, to investigate Hillary Clinton’s crimes and to prosecute Clinton for her crimes against this Nation and against the American people. Loretta Lynch would have been compelled to exercise her duty under the Act to relinquish further action by her Department in the Clinton investigation of felonious acts and hand over that investigation to outside counsel through the procedures set forth in the Act.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton violated federal law—several laws, serious laws—felonies—and she committed those crimes several times, and over several years, during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.

The Arbalest Quarrel has dealt with this matter at length in articles posted on the Arbalest Quarrel website. The Arbalest Quarrel urged Congress to enact the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, as it was clear to us that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, would not recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton, or was pressured not to recommend indictment of Clinton. As of this writing, the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016 lies dormant—dead, really, in Committee.


The Second Mechanism: A Department-Made Rule, Calling For Appointment Of Special Counsel

Ostensibly, to fill the gap left through failure of Congress to reauthorize the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 or to replace it through passage of another similar Act, such as the one languishing in Congressional Committee—the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271—the Justice Department on its own initiative promulgated a rule, calling for the appointment of special, outside, counsel. That rule constitutes the second mechanism that might be used to destroy a United States President.

The device employed by the Justice Department exists in an obscure federal regulation, falling within TITLE 28, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER VI, OFFICES OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PART 600, GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL.

The mechanism here establishes the procedures for appointment of independent, private counsel to investigate violation of federal law when a conflict of interest within the Department of Justice precludes the Department from properly, effectively engaging in the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes committed by high ranking public officials. The mechanism is found in federal regulation: 28 CFR 600.1, titled, “Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel.”

It is through this mechanism that the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, intends, like Pontius Pilate, to wash the hands of personal responsibility on his part, on the part of his Office in the Justice Department, and on the part of the FBI, as he quietly sits by to watch the undermining of and possible destruction of the U.S. President, Donald Trump and his Administration, and, the undermining of the Second Branch of Government. We will look at this Rule, at length in a subsequent article in this series.

We will seek to answer three questions. The first question is this: Is the federal Rule lawful? Americans often presume, wrongly, that rules a Government Agency promulgates, are lawful. A Government Agency can only promulgate rules in accordance with Congressional intent and objective, as reflected in Statute. When doing so properly, lawfully, agencies promulgate rules to give effect to Statutes—to enforce the laws Congress enacts, within the parameters established by Congress in Statute.

This is as it should be under our three Branch system of Government. However, if the Statutes promulgated extend beyond the parameters set forth in Statute—or, in a worst-case scenario, are promulgated absent any Congressional Statutory authority, which means the Government agency has acted unlawfully, becoming, in effect, a Legislative Body unto itself—then such rules must be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Second question is this: Assuming the Rule is lawful, did the Attorney General, or his Assistant—in the event the Attorney General recuses himself or herself—properly invoke the rule? There is a general assumption—one that the mainstream media has not investigated and one which Congress has not, evidently, bothered to consider—that the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, did properly invoke the Rule, appointing a Special Counsel. But did he? Once again, before we even get to that question, there is the fundamental question that goes to the constitutionality of the Rule itself. For, if the Rule has not been promulgated lawfully, then the issue whether the Deputy Attorney General had properly invoked the Rule is moot since under no circumstance can a special counsel be appointed because the Rule, under which such special counsel is appointed, is per se unconstitutional.

There is a third question we must ask and answer. It is this: Assuming 28 CFR 600.1, titled, “Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel,” is lawful, and, given that Congress would not enact the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, why didn’t the Attorney General under then President Barack Obama–Loretta Lynch–invoke the 28 CFR 600.1, appointing outside “special counsel” to investigate and to proceed with the prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, unlike Donald Trump, did in fact commit unlawful felonious acts under federal law? It appears that the Department of Justice, through the Deputy Attorney General, Rod J. Rosenstein, is willing to invoke the Rule against Trump, with little thought as to the legal justification for the appointment, for there is no compelling, justifiable reason for him to do so as there exists an absence of any credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. President, Donald Trump, or on the part of anyone in his Administration, or in his campaign, and there exists no probable cause that either the U.S. President or anyone in his Administration or in his campaign committed an act that can reasonably be attached to violation of federal law, despite the tortuous contortions of some politicians who would turn bare and baseless allegations into evidence of wrongdoing, and despite the mainstream media echoing the sentiments of the politicians bent on destroying the U.S. President and bent on destroying those in his Administration. Yet, there existed, at another point in time, in comparison, incongruously, no desire on the part of Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, or on the part of Lynch’s then diffident and reticent but now vociferous and strident Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates, to invoke 28 CFR 600.1 against Hillary Clinton—a person whom the FBI had heretofore investigated over a substantial period of time, having found substantial evidence of multiple counts of serious crimes, committed multiple times, over a lengthy period of time. Fancy that!

We will parse 28 CFR 600.1 in the next segment of this multipart series, dealing at length with the three questions posed.

The Third Mechanism: Impeachment

Impeachment is a process that Congress may invoke and that Congress alone may invoke. The mainstream media and more than a few unenlightened, vicious members of Congress, bandy impeachment about without a care as to the seriousness of it, especially when applied to the U.S. President—the literal embodiment of the Second Branch of Government.

The most important clause, pertaining to the impeachment process, is that found in Article II, Section 4. It says:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

One must understand that the impeachment process is, notably and singularly, a political process, not a criminal process. The question thus arises whether Congressional use of it, especially as against U.S. Presidents, springs less from the appearance of criminal wrongdoing on the part of a U.S. President, and more from the desire of some members of Congress who wish to use it against a U.S. President whom they simply dislike. We will take a close look at the mechanics of the impeachment process and then ascertain whether those in Congress who would dare use the impeachment process against Donald Trump would do so, not for any perceived wrong committed, but because they happen to bear a personal grudge against this U.S. President. If so, such sanctimonious members of Congress should suffer censure by their brethren.

We will look closely at the mechanics of the impeachment process, under our Constitution.

The Fourth Mechanism: Application Of The 25th Amendment

USCS Const. Amend. 25, USCS Const. Amend. 25, § 4 sets forth in pertinent part:

“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department [departments] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

The forces that would dare destroy Donald Trump’s Presidency seek, in truth, to destroy this Nation and its Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. Until Donald Trump had taken the oath of Office, little if anything had ever been heard of the 25th Amendment either in Congress or in the mainstream media. Curious, now that Donald Trump is the Nation’s 45th President, the hidden forces that envision a New World Order, have pulled out all the stops, looking for a means, any means, through which to take down a man whose one cardinal sin is to dare place “America First” among Nations. For that reason—and as “payback” for upsetting the applecart—defeating their puppet, Hillary Rodham Clinton—the forces that would crush this Country and its people into submission will use a means, any means, however dubious, to destroy Trump and his Administration. If the insidious, powerful, ruthless forces, that hide in the shadows, succeed in undermining Trump's Presidency, the destruction of our free Republic and of our Constitution, upon which our Republic rests, will follow. The one entails the other.

We will look at the history of, and the import and purport of, the 25th Amendment in a forthcoming article.

Further Analysis, On The Mechanisms To Destroy A U.S. President, To Continue, In Future Articles

We will discuss these mechanisms, in depth, in subsequent articles. Congress and the mainstream media simply skirt over them. A deep understanding of these mechanisms deserves the attention of all Americans. The sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and the preservation of our free Republic are at stake. Beyond these critical concerns, we see a duty to protect the honor and good name of the U.S. President, Donald Trump, against the treachery of those who seek to tarnish his good name and his honor.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

  • 5 thoughts on “Mechanisms For Bringing Down A U.S. President

    1. ONE WORLD ORDER is where the libs are headed. They think the Rothchilds will shower them with power and gifts if they can pull this off. I would bet they are sadly mistaken and will find the grass is not greener on the other side.
      We have three choices in this matter:
      1. Let it happen. Bullsh*t
      2. Civil war. Not a good solution and only used as a last ditch effort to save us.
      3. Vote. Help Trump clean the swamp by getting rid of the school boy mentality in Washington.
      It is my feeling that #3 should take place first. There are so many obstructionists and do nothing in Congress that have a cushy job and benefits that they do not deserve. Send them home to be ambulance chasing lawyers, not representing our great nation with the contempt and dislike they harbor.

    2. What mechanism, out side of the judiciary, is there to get rid of activist judges who refuse to follow the Constitution, refuse to follow SCOTUS direction, and(or) deprive the people of the US of their Second Amendment Civil Rights?

      1. Two things on this: fiorst, judges are appointd to serve “on good behaviour”. If it can be demonstrated their behaviour is NOT “good”, that is, not in accordance with the Constitution, they can, and must, be removed.

        The Senate, which appoint all federal level magistrates, have the power to remove them for this cause. That includes Supreme COurt “justices”.

        More local charges can be brought against rogue judges, both federal and lower level. When such a judge clearly and blatantly rules contrary to the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold and defend, he can be charged with a form of perjury, swearing under oath to do a thing, then acting contrary to that oath. This is an offense of such gravity it should disbar anyone so convicted. Felony conviction means no more law license. No law license, no more being a judge.

        take the case of that rogue judge in Seattle, a Federal District Court judge on the insistence of Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, Washington’s two rogue senatrice. He ruled in a case he has no authority to take up. Art 3 Sec 2 Par 2 clearly lays out what sorts of cases any federal court can/cannot take up. Cases involving “ambassadors and other public ministers” (would certainly include presidents), OR any matter in which a State or States are parties… can ONLY be taken up upon original jurisdiction by the Supreme COUrt of the US…. that judge ruled in a case with the President named as defendant, and involved TWO states, Wasnington and Minnesota. TWO solid reasons why that judge never had the authority to take it up. He SHOULD have dismissed without prejudice as outside of his jurisdiction, he not being the entire Supreme COurt of the US, and thus not having jurisdiciton.

        WHY have not the Senate recalled this rogue clown and oredered the ruling vacated on the grounds of no jurisdiction?

        Riddle me that one, and I’ll tell you WHY we’re in the mess we’re in.

    3. “…the Justice Department on its own initiative promulgated a rule, calling for the appointment of special, outside, counsel. That rule constitutes the second mechanism that might be used to destroy a United States President…” The Dept of Injustice legislating on its own authority, usurping the power of Congress! Well, that is easy to erase with an executive order.

    Leave a Comment 5 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *