Gonzales should be impeached

[babylonsister]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/24/gonzales_should_be_impeached/?p1=email_to_a_friend

Gonzales should be impeached

By Robert Kuttner | March 24, 2007

Gonzales, the nation's highest legal officer, has been point man for serial assaults against the rule of law, most recently in the crude attempt to politicize criminal prosecutions. Obstruction of a prosecution is a felony, even when committed by the attorney general.

The firings of US attorneys had multiple political motives, all contrary to longstanding practice. In some cases, Republican politicians and the White House were angry that prosecutors were not going after Democrats with sufficient zeal. In other cases, they wanted the prosecutors to lighten up on Republicans. In still others, exemplary prosecutors were shoved aside to make room for rising Republican politicians being groomed for higher office.

It's hard to imagine a more direct assault on the impartiality of the law or the professionalism of the criminal justice system. There are several other reasons to remove Gonzales, all involving his cavalier contempt for courts and liberties of citizens, most recently in the FBI's more than 3,000 cases of illegal snooping on Americans.

Why impeachment? In our system of checks and balances, the Senate confirms members of the Cabinet, but impeachment for cause is the only way to remove them. The White House, by refusing to cooperate, has now left Congress no other recourse.

Instead of responding to lawful subpoenas, President Bush has invited congressional leaders to meet informally with Karl Rove and other officials involved in the prosecutor firings, with no sworn testimony and no transcript. Rove narrowly escaped a perjury indictment in the Cheney/Libby/Wilson affair. You might think these people had something to hide.

After the administration refused to cooperate, Republican Senator Arlen Specter inadvertently gave the best rationale for impeachment. Referring to the White House invocation of executive privilege, Specter warned, "If there is to be a confrontation, it's going to take two years or more to get it resolved in court."

more...

[Tippy]

1. It is my understanding he can not be impeached

he can be fired however....

[unlawflcombatnt]

2. John Dean stated that Gonzales could be impeached

Former Nixon attorney John Dean stated a couple of months ago that Gonzales should be targeted for impeachment, as it would be much easier to impeach him than Bush. I don't remember the exact details, but Dean stated it was technically much easier to impeach an attorney general than a president.

[Lobster Martini]

4. It's in Article 2

The language in Article 2 of the Constitution say "all civil officers of the United States." But then Bushies haven't read the Constitution so its probably a moot point.

[beaconess]

3. As a "civil officer of the United States," Gonzales is subject to impeachment

under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

It rarely happens, however, that a Cabinet officer is impeached since long before it gets to that point, they usually resign or are fired.

[Lobster Martini]

5. It's only happened once

That was in 1876. The Secretary of War resigned after being impeached and, ironically was acquitted after his resignation. It remains the only time a Cabinet member has been impeached.

[annabanana]

6. Then it's lo-o-o-ong overdue!

Bunnypants just said (again) that he won't fire him and he said he won't quit. It looks to me like impeachment is mandatory.