The New York Times apparently wasn’t won over by the data-mining defense. Today, the paper’s editorial board raises the specter of impeaching the attorney general.
As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.
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.
How unusual is this? Josh Marshall explains that no sitting cabinet secretary in the history of the country has ever been impeached. Not one.
But there’s a very good reason for that — it’s never been this necessary before. Under political norms that used to be taken seriously, scandal-ridden cabinet secretaries would resign or be fired. Bush is rewriting the rule book, so unprecedented measures such as impeaching the Attorney General are suddenly required.
The normal course when a cabinet secretary has been implicated in grave wrongdoing or has lost the confidence of the overwhelming number of senators (which I think he clearly has, though partisan loyalty has kept many Republicans from saying it) is for him or her to resign. And if they won’t see fit to resign the president fires them since if nothing else the person can’t fulfill the responsibilities of office under those debilitating circumstances.
But then there is the big ‘unless’.
Unless the president is party to the wrongdoing that placed the cabinet secretary in jeopardy. And that is clearly the case we have here, which explains the historical anomaly that the possibility of Gonzales’ impeachment is even a topic of serious conversation.
On a related note, Oliver Willis takes a stroll down memory lane to remind us of this gem: “Do you remember that Alberto Gonzales was on the ‘short list‘ of Supreme Court nominees for the Bush administration?”
It’s a scary bunch of folks.