Merkley calls for impeachment of Alberto Gonzales
In an email to supporters this morning, Jeff Merkley called for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.
Under Gonzalez' embarassing stewardship, they've fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. He's authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens. He even tried to strong-arm then-Attorney General John Ashcroft into authorizing the illegal wiretapping program while he lay gravely ill in a hospital bed. And now he won't tell Congress the whole truth about what's happening on his watch.It's time for Alberto Gonzales to be fired.
If the President won't fire him, then the Congress should impeach him.
It's believed that Merkley is the first major U.S. Senate candidate (or Senator, for that matter) to call for the impeachment of the Attorney General.
Head on over to JeffMerkley.com to read the rest and sign the petition to join the call for impeachment.
Discuss.
Updates:
Over at the blog Interesting Times, Chris Andersen lauds Merkley's call for impeachment. Still undecided, he outlines things he likes about Merkley, including:
He endorses impeaching Gonzalez. The question of impeachment, with respect to Bush or Cheney, is still up in the air for a lot of Democrats. But I think removing Gonzalez from power should be a minimal position of the party.
At MyDD, Vox Populi calls on the netroots to support Jeff Merkley. Why?
We need to send Jeff Merkley a message: We Support You. We need more Democratic candidates who aren't afraid to call for impeachment. Merkley and all the other Democrats on my ActBlue page are running to replace the corrupt, wicked, incompetent, or some mixture of all three.
And over at Beaver Boundary, they've got this take on it:
Wow. There’s a lot of discussion going on out there about the role of the Senate in impeaching and removing politicians from office for crimes, but for the moment can we just take a look at the boldness of Jeff Merkley?From taking on the payday loan industry in the Oregon House, fighting and beating the Oregon House Republicans in 2006 and now challenging a highly-ranked member of the federal government–Merkley is looking big-time.
Over at Swing State Project, a national blog, they've nodding and smiling:
This move by Merkley is not just crashing out of the gate--it's screaming out of the gate.If this is the kind of campaign that Merkley has in store for us--bold and aggressive--count me down as a fan.
Keep talking.
|
August 20, 2007 |
elsewhere | Comments (108 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 20, 2007 10:09:55 AM
are there minor candidates for Senate who have called for it?--and what makes Merkley "major" comparatively?
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 20, 2007 10:26:43 AM
Hooray for Jeff. I wish that Wyden had pushed this when the impeach Bush crowd went after him. While most Blue Oregon readers would like Bush and Cheney impeached, there is clearly a split on the practical politics of that action. However, Gonzales is another story.
Impeaching Gonzales would have both national support as well as the support of some Republicans. It will also put those like Smith? who might not get on the impeachment bandwagon in a tight spot. They would be seen as both defending all of Bush's illegal acts and defending Gonzales, who is the ultimate in government sleeze and corruption.
Just as important, getting rid of Gonzales is the first step in opening up all of the White House secrets. His replacement would not be able to be someone who will protect Bush the way Gonzales has and the impeachment process will allow the discovery of documents that are now hidden by the White House.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 10:35:50 AM
John, whenever Gonzalez came up at the Portland meeting with Wyden, people were calling for his impeachment, too.
How many votes do you think you could get? We've spent the last week hearing from people saying that there aren't enough votes to impeach Bush or Cheney. Are there enough to impeach Gonzales? Or would you have to have a hearing first to try to sway some more votes?
And what would you impeach him for? He could say he was just following orders. If George Bush didn't do anything wrong by telling Alberto Gonzalez to to it, then how could Bert have done anything wrong himself? He doesn't even remember what he did.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Aug 20, 2007 10:43:45 AM
I await the usual "Merkley is a stooge for the DSCC" comments with interest.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 10:51:53 AM
are there minor candidates for Senate who have called for it?--and what makes Merkley "major" comparatively?
OK, that's my line. I've been looking, and haven't found any other U.S. Senate candidates that have done so. The "major" is a cop-out, just in case Pavel Goberman or some other crank somewhere said something to someone once.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 20, 2007 10:54:12 AM
darrelplant
Adam Cohen had an oped in the NY Times yesterday.
An excerpt:
"Impeachment of Mr. Gonzales would fit comfortably into the founders’ framework. No one could charge this Congress with believing that executive branch members serve at the “pleasure of the Senate” or the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that impeachment of President Bush is “off the table,” and there has been little talk of impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney or others in the administration.
Congress has heard extensive testimony about how Mr. Gonzales’s Justice Department has become an arm of a political party, choosing lawyers for nonpartisan positions based on politics, and bringing cases — including prosecutions that have put people in jail — to help Republicans win elections.
Mr. Gonzales’s repeated false and misleading statements to Congress are also impeachable conduct. James Iredell, whom George Washington would later appoint to the Supreme Court, told North Carolina’s ratification convention that “giving false information to the Senate” was the sort of act “of great injury to the community” that warranted impeachment.
The United States attorneys scandal is also the sort of abuse the founders worried about. Top prosecutors, most with sterling records, were apparently fired because they refused to let partisan politics guide their decisions about whether to prosecute. Madison, the father of the Constitution, noted in a speech to the first Congress that “wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject” an official to impeachment.
If the House began an impeachment inquiry, Mr. Gonzales would most likely resign rather than risk the unpleasantness of the hearings, and the ignominy of being removed. Congress should think of it as a constitutional tap on the shoulder, to let the attorney general know that the time has truly come for him to go. If Mr. Gonzales did resign, this Congress would most likely be more gracious than the one in 1876, which ignored Mr. Belknap’s hurried resignation and impeached him anyway.
If I followed the instructions on linking, the article can be found at:
Posted by: Stephanie V | Aug 20, 2007 11:05:01 AM
Thanks, John.
This isn't exactly radical talk.
The New York Times editorialized for Gonzales' removal from office on Sunday, July 29.
Unfortunately, that editorial requires a subscription. Here's the punch line:
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
An op-ed in the Times as early as May 3 by Frank Bowman, a law professor from the University of Missouri-Columbia, called for the same outcome. Unfortunately, that article is also restricted to subscribers. Here's the money shot from that one:
Even if perjury were not a felony, lying to Congress has always been understood to be an impeachable offense. As James Iredell, later a Supreme Court justice, said in 1788 during the debate over the impeachment clause, ''The president must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.'' The same is true of the president's appointees.
The president may yet yield and send Mr. Gonzales packing. If not, Democrats may decide that to impeach Alberto Gonzales would be politically unwise. But before dismissing the possibility of impeachment, Congress should recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man. The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases and, when called to account, send an attorney general of the United States to Capitol Hill to commit amnesia on its behalf.
It's very nice that Merkley is taking this position, but it's hardly a profiles-in-courage moment.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 11:19:46 AM
John, I think you rather missed the point. You said that Wyden should have "pushed" a Gonzalez impeachment "when the impeach Bush crowd went after him". The crowd was already supporting a Gonzalez impeachment. They were already pushing the idea at Wyden.
I think my other point still stands, though. Unless you think Gonzalez was acting on his own, either in the firing of USAs or lying to Congress, the White House was involved. If you think Gonzalez is guilty of something impeachable, I have to wonder why you wouldn't think Bush and Cheney are impeachable as say, part of a conspiracy to prevent Congress from finding out the truth about the USA firings.
I don't think if you put it up for a vote today that you would be able to convict Gonzalez. A case needs to be made against him, before he can be impeached, tried, and possibly convicted. That process should begin. But so should the process of making a case against Bush and Cheney. That's been the point of people who suggested the Democrats should have started putting their ducks in a row a couple of years back and preparing for a potential fight. You know, just in case.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 20, 2007 11:21:04 AM
darrelplant How many votes do you think you could get?
That's a good question. Judging by the reception that Mr. Gonzalez has been getting recently from Republicans, I'm sure that some would be scared enough to do the right thing.
It's telling that when FOX news sent a call to the Republicans to defend the A.G. in their sycophantic setting, they couldn't find a single one to go on record defending him.
Impeaching Gonzalez would force Republicans between implicitly declaring Bush incompetent for nominating and sticking by his A.G., and defending a man who has indisputably committed perjury by its full legal definition (lying, under oath, about issues that are material to an investigation). Better, it is far more likely to be backed by the U.S. public, and not backfire on progressives.
Backfire? Yes. You'd be a fool to discount the possibility. The American public views impeachment of elected officials - and specifically the President - as a usurpation of their right to decide collectively, who will lead the country. They have no such attachment to appointed underlings, especially the Attorney General, who is supposed to be beyond reproach.
I would argue forcefully that impeaching Gonzalez is a no-brainer. Since Senate Republicans have decided to be obstructionist anyway (with a record number of filibusters), there is no particular need to engage in Senate comity. They're playing hardball. So should we.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 20, 2007 11:28:42 AM
Darrel,
My view is similar to Mr. Maurer's. Go after the easier target first, not the harder one. Gonzales is a much easier target than Bush or Cheney. If it works, it just may help the case with the public and the Congress to complete the job and go after Bush. In any case it will expose both Bush and the Republicans that defend him without causing collateral damage to the Dems.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 11:45:15 AM
John, who's suggesting going after Bush and Cheney first? That's an end result.
People who want Bush and Cheney gone want their lackys gone, too. Nobody was advocating that Nancy Pelosi assume the presidency with Gonzales as her AG or that karl Rove should have stayed on as her political advisor.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 20, 2007 11:51:40 AM
I'd be impressed if Speaker Merkley has already spoken out if favor of impeaching Gonzales. I know i have. I'd also like to see Oregon's congressional delegation as well as anybody stepping up to join this club get in step with their constituents and call for the Impeachments of Cheney and Bush as well (in that order).
I await the usual "Merkley is a stooge for the DSCC" comments with interest.
He can distance himself from the Washington DC hands wooing to feed him by changing his stance on impeachment where it matters. Last i heard, Merkley was still toeing the party line of not letting impeachment divert the Democrats' focus, or some such other fuzzy thinking.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 11:59:06 AM
East Bank Thom wrote, I'd also like to see Oregon's congressional delegation as well as anybody stepping up to join this club get in step with their constituents
Um, Thom, time to start paying attention.
All four Democratic members of Oregon's congressional delegation were original co-sponsors of the Inslee resolution to impeach Gonzales.
Yup, we can be proud of our members of the House on this one.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 12:06:09 PM
Stehanie V wrote... It's very nice that Merkley is taking this position, but it's hardly a profiles-in-courage moment.
Well, yes, it's not the most radical political position that anyone has ever taken -- he's not suggesting launching Dick Cheney into orbit around Jupiter...
But it's worth noting that there's not a single U.S. Senator that has called for the impeachment of Gonzales. Not Russ Feingold, not Chris Dodd, not Bernie Sanders, etc.
I don't know if it qualifies as a "profile in courage" - after all, Gonzales is pretty unpopular. But here's the important point -- Jeff Merkley is showing leadership. By staking this claim, he's daring Gordon Smith to follow him -- and frankly, the rest of the U.S. Senate.
This is exactly what we want from our U.S. Senators, and by proxy, our Senate candidates.
Full disclosure: I built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 20, 2007 12:10:27 PM
didn't mean to repost. (It's just an annoying glitch on this site when you hit the back button)
Kari, it's snark like "Um, time to start paying attention" that yields more heat than light. Now go back an read what I posted (either time... :)
I am calling for the Oregon delegation and anybody looking for my vote to join that delegation to "call for the Impeachments of Cheney and Bush as well (in that order)."
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 20, 2007 12:14:39 PM
Of course no sitting Senator (and most likely no other Senate candidate) will call for impeachment. Why?
Because it is unethical to do so.
While I am 100% for impeachment of Gonzales (not to mention Cheney and Bush) I am also not a sitting Senator nor am I running to be a Senator,m and that is the problematic aspect of a Senator (or candidate for same) to call for impeachment directly.
It is something a Senator (or in this case a Senatorial candidate) needs to be very careful (or more precisely something he or she should not do at all) in calling for "impeachment" since as a Senator, a Senator would be expected to sit as a juror in the trial of Gonzales in the Senate if articles of impeachment where to be passed by the House. This is like a prospective juror saying "they should arrest that guy so I can vote him guilty".
Granted that if Merkely were elected to the Senate, he would be serving in a Congress when the Bush administration (and Gonzales) would no longer be in office, but it is worth remembering that outright calling for removal from office by a Senator is problematic because of the Constitutional process involved. This is why you get "tea leaf" style statements and calls for someone to step-down from Senators.
Posted by: MCR | Aug 20, 2007 12:20:56 PM
lestat:
Impeachment is the trial process itself, not removal from office (which could be a consequence). Calling for impeachment is to call for a trial. It does not prejudge an outomce. I see no problem with a Senator asking for the opportunity to hear the evidence and decide whether Gonzales should remain in office or not.
Posted by: MCR | Aug 20, 2007 12:21:44 PM
lestat:
Impeachment is the trial process itself, not removal from office (which could be a consequence). Calling for impeachment is to call for a trial. It does not prejudge an outcome. I see no problem with a Senator asking for the opportunity to hear the evidence and decide whether Gonzales should remain in office or not.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 12:43:39 PM
EBT -- Aha. I get it. I misread your sentence construction and thought you were calling on our House members to join the "Impeach Gonzales" club. Got it. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 12:52:26 PM
FYI, I've posted a couple of updates to blogs talking about this...
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 20, 2007 1:04:20 PM
MCR, I am well aware what the process is. Which is exactly why I pointed out why you won't get direct calls for removal from office via impeachment from Senators. It is analgious to a jurist calling for arrest and conviction before trial. Read Merkley's statement. While I petsonally agree wiyh it, a Senator needs to be more circumspect.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 20, 2007 1:05:01 PM
We've spent the last week hearing from people saying that there aren't enough votes to impeach Bush or Cheney.
As one who has been arguing against impeachment of Bush and Cheney, I would say that I'm 100% on board with removing Gonzalez from office. The main point for me is that the AG must be confirmed by the Senate, so there is no reason the Senate should not be able to "withdraw" its confirmation. As Steven Maurer mentioned above, there is a big difference between removing a Senate-confirmed political appointee and removing a democratically-elected president. The former does not overturn an election, the latter does.
If you think Gonzalez is guilty of something impeachable, I have to wonder why you wouldn't think Bush and Cheney are impeachable as say, part of a conspiracy to prevent Congress from finding out the truth about the USA firings.
For me, Gonzalez can be impeached on perjury charges. If Gonzalez was heavily involved in the USA firings, then he lied to Congress about it. If he wasn't, then he'll have to argue publicly and repeatedly that he allowed underlings to make major decisions about the American justice system with little or no oversight, in which case he'd probably just step down. If someone can prove the allegations about political interference in ongoing criminal cases that's even better, but to date those are still just allegations. I don't think there's any evidence that Bush or Cheney conspired with Gonzalez to lie to Congress.
It's important to note what Gonzalez should not be impeached for, and that is the firing of the US Attorneys. USAs serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them for any reason he wants. We can all agree that firing them for political purposes is wrong, awful, damaging to our judicial system, etc. But it's a legitimate power that this and every president has, to be used for good or evil. The Democrats must avoid any impeachment proceedings that are based on policy disputes. Those do not fall under the label "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 20, 2007 1:24:49 PM
He can fire them for any reason he wants. We can all agree that firing them for political purposes is wrong, awful, damaging to our judicial system, etc. But it's a legitimate power that this and every president has, to be used for good or evil.
I don't believe this is actually true. Firing whistleblowers is illegal. Firing someone at DOJ because they won't engage in criminal activity (which is what prosecuting someone when you know you have exculpatory evidence) is illegal.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 1:28:29 PM
As Steven Maurer mentioned above, there is a big difference between removing a Senate-confirmed political appointee and removing a democratically-elected president.
If you view the process as partisan-driven, then sure, there's a difference politically. If you view the process as Constitutionally-driven, then there is no difference because the exact same portions of the Constitution govern the impeachment of all federal officials, be they AGs or Presidents. They can all be impeached for the same breaches of public trust.
Miles, you're wrong about the USA firings. You cannot fire people who will not carry out your orders to subvert the political process as president. You can fire them for no reason, or because you don't like their ties, but if you've given them orders to use their powers in an illegal manner, you cannot punish them for failing to do so or for poking into things you have ordered them not to poke into for political reasons. I mean, you can, but it's frowned upon.
Does the name Archibald Cox ring a bell?
Posted by: John Calhoun | Aug 20, 2007 1:44:29 PM
This same discussion is going on now at dailykos.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 1:53:57 PM
What's the discussion? It should have started months ago.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 20, 2007 2:19:43 PM
Darrel, I'm not exactly sure what kind of point you're trying to make about "partisan-driven" and "constitutionally-driven" processes. The U.S. Constitution is itself a political document. It formulates rules for mediating political disagreements. To claim that there is no partisan motive behind impeachment is, quite frankly, not in the least bit believable.
And even if you can, through sheer mental effort, make yourself believe that impeachment is a completely apolitical process, guided with not even a whiff of self-interest of the political players involved, but purely by the loftiest principals of our esteemed and venerated Constitution, I guarantee you that the majority of the American public won't see it that way. And they will be looking at anything our representatives do with a jaundiced eye.
In that sort of situation, clear irrefutable evidence of a lesser criminal act, such as perjury, is far more likely to have a positive result than bringing charges based on broad partisan judgments (e.g. "Bush lied us into war"), no matter how trivial the former is compared to the latter.
In other words, when you're a head of state, it's easier to get away with mass murder than it is to be caught driving drunk. I wish this weren't true. But it is.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 20, 2007 2:19:48 PM
Firing someone at DOJ because they won't engage in criminal activity (which is what prosecuting someone when you know you have exculpatory evidence) is illegal.
I think we're again veering into the area of allegations rather than fact. I haven't heard any of the fired US attorneys claim they were asked to do something illegal and refused. Did I miss a story? Of course proof of such direction from the White House to prosecute political opponents would be grounds for impeachment of ALL parties involved, but I haven't seen anything beyond speculation.
More to the point, however, if the president can fire them because he doesn't like their ties, certainly he can fire them if they won't follow his policy directives, such as a directive to increase prosecution of voter fraud cases. This isn't any different than Janet Reno ordering an increased focus on domestic violence cases, or a decreased focus on marijuana cases, or a higher bar for death penalty cases, all of which I believe happened during Clinton's tenure. The dirty secret of our judicial system is that prosecution is open to discretion. Prosecutors have vast leeway in terms of what someone is charged with, how many counts, and ultimately what punishment they face. Prosecutors routinely downgrade charges for non-violent offenses, or step up prosecution in order to set an example.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Aug 20, 2007 2:24:24 PM
I haven't heard any of the fired US attorneys claim they were asked to do something illegal and refused.
:lol:
Funniest thing I've heard all day.
Posted by: Miles | Aug 20, 2007 2:26:48 PM
They can all be impeached for the same breaches of public trust.
Just to be clear, my Constitution doesn't say anything about breaching the public trust. 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.
Posted by: DAN GRADY | Aug 20, 2007 2:27:13 PM
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I'm not an attorney, I like myself to much.
That pre-qualifier being made, I would submit that when bringing down a criminal conspiracy as vast as this one requires a snitch, an un-pardonable process that would compell a witness to bare all about their co-conspirators.
I think a process that begins with the litany of lies, and crimes against our constitutional processes that Fredo presents is the sound path to this administrations dismantling, and the begining of the restoration of representative democracy in America!
In short, IMPEACH FREDO!
Happy Thoughts Indeed;
Dan Grady
Posted by: Tamerlane | Aug 20, 2007 2:27:25 PM
Clearly, they should take him down immediately. The idea of lingering Republicans standing up to defend him is: a)ridiculous; b) would be a political godsend come election day. I don't necessarily see why the impeachment process would even need to be all that long and drawn out. At a minimum, the Democrats need to find a way to flex their muscles and throw the Administration on the defensive -- we still don't have the momentum, which is a kind of historical embarrassment for checks and balances. The AG was already supposed to have resigned when it was clear he didn't have the support of Congress; that he hasn't is a very incendiary sign from the White House about their contempt for the Democratic majority -- we gotta counter-punch -- really HARD.
Posted by: DAN GRADY | Aug 20, 2007 2:28:57 PM
P.S.: Kari; sorry for my un-related rant on the other post, I get carried away and need an occasional jerk from off stage, no sweat you "wipper snapper."
Posted by: torridjoe | Aug 20, 2007 2:30:45 PM
I think we're again veering into the area of allegations rather than fact. I haven't heard any of the fired US attorneys claim they were asked to do something illegal and refused. Did I miss a story?
I believe so. USA McKay was asked to prosecute voter fraud in Washington. When he told them there was no case, and that even Dino Rossi's lawyer told them there was no case, he was fired. USA Iglesias was asked to indict a Democratic official prior to the elections and refused--and was then fired. USA Biagi was pressured to end investigations of Gov. Ehrlich. He refused and was fired. And those are just the ones where the lawyers involved have spoken up.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Aug 20, 2007 2:36:10 PM
Miles, you don't appear to be very well informed on this topic. There are literally dozens of examples of how the US attorneys were fired for failing to prosecute what the republics/bushies wanted. Here is a link for you to bone up:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/
And here is an excert from the link:
In late December of last year, Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-NM) chief of staff Steve Bell called to speak with William Moschella, a senior Justice Department official, and made a follow-up call to the White House. Domenici, remember, had been frustrated that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias failed to indict a prominent state Democrat before the 2006 election on corruption charges. And after Iglesias was fired, Domenici apparently wanted to make sure that he wasn't canned in vain.
Here's what a White House aide wrote to Moschella about her conversation with Bell two weeks after Iglesias was fired:
[Bell] mentioned he had chatted with you today about his request for a non-partisan team that specializes in corruption to be sent down to NM.
I just wanted to circle up with you and see if you had any thoughts about it.
You might think that it goes without saying that a team of Justice Department prosecutors would be "non-partisan," but apparently in this administration, it needs saying.
There hasn't been much ambiguity that Domenici wanted Iglesias fired because he failed to speedily indict and convict key Democrats. Both Gonzales and Domenici have tried to cast the issue as a broader preoccupation with public corruption cases or white-collar cases -- but of course no other cases besides two prosecutions of state Democrats seem to have been at issue. So it shouldn't be surprising that Domenici moved shortly after Iglesias' firing to request that the White House ensure the U.S. attorney's office in New Mexico be beefed up with a "non-partisan team" (ahem) that "specializes in corruption."
Posted by: David English | Aug 20, 2007 2:49:19 PM
"Granted that if Merkely were elected to the Senate, he would be serving in a Congress when the Bush administration (and Gonzales) would no longer be in office, but it is worth remembering that outright calling for removal from office by a Senator is problematic because of the Constitutional process involved."
Just a correction, the US Senate would start their session in the first week of Jan 2009 would it not? Bush's term doesn't expire until Jan 20th, 2009, therefore unless Bush and/or Gonzales were impeached or resigned, Merkley (if elected) would be a sitting US Senator while Gonzales was in offic.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Aug 20, 2007 3:08:11 PM
Yes folks, for heaven's sake, let's not expect our Senators and Congresspeople to have ovaries. Our people might be accused of being unethical...cower cower! Or, the public might think we are trying to re-do an election. Find a big hidey hole, we're askeerd.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Aug 20, 2007 3:09:31 PM
EBT -- Aha. I get it. I misread your sentence
That's what i figured, Kari. So maybe you too should give a brother the benefit of the doubt next time and not be so quick to admonish them "to start paying attention" like some curmudgeon shouting "Get of my blawn!"
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 3:21:36 PM
"Partisan" doesn't mean the same thing as "political". It's why there's a qualifier like "political" along with the word "party" in the phrases "party politics" and "political party". If they meant the same thing, they'd be redundant.
"Partisan-driven" is something impelled by the dictates of party politics, i.e. where you decide whether to carry out an action based on whether it's the best thing for your party's political success or not. Hence the same Latin root for the word "partisan" and "party".
A "Constitutionally-driven" action is dictated by an adherence to the underlying document of the US government. Sometimes that requires putting aside considerations of the party to do what's best for the government. Call it "bi-partisanship" or "multi-partisanship" if you prefer.
As an example, it might be great for your party to use all of the power of the presidential office to screw your political opponents, but since your political opponents have the threat of this thing called impeachment to hold you in check (supposedly) maybe you wouldn't want to do that. On the other hand, if your political opponents are too stupid to use it properly or forget that it's there, then you can just stomp all over them.
My (Oregon content!) historical excerpt for the day. This is from TIME, just after the "Friday Night Massacre" in the fall of 1973, nearly seven months before Nixon's impeachment hearings began:
The first shocked reactions of Congressmen and Senators indicated that the pressure would be considerable and perhaps irresistible. Republicans were among Nixon's severest critics. Senator Mark Hatfield observed that a move to impeach could come "like a flash flood sweeping down over the pasture land." Senator Robert Packwood argued that there was "no justification" for Nixon's action. "The office of the President does not carry with it a license to destroy justice in America. His deeds are dishonorable." Predicted Freshman Congressman William H. Hudnut of Indiana: "If Nixon gives the impression he is above the law, he is going to have an impeachment problem on his hands of considerable magnitude."Democrats, too, talked ominously of impeachment. Senator Edmund Muskie urged the House to begin the painful proceedings. Senator Edward Kennedy decried the firing of Cox as "a reckless act of desperation by a President who is afraid of the Supreme Court, who has no respect for law and no regard for men of conscience. The burden is now on Congress to nullify this historic insult to the rule of law and to the nation's system of justice." Argued West Virginia Congressman Ken Hechler: "Impeachment proceedings must be initiated at the earliest possible moment." California Congressman Don Edwards urged Nixon to admit that he had made "a terrible mistake" and resign.
Posted by: Jesse B. | Aug 20, 2007 3:26:24 PM
I see someone beat me to the TPMmuckracker linkage.
Here's what TJ was talking about with McKay:
Late November 2004
Ed Cassidy, chief of staff for Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), contacts U.S. Attorney John McKay (WA) following the 2004 gubernatorial election. Cassidy inquires whether McKay will pursue investigations of voter fraud. In later testimony (3/7/07), McKay recalls, "I stopped him and I told him that I was sure that he wasn't asking me on behalf of his boss to reveal information about an ongoing investigation or to lobby me on one, because we both knew that would be improper. He agreed that it would be improper and ended the conversation in a most expeditious fashion."
Late 2004 or Early 2005
Sometime following the 2004 gubernatorial election, prominent Washington businessman Tom McCabe, disappointed with McKay's handling of voter fraud allegations, repeatedly contacts the White House to request McKay's firing.
July 5, 2005
In a letter to Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), Tom McCabe demands that Hastings "ask the White House to replace Mr. McKay," for not adequately pursuing the voter fraud allegations in the 2004 gubernatorial race. Hastings later confirms this but says, "I flat out refused to do so, which [Hastings' chief of staff] Ed Cassidy told him in the bluntest of terms."
Then of course there is the list. Under the heading "USAs We Should Consider Pushing Out" appears "W.D. Washington (John McKay)."
Impeachment is not removal from office. Impeachment is a legal statement of charges.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 3:33:55 PM
Just to be clear, my Constitution doesn't say anything about breaching the public trust.
Miles, just to be clear, your Constitution doesn't have to. The House has the sole authority of determining what falls into the category of
'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". If they can come up with language that passes the House and can gain a conviction in the Senate, there's no appeal process for an officer removed from their position. They can say anything they want in the Senate trial or the House hearings, but if they get the right number of votes, they're gone. That's in the Constitution.
Nixon's articles of impeachment included several charges of abuse of power, dereliction of duty, and failure to respond to subpoenaes. Those words aren't in the Constitution, either, but they're impeachable offenses.
Preamble of Article 2:
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Aug 20, 2007 3:44:21 PM
A "Constitutionally-driven" action is dictated by an adherence to the underlying document of the US government. Sometimes that requires putting aside considerations of the party to do what's best for the government. Call it "bi-partisanship" or "multi-partisanship" if you prefer.
And do you see any hint of "bi-" or "multi-" partisanship from the U.S.'s current crop of Republicans? In mean in 2007, not 1973. Because, quite frankly, I don't.
Also, arguing that impeachment should be Constitutionally driven isn't helpful in the current situation. The reason why a super majority is needed for impeachment to drive a man out of the presidency is because our founding fathers specifically wanted to prevent what most impeachment advocates are now arguing for: it's use as a glorified vote of confidence.
Impeachment was never conceived as a tool to toss out a President who angers his political opponents. It's there to end a Presidency of someone who scares and/or disgusts a significant percentage of his own political friends.
We're not there yet with Bush. We may never be before his time runs out. But Gonzales is an entirely different matter.
Posted by: backbeat12 | Aug 20, 2007 3:53:52 PM
Miles doesn't seem to know about how the US Attorneys were fired for refusing to break the law, yet he is more informed than the average citizen. Once impeachment proceedings begin against any of them (bush-cheney-gonzo), the corporate media will finally have to cover their crimes. And Miles and the rest of the public will be brought up to speed, increasing pressure on the republics to support Rule of Law, Rule of Law, Rule of Law! Some of them will do the right thing, though I know that is hard to believe.
Posted by: darrelplant | Aug 20, 2007 5:08:02 PM
Impeachment was never conceived as a tool to toss out a President who angers his political opponents.
That's your interpretation of why people want Bush out of office, Steven. It's also why I said that a push for impeachment shouldn't be based on partisanship.
If you'd been following the discussions preceings this on impeachment, you might have noticed that the primary reason I've advocated for impeachment is that I would like to see an end to the Iraq war come sooner than later. I think there's zero opportunity for Congress to begin winding down the war while Bush is in office. I think there's a good possibility he might widen the war into Iran (or possibly Syria) sometime in the seventeen months between now and Inaguration Day.
So long as he feels no threat from potentially being removed from office, as Commander in Chief he can ignore any restraints put on him by Congress in his conduct of war, foreign policy, and espionage. Nixon did. Carter did. Reagan did.
Last week Attorney General Richard Kleindienst expanded even further the President's already unprecedented claim for Executive privilege. Testifying before an unusual joint hearing by three House and Senate subcommittees, Kleindienst asserted that Congress has no power to hear from any one of the 2,500,000 federal employees if it subpoenas him and the President tells him not to appear. The Attorney General insisted that the doctrine involved "an enduring constitutional value" extending almost back to the Constitution's birth. But as Maine Democrat Edmund Muskie, keeping his short temper carefully in check, asked for legal precedents and a more precise history of the doctrine, Kleindienst turned vague and sarcastic, referring to Muskie's "piercing questions."Asked the incredulous Muskie:
"The Congress has no power at all to command testimony from the Executive departments?" Replied Kleindienst: "If the President of the United States so directs."
Muskie: "Do we have the right to command you to testify against the will of the President?"
Kleindienst: "If the President directs me not to appear, I am not going to appear."
Muskie: "Does that apply to every appointee of the Executive Branch?"
Kleindienst: "I'd have to say that is correct."
If Congress does not like that situation, Kleindienst added, it can always "cut off our funds, abolish most of what we can do or impeach the President." But, asked North Carolina Democrat Sam Ervin, how could the President be impeached if no one in the Executive Branch could be compelled to testify or supply evidence in the impeachment proceedings? Answered Kleindienst, in an amazing interpretation of proper legal procedure: "You don't need facts to impeach a President."
Some Senators were outraged. "I've never heard anybody talk like that before," fumed Arkansas Democrat J.W. Fulbright. "He seemed to be taunting us. He implied that we are a bunch of boobs." Muskie termed Kleindienst's theory "an unprecedented and frightening claim of the scope of the President's power." A House Republican leader took the unusual step of appearing before the Senate subcommittees to assail Kleindienst's testimony. Illinois' John B. Anderson, chairman of the House Republican Conference, charged that Kleindienst was "provocative and contemptuous of Congress" and that his views "border on contempt for the established law of the land." Pennsylvania's Democratic Congressman William Moorehead testified, too, calling Klein dienst "amazingly arrogant" and his views "monarchical or totalitarian."
Sound familiar? But technically, Kleindienst was correct.
I've seen just as much evidence of a Democratic plan for forcing Bush to get out of Iraq as I've see for an administration plan to bring peace to the region. Zilch. If there is one, they need to get on the stick
Personally, I think the plan is the same as the Republican plan on the war, to ride it out to the 2008 elections and hope that things get a lot better without them actually having to do anything about it.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 20, 2007 5:15:56 PM
Just added another update above - a link to Beaver Boundary's take.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Aug 20, 2007 5:17:36 PM
Posted by: David English | Aug 20, 2007 2:49:19 PMJust a correction, the US Senate would start their session in the first week of Jan 2009 would it not? Bush's term doesn't expire until Jan 20th, 2009, therefore unless Bush and/or Gonzales were impeached or resigned, Merkley (if elected) would be a sitting US Senator while Gonzales was in offic.
Point taken.
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 5:36:13 PM
"what makes Merkley "major" comparatively?"
Because he has the full backing of the national party.
"I await the usual "Merkley is a stooge for the DSCC" comments with interest."
Maybe noting the obvious is a good preemptive attack. Maybe not. DSCC supports Blue Oregon? check. Blue Oregon supports Merkley? check. ///stupid conspiracy theorists, Flanders.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 20, 2007 5:37:13 PM
I think there's zero opportunity for Congress to begin winding down the war while Bush is in office.
The opportunity was there, but the will was missing. Perhaps with Karl Rove gone the White House won't be able to manipulate the Democrats as well in the future as they have in the past and the Dems will get some spine to do something. Then, again, most likely they won't.
Nancy Pelosi's "Impeachment is off the table" = "Mr. President, you have nothing to fear from us."
Posted by: anon | Aug 20, 2007 5:43:48 PM
"It's very nice that Merkley is taking this position, but it's hardly a profiles-in-courage moment."
Careful Stephanie V, that comment sounds a little bit off-topic. This is a thread about the courage of our leaders. And we certainly don't want anyone questioning the courage of our leaders. Please consult House Res 2, (March, 2003). It's practically Oregon law!
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: magix | Aug 20, 2007 10:03:44 AM
[Editor's note: Off-topic comment removed. This is not a thread about Peter DeFazio or the impeachment of Dick Cheney. We've had lots of threads on that topic.]