(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!

(cross-posted on Open Left)

I kind of like the sound of that one.  We may have bungled a primary challenge to Ellen Tauscher, but we accomplished a lot of our goals.  She is now generally acting and talking a lot better, especially on the war.  The big bonus is that the media is tracking how we interact with her, which increases the pressure on her.  Check out this blog post on the new LAT presidential blog Top of The Ticket.  It titled “Controversial California congresswoman backs Clinton:

But they also share something else in common: each voted in favor of the war in Iraq they now oppose. And, partly because of that vote, each has been the target of attacks from anti-war activists and left-leaning bloggers. Tauscher also has drawn the ire of progressives because she is a member of the “Blue Dogs” in the House — a group of moderate Democrats — and a leader of the New Democrat Coalition.

They are targets because they were wrong in the past and now we are putting pressure on them to get it right moving forward.  Their language has changed dramatically due to the intense scrutiny.

During today’s call, Clinton described the latter group as “a very large group of House members committed to pro-growth economic policies that will really help us return to shared prosperity.” Liberal bloggers describe it less kindly, tending toward characterizations such as “sell-out” and “Republican Lite.”

Yeah, that is about right.  Interestingly, that no longer includes Clinton, who has been moving fairly dramatically to a populist economic platform for her presidential run.  She is no longer the ardent free trader, in the tradition of her husband.  I actually do take issue with that phrasing, since it insinuates that those Democrats who do not agree with the Blue Dogs are anti-growth.  It is not that progressives are against growth, we just don’t want it all to come to corporations and the richest Americans.  Like Clinton says, that is “trickle-down economics without the trickle.”

Early this year, Tauscher was under particularly intense fire from progressive voices, as spelled out in a Washington Post story. Since then, she’s heightened her profile as an opponent of the Iraq war; Tauscher is a chief sponsor, for instance, of a push to rescind the resolution that authorized the U.S. military action. Still …

… Tauscher joining the Clinton camp can be expected to generate negative comment on the left.

My first thought when I read a piece about her endorsement was to mock the fact that Clinton didn’t know how to pronounce Tauscher’s name, not to try and bash Clinton for the association.

I don’t think that anyone is particularly surprised that Clinton is sewing up the endorsements of moderate Democratic women.  I would actually be more shocked if they didn’t go to her.  What I am more interested in is how the media is reporting it. 

Don Frederick seems to understand that Tauscher is controversial, but doesn’t quite identify the biggest reason for the blogger ire that was directed at Tauscher.  She was bashing her fellow Democrats, making it more difficult to get our policy goals accomplished.  That was the biggest spark to the blow-up, though there were other factors like her extremely poor relationship with the grassroots groups in her district.  The Iraq vote is important yes, but it was not what sparked the controversy earlier this year.  After all, that vote happened years ago.  She is still a figure that will raise liberal bloggers’ eyebrows, if only because we are closely tracking what she is saying and how she is voting.