Gonzales impeachment, first legal action

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't know whether to add this to the other threads or start a new one. Two threads focus on the Department of Justice attorney firings and how they are related to election manipulation and one focuses on Bush's abuse of executive privilege. The impeachment includes both those topics. The abuse of executive privilege includes lying about the DoJ attorney firings and Gonzales' unethical visit with Ashcroft in the hospital to try to get an OK or extension for more wiretapping and data mining than the FISA law allows.

So here it is all rolled up into yet one more thread.

House Resolution to investigate the grounds to impeach Gonzales

1 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
2 investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the
3 House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
4 Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes
5 and misdemeanors.

Inslee Moves on Impeachment Proceedings

Inslee explained during a press conference today: "we are pursuing an investigation prior to filing for the actual articles of impeachment… frankly, it affords the Attorney General due process, something he did not afford his [U.S. attorneys] when they were fired." Specifically, the investigation will focus on the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the abuse of FISA courts and subsequent covering up of those abuses, and the perjury allegations from his Congressional testimonies....

...Thus far, Inslee has fourteen co-sponsors. Notably, the first six to support the resolution are former prosecutors, including two state Attorney Generals (Ben Chandler and Tom Udall) and a former judge (Hank Johnson).

 

[Upchurch]

Do you impeach an Attorney General?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently so.

 

[hgc]

Do you impeach an Attorney General?

Constitution Article II, Section 4:

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.

The only cabinet secretary to be impeached was William Belknap, Secretary of War, in 1876. He was acquitted.

It seems that the occupant of the Dick Branch of government, though he's also called "Vice President," is impervious to impeachment under the coming dictatorship.

 

[Beerina]

So is it like for the President? House = impeachment (which succeeded for Clinton), but Senate = removal from office (which failed for Clinton)?

And is it the Senate that convicts, or a normal court and normal criminal proceedings, and is conviction == immediate removal, or is that a separate vote?

 

[Upchurch]

Constitution Article II, Section 4:

huh. So you could impeach, for instance, the Post Master General?

Learn something everyday.

 

[Darth Rotor]

House Resolution to investigate the grounds to impeach GonzalesInslee Moves on Impeachment Proceedings

An interesting but predictable turn of events.

This is the Constitution in action. Have any of the media wags begun to use the misnomer "Constitutional Crisis" for this matter?

DR

 

[hgc]

An interesting but predictable turn of events.

This is the Constitution in action. Have any of the media wags begun to use the misnomer "Constitutional Crisis" for this matter?

DR

I've heard it used in regards to the coming crisis when Congress cites certain subpoena refuseniks for criminal comtempt, but the US Attorney for DC does not convene a grand jury or do anything toward bringing an indictment.

You want a crisis? Check out Inherent Contempt.

 

[Vorticity]

I've heard it used in regards to the coming crisis when Congress cites certain subpoena refuseniks for criminal comtempt, but the US Attorney for DC does not convene a grand jury or do anything toward bringing an indictment.

You want a crisis? Check out Inherent Contempt.

Neither of those would really be a constitutional crisis. As I understand it, the term "constitutional crisis" would apply to situations for which there are no existing rules, or where the existing constitutional rules are in conflict. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any true constitutional crises in the history of the US, although perhaps an argument can be made for the civil war.

The two possibilities you mention would not qualify, since definite and unambiguous rules exist governing each.

Now, I've heard the term "constitutional showdown" tossed around, which makes more sense, as this is a conflict between two branches of government, and one which invokes constitutionally-mandated checks and balances.

 

[rtalman]

So is it like for the President? House = impeachment (which succeeded for Clinton), but Senate = removal from office (which failed for Clinton)?

And is it the Senate that convicts, or a normal court and normal criminal proceedings, and is conviction == immediate removal, or is that a separate vote?

The House is like a grand jury, the Senate is like a trial.

Impeachment
Impeachment, in the U.S. and Great Britain, proceeding by a legislature for the removal from office of a public official charged with misconduct in office. Impeachment comprises both the act of formulating the accusation and the resulting trial of the charges; it is frequently but erroneously taken to mean only the removal from office of an accused public official. An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office; if the charges warrant such action, the official is also remanded to the proper authorities for trial before a court.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPEACH

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, as rtalmen says. All impeachment resolutions must start in the lower house, and are tried by the upper house, with the Chief Justice of hte United States presiding.

 

[rtalman]

Yes, as rtalmen says. All impeachment resolutions must start in the lower house, and are tried by the upper house, with the Chief Justice of hte United States presiding.

Almost. The Chief Justice only presides in the impeachment of the President, otherwise the VP presides. In the case of U.S. v. A.G.A.G., Cheney would preside.

IMO, if articles of impeachment went to the Senate, Gonzales would resign.

I think (because the constitution does not spell it out) were Cheney impeached and could not serve as President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Chief Justice is not specifically prescribed, the third in line for the Presidency would preside, Nancy Pelosi.

 

[The Painter]

Yawn

 

[pgwenthold]

Inslee was interviewed by Rachel Maddow a couple of nights ago and had an interesting take on the matter. Why impeachment? Because it is non-pardonable. If they just charged Gonzalez with perjury, and he were convicted in a criminal case, then, in principle, Bush could just pardon him and he could continue to serve. If you want him out, and want to make sure it sticks, it needs to be impeachment.

 

[Vorticity]

Almost. The Chief Justice only presides in the impeachment of the President, otherwise the VP presides. In the case of U.S. v. A.G.A.G., Cheney would preside.

So, were this to happen, how much control would Cheney actually have over the proceedings as the presiding official? Is it purely ceremonial, or could he rule on what can and can't be submitted as evidence, or other things like that? Could he dismiss charges?

I remember when Clinton was impeached, the Chief Justice had to make some rulings on what could and couldn't be admitted as evidence. What's to keep Cheney from simply ruling that no evidence can be presented, and thereby effectively cancelling the impeachment?

 

[rtalman]

So, were this to happen, how much control would Cheney actually have over the proceedings as the presiding official? Is it purely ceremonial, or could he rule on what can and can't be submitted as evidence, or other things like that? Could he dismiss charges?

I remember when Clinton was impeached, the Chief Justice had to make some rulings on what could and couldn't be admitted as evidence. What's to keep Cheney from simply ruling that no evidence can be presented, and thereby effectively cancelling the impeachment?

OTOH, as a very recent Bush appointee, what would prevent John Roberts from pulling the same shenanigans if articles of impeachment against Bush ever made it to the Senate?

I may have my head in the sand on this, but I will not accept that a sitting VP or Chief Justice would **** all over the Constitution and the American people. I can hear the froth at the mouth hysteria driven replies already...

 

[hgc]

So, were this to happen, how much control would Cheney actually have over the proceedings as the presiding official? Is it purely ceremonial, or could he rule on what can and can't be submitted as evidence, or other things like that? Could he dismiss charges?

I remember when Clinton was impeached, the Chief Justice had to make some rulings on what could and couldn't be admitted as evidence. What's to keep Cheney from simply ruling that no evidence can be presented, and thereby effectively cancelling the impeachment?

I don't remember what specifically Rehnquist ruled on in the Clinton trial, but my memory of it was more that he was just window dressing in a Pirates of Penzance costume while the senators themselves set all the rules of the proceedings by majority vote.

 

[rtalman]

I don't remember what specifically Rehnquist ruled on in the Clinton trial, but my memory of it was more that he was just window dressing in a Pirates of Penzance costume while the senators themselves set all the rules of the proceedings by majority vote.

The CNN transcripts of the trial are at http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/resources/1998/lewinsky/archives/transcripts.html

A cursory read looks like all Rehnquist did was follow Roberts Rules of Order and remind everyone of the rules the Senate had already set out. The only ruling of evidence he made that I could find was something could not be introduced because the Senate had already voted it could not be put into evidence.

KENDALL : We've heard a lot in this case about dogs that won't hunt. In my mind this is like the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog that didn't bark. If the independent counsel didn't raise it, that is significant.
And finally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the president by anybody's contention.
Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to raise a question now which arose in the final stage of the Vernon Jordan deposition.
Mr. Manager Hutchinson had taken the deposition. I had asked a couple of questions in response. Then after I had concluded, Mr. Jordan made a statement defending his own integrity, to which Mr. Manager Hutchinson objected.
I would propose that since the issue has arisen of his integrity, since Mr. Jordan is an honorable man, and a distinguished -- has had a distinguished career, that I be allowed to play the approximately two minute segment of his own statement about his integrity.
REHNQUIST : Do the managers object?
HUTCHINSON : Mr. Chief Justice, it's my understanding it's not a part of the Senate record and therefore it would not be appropriate to be played under the rules of the Senate.
REHNQUIST : Well, is it a part of his -- the deposition of him that was taken?
HUTCHINSON : It is not a part of the deposition that was entered into the Senate record under the Senate rule.
REHNQUIST : The parliamentarian advises me that division one of the motion on Thursday which was approved would prevent the playing of that. So the chair will rule that it not, not acceptable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

An interesting but predictable turn of events.

This is the Constitution in action. Have any of the media wags begun to use the misnomer "Constitutional Crisis" for this matter?

DR

Well, according to this on Wiki,

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine [executive privilege] in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

I would say this is one President who really doesn't seem to give a rat's behind about sidestepping open confrontation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've heard it used in regards to the coming crisis when Congress cites certain subpoena refuseniks for criminal comtempt, but the US Attorney for DC does not convene a grand jury or do anything toward bringing an indictment.

You want a crisis? Check out Inherent Contempt.

From your link, now this is interesting.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), a lawyer who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, William P. MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. [1]

MacCracken had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). [2][3]

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or an offense against "the dignity of public authority." [4]