Tag Archives: Alberto Gonzales

CA-36: Jane Harman Will Have A Primary Challenge, Or She Will Leave Congress

Here’s the latest on the Jane Harman/AIPAC story that I haven’t previously discussed here.  We know that she discussed the case against two AIPAC lobbyists with a suspected Israeli double agent, possibly Haim Saban, and made at least an implicit arrangement to push for the dropping of the case against the lobbyists in exchange for help getting appointed the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  It is unclear whether this actually represents a violation of the federal bribery statute (doing a favor in exchange for something of value), but according to the story by Jeff Stein at CQ Politics, the Justice Department felt they had Harman in a “completed crime.”  Nancy Pelosi was briefed that Harman had been picked up on a federal wiretap but was barred from disclosing it to her House colleague, and this could explain why Harman was not appointed to that Committee Chair.  The reason that the DoJ failed to charge Harman was because Alberto Gonzales intervened on her behalf, because, among other things, he knew she would be helpful in the forthcoming battle over, amazingly enough, the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

A person who is familiar with Mr. Gonzales’s account of the events said that the former attorney general had acknowledged having raised with Mr. Goss the idea that Ms. Harman was playing a helpful role in dealing with The Times.

But Mr. Gonzales’s principal motive in delaying a briefing for Congressional leaders, the person said, was to keep Ms. Harman from learning of the investigation before she could be interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A spokesman for Ms. Harman said the congresswoman had never been interviewed by the bureau.

There’s also the charge that then-NSA Director Michael Hayden provided talking points for a Harman discussion with NY Times Washington editor Philip Taubman BEFORE THE 2004 election, to get the paper to squash the warrantless wiretapping story.  And today, Stein advances the story by noting that a whistleblower informed then-Speaker Dennis Hastert about the Bush Administration suppression of the wiretapped Harman call (it’s a violation of standard procedure to withhold information involving national security and a member of Congress from either Democratic and Republican leaders in the House).

Needless to say, this is a tangled web of intrigue, and with more disclosures it’s likely to get worse.  This has led to speculation that Harman would either not run for another term, or face a primary challenge.  I can confirm that Marcy Winograd is likely to run if Harman does seek re-election.  Winograd, who took 38% of the vote in 2006, was not planning a run until the AIPAC/wiretap revelations.  But she is uncomfortable with Harman not being held to account, and saw no other option on the horizon.  She has a federal account and will take the pulse of the district before a formal announcement.

“I think she’s clearly in trouble and I think she knows it and is doing whatever she can to turn the tables on the situation,” Winograd said. “And now she is the spokesperson for the ACLU or the Bill of Rights Foundation.  It would be comical, if the stakes weren’t so high.” […]

One of Winograd’s first steps is going to be “taking the pulse” of the district on issues like military spending and single-payer health care, among other issues.  It’s entirely possible that Harman might bow out and try to annoint a successor.  Or that another establishment Dem might try to take advantage of her weakened position.  Which is why I wanted to get the word out as quickly as possible that there’s a really credible progressive alternative.  Winograd has already run a primary once in the district.  Activists there know who she is, and a lot of them have already worked for her in 2006.  This would not be a net-based candidacy, but it will certainly help to have it be net-supported.

In addition, the name of blogger John Amato has surfaced as a possible challenger.

(Howie) Klein said a group of bloggers met earlier this year to discuss challenging Harman in a primary, weeks before the recent revelations. He said many in the blogging community would like a fellow blogger, John Amato, to challenge Harman and that Amato is considering it.

Winograd said that she would step aside for the right candidate, and that she’s taking up the mantle at least for now.

“I don’t know who else will answer the call, if not me,” she said. “People with great name recognition and track records in public office are not going to take her on.”

I think Marcy feels the duty to run.  At the same time, she agreed that there needs to be one progressive alternative to Harman.  But my sense from people in the district is that Harman is unlikely to try another re-election campaign.  Even the above-mentioned NYT article refers to this.

While the two women do not display overt hostility, Ms. Harman seems to have never quite gotten over the slight. Colleagues say that since Ms. Pelosi, 69, thwarted her ambitions for a more prominent role on security issues, Ms. Harman, 63, has grown weary of Congress and has been eyeing a post in the Obama administration, perhaps as an ambassador.

This tracks with everything I’ve heard from locals.  She wanted the Intelligence Committee chair, and failing that she wanted an Administration job, and failing that she wants out.

There would be a whole host of elected officials who would jump in if Harman retired.  Ted Lieu, the Assemblyman in this district, could be enticed away from his Attorney General campaign.  City Councilwoman Janice Hahn would take a look.  And there would be others.  But if Harman stays in, none of these electeds would run, avoiding what would be an expensive primary.  Harman is the richest member of Congress and has no problem spending her own money to keep her seat.

Either way, there will be a contested race in CA-36 in June 2010.  And I do believe that a primary would feature only one major challenger.  The question is, who would that be?

CA-36: Wherein Jane Harman Tries To Throw The 2004 Election

This Jane Harman/AIPAC scandal continues to grow.  It jumped from the inside the Beltway rag CQ Politics to The New York Times.

One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage, current and former government officials say.

The lawmaker, Representative Jane Harman of California, became the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee after the 2002 election and had ambitions to be its chairwoman when the party gained control of the House in 2006. One official who has seen transcripts of several wiretapped calls said she appeared to agree to intercede in exchange for help in persuading party leaders to give her the powerful post.

But that’s not what advances the story today.  Harman has denied contacting DoJ abut the AIPAC case, though she left out contacting the White House, and she did not deny that the phone call existed.  Remember that a key part of the story concerned the idea that Harman was saved from prosecution on this by Alberto Gonzales, who “needed Jane” to help front for the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.  In today’s article, the Times drops this bombshell:

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said in a statement Monday that Ms. Harman called Philip Taubman, then the Washington bureau chief of The Times, in October or November of 2004. Mr. Keller said she spoke to Mr. Taubman – apparently at the request of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then the N.S.A. director – and urged that The Times not publish the article.

“She did not speak to me,” Mr. Keller said, “and I don’t remember her being a significant factor in my decision.”

Shortly before the article was published more than a year later, in December 2005, Mr. Taubman met with a group of Congressional leaders familiar with the eavesdropping program, including Ms. Harman. They all argued that The Times should not publish.

Ultimately, it’s on Bill Keller whether or not to publish, so I don’t want to give Harman too much credit here.  But as Greg Sargent notes, this is a startling turn of events.  A Democratic Congresswoman acted on behalf of a Republican President’s NSA director to spike a story about illegal activity in the executive branch before a close Presidential election.  The ramifications are enormous.

This discussion between Harman and Taubman apparently happened before the wiretapped phone call between Harman and the Israeli agent, according to the TPM Muckraker timeline.  So Gonzales knew that Harman could be counted on to support the warrantless wiretapping program, because she had years of experience doing so at that point.

This gets uglier and uglier.  Small wonder that Harman was passed over for a position in the Obama Administration.

UPDATE: It is entirely possible that the CIA and Bush-era officials directed this set of leaks in a show of force.  That of course has nothing to do with Harman’s conversation with Taubman to try and get the NYT to spike the wiretapping story, which was confirmed by Bill Keller on the record.

UPDATE II: …Harman has released a letter calling on the Attorney General to release all transcripts and investigative material related to her collected by the Justice Department in 2005 and 2006.  This is a bit of misdirection, since by all accounts these were legal wiretaps of foreign agents.  But given the revelations about continued illegal wiretapping at the NSA, I understand Harman’s strategy.

CA-36: Reads Like A Really Bad Spy Movie

I’m sitting here in Jane Harman’s Congressional district right now.  I could probably go out on the street and informally poll a dozen people about AIPAC, and I’m pretty certain nobody would know what I’m talking about.  But inside the Beltway, AIPAC is sacrosanct and Israel practically the 51st state.  So this blockbuster story is a perfect depiction of, as Attaturk says, the way Washington works.  He simplifies it so I don’t have to:

1. Congressman Jane Harman (D – CA) told a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby.

2. This was known because of an NSA Wiretap.

3. The suspected Israeli agent then promised to lobby Nancy Pelosi to make Harman chair of the House Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections (she wasn’t).

4. There were some reports of this influence peddling in 2006, but it was dropped for a “lack of evidence” by Alberto R. Gonzales, who intervened to stop the investigation.

5. Gonzales intervened because he wanted Harman to defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times.

6. And she promptly went out and defended it.

This looks just terrible for Jane Harman.  There’s a trail of reporting on this going back to 2006, but the new material concerns Abu Gonzales stepping in to squash the investigation so Harman could parrot the Bush Administration line on warrantless wiretapping.  And there’s an even larger trail of reporting on Harman’s fronting for Bush.  The point is that the pieces all fit together.

Indeed, as I’ve noted many times, Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as “the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee” to repeatedly praise the NSA program as “essential to U.S. national security” and “both necessary and legal.”  She even went on Meet the Press to defend the program along with GOP Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and she even strongly suggested that the whistleblowers who exposed the lawbreaking and perhaps even the New York Times (but not Bush officials) should be criminally investigated, saying she “deplored the leak,” that “it is tragic that a lot of our capability is now across the pages of the newspapers,” and that the whistleblowers were “despicable.”  And Eric Lichtblau himself described how Harman, in 2004, attempted very aggressively to convince him not to write about the NSA program.

It’s a classic espionage story, right down to the part where Harman hangs up the phone with the Israeli agent after saying “This conversation doesn’t exist.”  For her part, Harman is denying the story, but Stein has several sources who read the transcripts from the NSA wiretaps (apparently gathered legally, but who the hell knows).  And he’s right, at the end, about the utter futility of this exercise, on all counts:

Ironically, however, nothing much was gained by it.

The Justice Department did not back away from charging Rosen and fellow AIPAC official Keith Weissman with espionage (for allegedly giving classified Pentagon documents to Israeli officials).

Gonzales was engulfed by the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal. (and the US Attorneys probe -ed.)

And Jane Harman was relegated to chairing a House Homeland Security subcommittee.

Josh Marshall asks a lot of the key questions, including whether Harman was being blackmailed by the Bush Administration to be their front person on wiretapping, having been wiretapped herself.  And Ron Kampeas has a somewhat different take, suggesting that this is only coming out because the case against AIPAC officials Rosen and Weissman is faltering.  There’s one way to know for sure: a full-blown investigation, which Harman ought to welcome to clear her name.

CA-41: Lewis, DoJ Drain The Money Swamp

Bruin Kid lets us know that Jerry Lewis will be seeking re-election next year.  He’s obviously pretty confident that his legal troubles and investigations into his corrupt earmarking will amount to nothing.  I’m thinking this is why:

In Los Angeles, a federal criminal investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, stalled for nearly six months due to a lack of funds, according to former prosecutors. The lead prosecutor on the inquiry and other lawyers departed the office, and vacancies couldn’t be filled. George Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, declined to comment on specific cases but confirmed that lack of funds and unfilled vacancies caused delays in some investigations […]

People with knowledge of the case said that by the time the investigation stalled in December 2006, it had branched out into other areas, including Mr. Lewis’s June 2003 role in passing legislation that helped giant hedge fund Cerberus Capital Management. People associated with Cerberus around the same time gave at least $140,000 to a political action committee controlled by Mr. Lewis. Cerberus officials didn’t respond to phone calls or emailed questions concerning the Lewis inquiry […]

After the lead prosecutor in the Lewis case quit, others assigned to the case took time getting up to speed. Brian Hershman, a former deputy chief of the Los Angeles office’s public corruption section, declined to comment on specific cases, but confirms that his group’s work overall was derailed by the departure of experienced prosecutors. Like several others, he says he left for more money to support his family.

Replacements “are mostly rookies,” he says. “It will be some time before they’ll be able to restore the section to what it was before.”

With additional funds recently made available by Congress, the Los Angeles office has filled 12 of 57 lawyer vacancies and is expecting an additional 12 lawyers to start soon. To jump-start the Lewis investigation, Mr. Cardona, the interim U.S. attorney, in June called on a veteran prosecutor, Michael Emmick, to revive and supervise the investigation, people with knowledge of the investigation say.

Day late and a dollar short on that one, I’d gather.  This is approaching criminal conduct by the Justice Department.  At a time when the investigation was expanding, Debra Wong Yang (the US Attorney for the region) suddenly jumped ship for the law firm representing Lewis.  You can bet they never lacked funds; Yang received nearly $1.5 million.  The law firm, Gibson Dunn, took the top assistant off the case as well.  So the LA office was thrown into disarray precisely when the investigation was heating up, and the money for the office dried up at the same time.  Pathetic.  With or without Alberto Gonzales, we still have a DoJ protecting its own and politicized beyond control.  And this is the time when Democratic leaders are seeking to call off the dogs in the US Attorney case?

Civil Liberties lost

I’m frankly frightened. The California Senators I relied on to protect my civil liberties caved. Is ducking the vote any better or worse than voting against your constituents’ liberties? What rights do we lose next?
Under the assertion that “We need to protect ourselves from attack”, the US Congress granted to George Bush a pardon for his ILLEGAL acts.  This Congress, the Democratic Congress with the new ideas and the vow to stop the illegal acts of this President, cowed to the old rhetoric and made it legal for the Bush Administration to deny the citizens of this country the right to privacy, pardoned the Administration’s illegal intrusions into citizens private electronic conversations, and permitted the abrogation of the rule of law, and the right to due process.  And then, in a capping move that added insult to injury, they put Alberto Gonzales, George Bush and one other hand picked Bush flunky in charge of overseeing it. Yes, the same Gonzales who has defied a Congressional subpoena, the same Gonzales who believes it is perfectly ok to defy the Geneva Convention and torture citizens and non-citizens who he, in his infinite wisdom, designates as enemy combatants.The same Gonzales who refused to allow the US Surgeon General from reporting to the American people the results of life saving research on health and sexual practices and the same Gonzales who fired nine Federal prosecutors because they did not follow the party line–the Republican party that is.  Indeed, our new Democratic Congress gave to George Bush their blessing in his bid to overthrow the Constitutional gifts and freedoms for which our forefathers, and all our brave men and women in uniform, fought and died, the right to due process under the law, the right to hold a private conversation beyond the prying eyes of the government, and the requirement that intrusions into these freedoms would only occur in extreme circumstances as determined by a duly appointed and unbiased court order.
What battle cry then will draw the American people to fight our enemies when the cry “Let Freedom Ring” can no longer be spoken? 

The Rural Caucus of the California Democratic Party is sending the following letter to Senators Feinstein,Senator Boxer and Speaker Pelosi.
  The California Democratic Party Rural Caucus members are outraged! We are appalled and frankly, frightened. The two Senators we trusted to uphold our civil liberties caved.
We worked for and elected a new Democratic Congress in 2006, with the assurance that doing so would make a difference.  A new Congress would change the direction of this war: it would put a stop to the illegal wiretapping used by the Bush Administration to spy on its citizens; it would restore the right of citizens to confront accusers, restore Habeas Corpus; it would restore the sacred rights to privacy that we all believed had been guaranteed by the Constitution.  But what we got was the same old Congress.

  This past week, acting very much like the previous Republican Congress, the House and Senate, each, separately and unequivocally knuckled under to the demands of a President whose policies have been renounced by the American people and even a hand-picked Supreme Court. 
With the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the recent Executive Order allowing the seizure of property for dissent, the calling of Senator Clinton nearly treasonous for asking about an exit strategy from the war
Accepting the claim that our enemies are determined to take away our freedoms, our Congress beat them to it.  They bought the peace with this Administration with our freedoms.  And these are our protectors?  I for one, would rather have my freedoms ripped away from in an eye- to-eye combat with my enemies than to lose them to my friends whose claim is that they give up these freedoms of ours for our own good.

And what is to befall us once the rest of those precious freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights go the way of these? 
We 200 members of the Rural Caucus of the California Democratic Party have lost something else precious, respect for the integrity and sincerity of our California Senators. We expect a response other than a form letter.
CDPRC

 

Justice Department Puts Checks and Balances in the Crosshairs

A federal appeals panel yesterday heard arguments regarding the power of executive branch federal prosecutors to declare judicial branch court records as classified.  At issue for the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the case of Duke Cunningham co-conspirator Thomas Kontogiannis who has pled guilty to laundering bribes heading from defense contractors to Duke Cunningham (R-Tucson Federal Correctional Institution). So what are federal prosecutors after?

In trying to keep the information about the plea secret, government lawyers invoked a law dealing with the handling of classified information. At least one transcript of a hearing was stamped “classified” by the government – a move that was criticized by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, who is presiding over the case and initially agreed to the secret proceedings.

Burns moved to lift the seal in June. Prosecutors, however, objected and took the case to the appellate court. Their reasons for secrecy are unknown because the objections were filed under seal.

So let’s connect the dots.

The federal attorney’s want to keep court records under wraps.  They’ve gone so far as to request the court to seal the legal filings of the San Diego Union-Tribune seeking access to information.  What are they really asking?  They’re asking that the public trust them because the government just can’t allow things into the public domain.  This is San Diego.  Where, if you’re on public assistance, you’re presumed guilty until proven innocent.  Where the US Attorney was fired by her politically motivated superiors for pursuing federal corruption in this very case.  This is the Justice Department run by Alberto Gonzales who is either mind-blowingly incompetent or has completely politicized the Justice Department to the point that every federal prosecution has to be presumed to have partisan motivations.

Further, in the immediate wake of the FISA vote, federal prosecutors are saying that the executive branch should be unconditionally trusted to safeguard the public interest.  Warrants, checks and balances, and the right of the public to know what the government is doing- according to these federal prosecutors- should just be wholesale ceded to the executive branch of the government.  Yeah right.

What do they have to hide?  Duke Cunningham’s laundry list of bribes received has been fully documented.  So just like the FISA assertation that the government can’t fill out warrant applications, one is forced to ask- in a case full of prominent Republicans, the pursuit of which has already claimed Carol Lam- just what does the fully-partisan Justice Department have to hide?  There’s no longer any question as to the internal policy of the Justice Department and AG Alberto Gonzales, so what’s left is whether the 9th Circuit will roll over on the Constitution and let the executive branch dictate the fundamental operation of the judicial branch.  More simply: Will the judicial branch defend itself from attack?  Will it demand independence?  We’ll see.

Update on Ellen Tauscher on Impeaching Gonzales

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Source Representative Ellen Tauscher (CA-10th) in blue.

Many of you responded to my diary last week My Democratic Congresswoman Claims Alberto Gonzales Cannot Be Impeached! .

Recap (Again this is cross-posted at DailyKos):

A) I sent Representative Ellen Tauscher an email asking her to initiate impeachment proceedings against Gonzales. She (or her staff) responded via email (and again when I phoned them) that

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.

B) After re-reading the U.S. Constitution, and posting here for feedback from others I concluded that Tauscher was quite wrong on this urgent point. I sent her local office the following:

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!

Here’s the text of my 2nd letter to her:

Dear Representative Tauscher,

I received the enclosed email from you (or one of your staffers) in response to my message about impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (also enclosed). I was quite startled to read your claim that Gonzales is “not impeachable”. According to the U.S. Constitution he is (please read enclosed documentation). I’m hoping that your staff simply got confused about this very serious situation and sent the wrong information to me, your constituent. A good read-through of the materials I’ve been studying myself will correct that error for my neighbors and others who write to you about this.

If you yourself responded to my letter then I respectfully request that you immediately study the enclosed documents regarding Congressional impeachment of “civil officers”. It seems very clear to me (and to the American Bar Association, and to Professor Frank Bowman, all enclosed) that Mr. Gonzales is indeed impeachable.

I therefore again request that you begin impeachment proceedings against this man. He’s either lying to Congress (a triple felony) or he’s incompetent. Either way Mr. Gonzales is endangering our democracy every day he stays in office.

Please act as my reprepresentative in this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Emily Duffy

I just received Tauscher’s response to my packet. There was a lot of repetition from the first form letter (why Gonzales is so bad, how she’s watching him carefully etc.) but this part was new, and probably as close to humble pie as she can swallow on this huge error:

I apologize for inaccuracies contained in any earlier correspondence. I want to set the record straight on my actions. I am a co-sponsor of two bills to remove Gonzales from office. On May 22, I co-sponsored H. Res. 417, which declares that the House of Representatives and the American people have lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. It calls on the President to nominate a new candidate capable of serving as the head of the Department of Justice. Additionally, I am a co-sponsor of H. Res. 589, introduced yesterday by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, which directs the House Judiciary Committee to initiate an impeachment investigation of the Attorney General. The resolution requests a formal investigation of the facts surrounding the Attorney General’s actions in order to allow Congress to determine whether articles of impeachment are appropriate.

My friends, don’t let ANYONE ever tell you that you have no political power. Here is your proof that something as simple as a letter to your Congressperson could change their position on a crucial issue (from impeachability-denier to impeachment-bill-co-sponsor in two easy steps).

I’m sure plenty of you will be angry at reading Tauscher’s lame inexplicable apology, and in a perfect world I would be as well (at least she didn’t try to lay it at some hapless staffer’s feet). I’m thrilled she changed her official position on this issue. Many of Tauscher’s votes piss me off but if she’s able to adapt to the rising power of the true political center (which is way left of her former position) then I’m willing to let her keep her job. But, the moment she slips back into DLC behavior, she’s an election target (and I think she is beginning to understand that). The key to this entire episode is that I’ve come to realize it’s MY DUTY to keep her on track.

No doubt the clout of my fellow Kossacks forced Tauscher to immediately examine her claims about Gonzales’ un-impeachabilty and for that I greatly thank you. Tauscher seems willing to mend her Blue Dog ways (time will tell) and no doubt we (collectively) can pressure the rest of this misguided pack to join her in moving towards the base. Or they can start packing their bags.

Meteor Blades provided the list earlier today. If your Representative is on this list, you need to get up in their face!

Be sure to sign John Edwards’ petition. They plan to

…send one copy of the Constitution to Gonzales’ office for every person who signs our petition. If we reach our goal of 40,000 signatures, we will add all the names to the biggest copy of the Constitution you have ever seen – and send that to his office too!

Tauscher Cleans Up The “Gonzales Can’t Be Impeached” Remark

Ellen Tauscher has now not only acknowledged that an Attorney General can be impeached, but she signed on to the impeachment resolution:

I apologize for inaccuracies contained in any earlier correspondence. I want to set the record straight on my actions. I am a co-sponsor of two bills to remove Gonzales from office. On May 22, I co-sponsored H. Res. 417, which declares that the House of Representatives and the American people have lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. It calls on the President to nominate a new candidate capable of serving as the head of the Department of Justice. Additionally, I am a co-sponsor of H. Res. 589, introduced yesterday by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, which directs the House Judiciary Committee to initiate an impeachment investigation of the Attorney General. The resolution requests a formal investigation of the facts surrounding the Attorney General’s actions in order to allow Congress to determine whether articles of impeachment are appropriate […]

You have to appreciate someone who can admit they were wrong. 

My DEMOCRATIC Congresswoman Claims Gonzales Cannot Be Impeached!

(This story is a couple days old at this point, but worth everyone seeing. – promoted by jsw)

Representatives Ellen Tauscher (CA 10th) and Jerry McNerney (CA 11th (with some guy inbetween). From Tauscher’s website.

READ THE UPDATE ON THIS STORY HERE!

(NOTE: This post was originally written for my DailyKos diary. It received over 300 comments, a first for me after writing there for more than 3 years. I’ve added new information that came in from those many amazing comments so you can track how the story developed. I’ve also rearranged it from the original format so it will make more sense.)

Cross-Posted at DailyKos and Political Artwork.

Sometimes I think I am the only person in my district writing or phoning my Representative. I live in a very long skinny district, badly patched together, and a few years ago I got moved into former DLC Vice President Ellen Tauscher’s district. Previously I was in George Miller’s district and he’s much more liberal. But I’ve come to believe it’s a good thing for more liberals from the Western edge of San Francisco’s East Bay to be all up in Ms. Tauscher’s political face.

I thought I’d let her know I wanted some action on Gonzales. I’d been reading the Constitution regarding impeachment and it appeared to me (lay-person that I am) that Gonzales could be removed in this way and Bush would be unable to pardon him. Here’s what I was looking at:

* The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

* Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Here’s where I figured we’d just push him out of office now and then charge him with crimes after Bush is no longer president (so he couldn’t pardon him.)

* The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

* 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.

So I was assuming that Gonzales, being the Attorney General was a “civil officer” which would allow Congress to indeed impeach him and or cause him to resign under threat of impeachment.

Congresswoman Tauscher responded thusly:

Thank you for contacting me about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. I have reviewed your comments and welcome this opportunity to share my views.

I have long been concerned about Attorney General Gonzales’ role in crafting the Bush Administration’s policies that deny prisoners captured in the War on Terror protections afforded to belligerents under the Geneva Convention, including the right to protection from torture. Recent allegations regarding his role in the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for seemingly political purposes and an audit of FBI use of national security tools which revealed multiple breaches of FBI and Justice Department regulations are further cause for grave concern.

The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the nation, and it is his responsibility to uphold the rule of law and respect for civil rights that are granted by the U.S. Constitution. As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Human Rights Caucus, I am deeply concerned about abuse and violations of the rights of detainees in U.S. custody. These allegations have undermined our nation’s credibility and have raised concerns in the international community that the United States no longer holds human rights as a guiding principle in its military and foreign policy.

Furthermore, the politicalization of the Department of Justice through the firing of U.S. Attorneys thought to be unsympathetic to Administration priorities and slow and incomplete responses to Congress by the Justice Department regarding this matter display a flagrant disregard for the Constitutionally-mandated neutrality of the legal system. The condoning of the abuse of national security powers by the FBI is further evidence of this disturbing trend. Accountability must begin at the top, and I expect the President to uphold openness and honesty in his Administration. As investigations into these matters continue, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that those who acted unethically – or even illegally – are held responsible.

Good, good, I’m liking the sound of this…but then she says this:

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.

Sincerely,

Ellen O. Tauscher
Member of Congress

Whatdayaknow…it turns out SHE’S QUITE WRONG! After reading the information shared by DailyKos readers, and doing more research, I’m convinced that my Democratic Congresswoman doesn’t fully understand the very same Constitution she took an oath to uphold! So I wrote her again, and sent along with my letter, a big pile of PROOF that  not only is Mr. Gonzales impeachable, it’s her duty as my Representative to help remove him.

Here is what I wrote in my 2nd letter to her:

Dear Representative Tauscher,

I received the enclosed email from you (or one of your staffers) in response to my message about impeaching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (also enclosed). I was quite startled to read your claim that Gonzales is “not impeachable”. According to the U.S. Constitution he is (please read enclosed documentation). I’m hoping that your staff simply got confused about this very serious situation and sent the wrong information to me, your constituent. A good read-through of the materials I’ve been studying myself will correct that error for my neighbors and others who write to you about this.

If you yourself responded to my letter then I respectfully request that you immediately study the enclosed documents regarding Congressional impeachment of “civil officers”. It seems very clear to me (and to the American Bar Association, and to Professor Frank Bowman, all enclosed) that Mr. Gonzales is indeed impeachable.

I therefore again request that you begin impeachment proceedings against this man. He’s either lying to Congress (a triple felony) or he’s incompetent. Either way Mr. Gonzales is endangering our democracy every day he stays in office.

Please act as my representative in this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Emily Duffy

Here is the list of documents (PROOF) that I included with my letter:

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

2) A copy of Professor Frank Bowman’s NYT Op-Ed piece “He’s Impeachable, You Know”. (Hat tip to DailyKos writer 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) A copy of Tauscher’s response to my original letter.

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

I’ll report back if I hear back from Tauscher’s office. If I don’t hear back from her, she’ll hear back from me!

NOTE: Here’s the text of the email I originally sent Tauscher. Please feel free to borrow any or all of it to send to your own Rep.

  Dear Representative …,

I have been watching Senate hearings at which Attorney General Gonzales is testifying about many, MANY irregularities and conflicting statements on several issues of national security etc. This man is not fit to continue in his position. He either seems confused, can’t recall, or doesn’t know the answer to most questions posed by the bipartisan Senate Committee. He’s either lying about his involvement with various illegal activities, or he’s incompetent! Either way, he needs to be removed.

The Constitution 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. “

and,

The President…”shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

I understand that to mean, if Congress impeaches Attorney General (or any other Bush appointee, cabinet member, civil employee etc.) Bush cannot pardon them and they will be held accountable.

I respectfully request that you begin impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General immediately. That will begin the unveiling of crimes and corruption that this administration has committed, and continues to commit.

Thank You.

If you made it all the way to the end of this post, thank you for taking the time to read this strange tale. You might want to check and see if your own Congressperson knows that Alberto Gonzales is impeachable by writing to them HERE!

You can also sign John Edwards’ petition calling for Gonzales to resign HERE!

So I have a question…

(Today’s NYT calls for impeachment of Abu Gonzales if he doesn’t appoint a special prosecutor. So, why didn’t the Democratic Party of California do the same a few weeks ago exactly? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

and it goes out to the Resolutions Committee and anyone else that may have voted against Bob Silver’s amendment to resubstitute the word “impeachment” into the watered-down “immediate resignation” resolution about Attorney General Gonzales that the Committee passed on my behalf at the last e-board.

The question is…now that Senate Democrats are calling for an investigation into Gonazales’ overt perjury, and even RedState.com’s Pejman Yousefzadeh is calling for Gonzo’s removal…

Do you still think that calling for the impeachment of Gonzales is not pragmatic, would create “bad media”, and make us seem too radical?

Just checking.