Tauscher needs a refresher course

July 30, 2007

Talk of impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has become increasingly common. The New York Times editorial board even endorsed the idea over the weekend, raising the probability considerably.

Unfortunately, there are some lawmakers on the Hill who are a little behind on their own powers. Take Rep. Ellen Tauscher, for example.

Tauscher, a conservative Dem from California, has had a few run-ins with the Democratic base in recent years, but she’s apparently breaking new ground. A constituent wrote Tauscher, asking her to consider Gonzales impeachment. Her response wasn’t encouraging.

The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president in a non-impeachable office. Unless convicted of an illegal act, the Attorney General cannot be removed from office without the president asking for or accepting his resignation. However, please be assured that I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind as I review the circumstances surrounding recent allegations of impropriety within the Justice Department.

It’s almost as if she were trying to embarrass herself.

First, cabinet officials do not serve in “non-impeachable” offices. As Kagro X noted, law professor Frank Bowman recently wrote an op-ed in the obscure New York Times explaining:

If Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him. Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach “the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States.” The phrase “civil officers” includes the members of the cabinet (one of whom, Secretary of War William Belknap, was impeached in 1876).

Second, Tauscher seems confused about what impeachment actually means.

As her letter described it, Gonzales is safe “unless convicted of an illegal act.” As Josh Marshall explained, she appears to have made this standard up.

To the best of my knowledge, there’s nothing in the constitution whatsoever that makes a criminal conviction for anything relevant to removal from office. It’s just not even part of the equation. Perhaps it’s just nitpicky to point out that the president can simply fire any cabinet officer at any time for any reason, notwithstanding the faux-technical discussion of resignation. The whole letter is written in a hyper-specific sort of pseudo-constitutional claptrapese to disguise the fact that what’s being said is complete nonsense.

Now, a few caveats. First, I haven’t seen the letter; it was featured in a dKos diary. I have no reason to doubt its legitimacy, but I can’t guarantee its authenticity, either.

Second, I know how lawmakers’ offices work. Frequently, letters from constituents get responses written by interns. It’s certainly possible that a confused staffer wrote this letter and Tauscher never even saw it.

But if the reply is legit, and if it reflects Tauscher’s actual thinking on the subject, it suggests there are still plenty of lawmakers on the Hill who need a refresher course on their constitutional responsibilities.

It sounds like an intern wrote it. A high school intern.

  • CB: The diarist updated her post and added this. Sorry, can’t figure out the block quote command. Below is her update:

    EVEN NEWER: I’ve hand-written (been a long time since I’ve done that) a letter to Tauscher and I’m sending it to her local office tomorrow along with (thank’s to y’all):

    1. A copy of the American Bar Association’s “Impeachment: A Look at the Process. (Hat tip to MLDB)

    2. A copy of Professor Frank Bowman’s NYT Op-Ed piece “He’s Impeachable, You Know”. (Hat tip to 8ackgr0und N015e)

    3. A copy of the Constitution (because she obviously needs it).

    4. A copy of my original letter requesting she start impeachment proceedings against Gonzales.

    5. Her office’s response that Gonzales is not impeachable.

    And as advised by mmacdDE, all pertinent excerpts are HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW!

  • Does anyone have or know of any responses to a similar type of letter from a constituent to a Republican representative or senator?

    There must be some by now. Interesting to see where Rep. Ellen Tauscher sits in the broader spectrum.

  • links and phone numbers should be provided, and floods of phone calls and e-mails should be sent to her office just incase she wasn’t aware of this

  • Under Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution, “civil officers” also includes US Attorneys, and articles of impeachment should be filed against any USA who fails to act on a charge of Contempt of Congress. If Bush can remove a USA who is not politicizing the office, then Congress should remove one who is.

  • Tauscher’s district spans the upper class district of the East bay, and includes one of the most exclusive, gated corporate communities in the Bay area, a wretched white wasteland called “Blackhawk”. Full of carpetbagger corporate managers, who come California, to suck off our economy and sell out and run.

    Her comments and knowledge of her own job, speaks volumes for these folk.

  • What’s with all this panic about impeachment?

    Are we not satisfied with the procedures already underway — first serious investigations, on several fronts, in six years; criminal contempt citations; call for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Alberto Gonzales on perjury charges?

    What makes impeachment the glitzy quick fix-all? Of course it’s possible, but it could take as long, or longer, than the existing procedures to accomplish a goal that is in no way guaranteed.

    Is it lack of patience, or insatiable craving for fight and action? What’s confronting us is not a simple ailment — it’s a noxious, vicious chimera that will spare nothing to survive and so should not to be meddled with lightly. Storming in with impeachment promises some glamor and short-term gratification, but may not be the best long-term palliative — the situation is deeper, more complex and more extensive than a few individual operatives.

    This is why I feel it’s great to have impeachment in reserve, but I want to see the existing measures work through. I’m very impressed with the skill, energy and commitment of the main motivators in the various congressional committees to date. Having followed their investigations and responses to obstruction, etc. in some detail I’m optimistic about the prognosis. Doesn’t mean it will be easy, but it seems to be on the right track.

    The quick fix is not always the best fix if you’re interested in long-term wellbeing. Nor is the quick fix necessarily as quick as it may at first appear. St George defeated his dragon not by frontal assault with brute force but by cunning skill and precision. That’s what I see this congress doing right now.

    Am I still missing something?

  • “Am I still missing something?”

    I think so. The investigations so far have accomplished next to nothing: witness the criminal contempt citations. The administration is stonewalling the investigations across all fronts. We will very soon arrive at a point where there is no option left other than to whine about the administrations lack of cooperation, except for impeachment.

    Besides, the investigations and impeachment are not mutually exclusive. If Gonzales committed perjury, he should be prosecuted, whether he’s impeached or not. The founders created impeachment as a way to remove incompetent officials whom the president refused to fire. Impeachment is actually very straightforward in this case. Is Gonzales incompetent? Yes. Will the president replace him? No. Ergo, he should be impeached.

    You must keep in mind that Gonzales is not the end game. He is lying to cover something up. We need to move past Gonzales pretty quickly to get to the next layer of the onion.

    As for keeping “impeachment in reserve”, as long as Bush & Cheyney are still in their offices, we still have impeachment in reserve. I think it is important to demonstrate that Congress is willing to impeach someone if there is sufficient cause. Impeachment is not really in reserve, if the administration doesn’t think you’re ever going to use it.

  • And Goldilocks, during impeachment there can be no claim of executive privelege, so the WH would have to turn over all the docs they are stonewalling on. Impeaching Gonzo must be done. And it will start the cleansing at Justice. Truly the best disenfectant is sunlight.

  • Dee Loralei,

    And Goldilocks, during impeachment there can be no claim of executive privelege, so the WH would have to turn over all the docs they are stonewalling on.

    Do you have a citation for this assertion? I’m not saying its wrong, I was just hoping to understand this a little better.

  • Thanks, shargash, Dee Loralei and Edo. I’m really sorry I couldn’t stay around to follow through on your comments. You probably won’t catch this, but I’ll put it in for the record.

    Dee, I think your point is very persuasive. I’m sure it’s correct, Edo, that virtually no claim of executive privilege can survive impeachment, or any other form of criminal charge. It’s a nice twist that the potshot at Bill Clinton has helped to clarify and strengthen the power of impeachment.

    I found three citations but, being legal stuff, it’s not stated in absolutely incontrovertible terms. However, it generally seems that impeachment knocks privilege for six. Citation 1; Citation 2; Citation 3.

    Why then not cut to the chase and get on with it? One reason is that it could force Gonzo to resign and give Bush the chance to make a recess appointment. That would not be a good outcome. Another reason is that there are already processes underway that the sadist in me wants to watch play out. I like these legal games and I think they serve a useful function by clarifying and establishing precedent. As I interpret them they look to have a good chance of success.

    This is where I disagree with shargash. I don’t think the “investigations so far have accomplished next to nothing”. Considering the dearth of any meaningful oversight in the last six years, I think they’ve already accomplished a lot. Of course, I guess it depends on your expectations. If you expect the Bat gang to vanish in a puff of smoke chances are you’ll be disappointed. All of these processes take a heck of a long time. It’s in the nature of a democracy based on the rule of law that decision-making is attenuated. That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening or that the end result may not be good.

    Also, I’m not sure that “the founders created impeachment as a way to remove incompetent officials” : high crimes, misdemeanors, treason and bribery, yes — incompetence? However, I totally agree “that Gonzales is not the end game”, and that he is lying to cover up. He’ll get the chop sooner or later. I just think it would be safer later, i.e. after August, rather than sooner.

    We know they’re criminals who have done untold damage. But they’re also clever, dangerous and powerful. We know they shouldn’t be there and should be got rid of as soon as possible, and face the consequences and pay the price of their malfeasance. The question is ‘How?’ Gonzo’s a goner, so he’s not really the issue. It’s the other limpets that are not so easy to shift. For them I think it’s still necessary to to build a bigger head of steam (limpets don’t like steam), which is what I believe the processes already underway will achieve. In that respect, if all else fails, the 2008 elections will surely finish the job.

    • Comments are closed.