American Thinker

by Tadas Klimas

    We all know that the culprits behind the Russia Russia hoax; behind the lawfare and other seditious sabotage; have not been brought to justice. Many of us wonder if it’s the fault of the Attorney General, Pam Bondi.

    Yet the problem may be in the law itself.

    One reads comments to articles fairly often that claim things like ‘sedition against the Constitution’ is a crime. It isn’t. And nearly all the similar ones contain a requirement of the use of force, which in these cases, sorry, does not exist.

    So we the people feel and know that high crimes were committed, yet, technically, these perps skate. There seems to be a gap.

What, specifically, then are these bad actors really guilty of

    The Constitution sets up a system wherein the people rule the executive by electing a president. If government employees sabotage the executive, if they do not give him the loyalty that they have sworn to give, that the system depends on, then who rules  The Deep State, a corrupt oligarchy, but not the people.

    That is, by the way, why brainless presidents are acceptable. They do not threaten the rule of the Deep State. Which as we now know drives an outrageously profitable fraud machine.

    The gap arose because originally a President could maintain discipline in the ranks by both hiring and firing at his discretion. Over decades this necessary power was restricted by ‘civil service’ rules, the worship of ‘experts’, and an agglomeration of so-called ‘independent agencies’ to rule us and any president brave enough to step out of line.

    In order to return the USA to its constitutionally ordained order, and in order to punish any future saboteurs, a new law is necessary. The following is a proposed bill that would do just that.

A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish the offense of abuse of office by federal officers and employees who sabotage the lawful functioning of the executive branch, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Executive Integrity and Oath Protection Act".

    SECTION 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following:

    (1) All officers and employees of the United States take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to faithfully discharge the duties of their offices.

    (2) The Constitution vests the executive power in a President of the United States and establishes a unitary executive branch under Article II.

    (3) The oath of office imposes upon every subordinate officer and employee a duty of faithful service to the Constitution and its institutions, including the office of the President and the chain of command established therein.

    (4) Deliberate sabotage of the lawful exercise of executive authority by subordinates—whether through the misuse of official credibility to elevate false or misleading information, or through sham compliance with procedures that evades substantive safeguards requiring independent judgment or verification—constitutes a grave violation of that oath and a direct threat to constitutional order.

    (5) Such sabotage undermines the ability of the American people, through their elected President, to govern themselves and cannot be tolerated if the constitutional process is to function as intended.

    SECTION 3.

§ 373. Abuse of Office

(a) Offense – Violation of Oath of Office. Whoever, being a public officer or employee of the United States who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, acting under color of law or official authority, knowingly and intentionally—

(1) uses the authority or credibility of their office to lend undue weight to false or materially misleading information; or

    (2) engages in formal or colorable compliance with law or procedure that creates the appearance of legality while evading the substance of required safeguards, particularly those mandating independent judgment or verification, thereby materially deviating from established rules— with the specific intent to seriously impede, obstruct, or interfere with a current high-ranking executive official in the lawful exercise of their office or in the peaceful enjoyment thereof, shall be guilty of abuse of office.

    (b) Offense – Prosecutorial Abuse Through Novel Legal Theories Against Current Officials. Whoever, being a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or other official of the United States or any State acting in coordination with federal authorities, knowingly and intentionally initiates, pursues, or advances criminal charges, civil actions, or investigations against a current high-ranking executive official based on a novel or untested legal theory that stretches or disregards established statutes, regulations, or judicial precedents, with the specific intent to seriously impede, obstruct, or interfere with such official in the lawful exercise of their office or in the peaceful enjoyment thereof, shall be guilty of abuse of office.

    (c) Offense – Retaliatory Abuse Against Former Officials. Whoever, being a prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or other official of the United States or any State acting in coordination with federal authorities, knowingly and intentionally initiates, pursues, or advances criminal charges, civil actions, or investigations against a former high-ranking executive official based on a novel or untested legal theory that stretches or disregards established statutes, regulations, or judicial precedents, where such actions target conduct arising from or related to the former official's prior exercise of their office and result in substantial harm tied to that prior service, shall be guilty of abuse of office.

(d) Definitions. For purposes of this section—

    (1) "Uses the authority or credibility of their office to lend undue weight" means representing or implying, through official actions, briefings, leaks, reports, or other conduct, that false or materially misleading information is endorsed by, derived from, or supported by the United States or the offender’s official position, thereby causing it to be accorded greater credence than it would otherwise receive.

    (2) "Current high-ranking executive official" means the President, Vice President, or any officer currently appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, including Cabinet members and heads of executive agencies.

    (3) "Former high-ranking executive official" means any person who previously held an office described in paragraph (2).

    (4) "Seriously impede" means to cause substantial disruption to official duties, including but not limited to initiating baseless investigations, inciting public unrest, undermining national security decisions, or pursuing meritless legal actions, but does not include legitimate oversight, criticism, or whistleblowing protected under law.

    (5) "False or materially misleading information" means statements or data that the actor knows to be untrue or recklessly disregards as untrue, excluding good-faith errors or opinions.

    (6) "Novel or untested legal theory" means an interpretation of law that lacks substantial support in existing statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedents, including disregard for clear presidential authorities such as declassification under the Presidential Records Act or related case law.

    (7) "Substantial harm" includes but is not limited to indictment, prolonged investigation, civil litigation, reputational damage, or financial burdens arising from actions targeting prior or current official conduct.

    (e) Conspiracy. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense under this section, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished as provided in subsection (f).

    (f) Penalties.

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

    (2) If the violation results in extraordinary harm to the functioning of the executive branch or to constitutional order, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    (3) In addition to any other penalty, the court may order forfeiture of office, permanent disqualification from future federal or state public employment, and restitution.

    (g) Defenses and Limitations.

    (1) It is an affirmative defense that the action was taken in good faith based on a reasonable belief in the accuracy of information or the validity of the legal theory, supported by substantial legal authority or consultation with impartial experts.

    (2) This section shall not apply to actions taken in the course of lawful congressional oversight, judicial proceedings, or whistleblower disclosures under section 2302 of title 5 (Prohibited Personnel Practices).

    (3) Prosecutions under this section require approval by the Attorney General and a finding of probable cause by a special panel of federal judges to prevent abuse or politicization.

    (4) This section does not create a private right of action and may not be used as a defense in underlying prosecutions.

    (h) Statute of Limitations. Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, no person shall be prosecuted under this section unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 10 years after the commission of the offense.

Restoring Accountability

    The Executive Integrity and Oath Protection Act directly closes the gap that decades of civil-service expansion and independent-agency proliferation created. By making deliberate oath-breaking a serious federal crime—with clear intent requirements, strong defenses, and judicial safeguards—it restores the President’s constitutional authority to lead the executive branch he was elected to command.

    Tadas Klimas, the author of several books, is a former U.S. intelligence officer awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA). He also was a law professor and at one time was Chief Legal Counsel to the Speaker of the Lithuanian parliament, first Chief of State of the Republic of Lithuania, Prof. Vytautas Landsbergis.