John Dean's latest FindLaw Column, "Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President: Why Not Have A Realistic Debate, with Charges that Could Actually Result in Convictions?" offers another aspect to the impeachment debate. Mr. Dean says:
... I myself have no doubt that Bush has, in fact, committed impeachable offenses, and that for each Bush "high crime and misdemeanor," Cheney's culpability is ten or twenty times greater ... Impeachment is a political process, and not only are the votes to remove either Bush or Cheney lacking, but it also would not be very good politics to do to them what was done to President Clinton...
Mr. Dean is in a position to understand the legal and political issues surrounding the impeachment debate. He concludes that "There Is No Chance Either Bush or Cheney Will Be Removed From Office." His argument is convincing. He says:
... Getting the necessary two-thirds supermajority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible. With forty-nine senators of the 110th Congress members in good standing with the Republican Party, and most of them rock-ribbed conservatives, even if the House produced evidence of Cheney personally water-boarding "Gitmo" detainees in the basement of his home at the Naval Observatory, with Bush looking on approvingly, there are more than thirty-three GOP Senators who still would not vote to convict. (Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)
Pelosi and Reid have long understood this reality, and rather than do to Bush and/or Cheney what Republicans did to Clinton - impeach him in the House merely because they had the power to do so and they wanted to tarnish him, only to lose their battle decisively in the Senate - they are simply not going to play the same game. Politically, this is smart. Americans do not want another impeachment, particularly when Bush and Cheney will be out of office in January 2009...
He then takes up the argument for "Realistically Refocusing the Impeachment Movement." He says that:
... The Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all "civil officers of the United States" - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges. It is not clear who, precisely, is among those considered "civil officers," but the group certainly includes a president's cabinet and sub-cabinet, as well as the senior department officials and the White House staff (those who are issued commissions by the president and serve the President and Vice President).
Quite obviously, Bush and Cheney have not acted alone in committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." Take a hypothetical (and there are many): Strong arguments have been made that many members of the Bush Administration - not merely Bush and Cheney -- have engaged in war crimes. If war crimes are not "high crimes and misdemeanors," it is difficult to imagine what might be. Jordan Paust, a well-know expert on the laws of war and a professor at University of Houston Law Center, has written a number of scholarly essays that mince few words about the war crimes of Bush's subordinates. For example, many of their names are on the "torture memos." ...
Mr. Dean argues that "an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney." His logic is that many of those who "aided and abetted, or directly engaged" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" are young enough that they will likely be part of future Republican Administrations, and will bring with them their "offensive conduct," thus propagating the culture of corruption. All one has to do is look back to the Nixon and Ford administrations to see what he means. The the first point of "Refocusing the Impeachment Movement" is to disqualify these people from holding "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."
He points out that impeachment of an official in a position below that of the president or vice president would be managed in a manner similar to impeachment of a federal judge. That is, the work involved in building a case would be done by special subcommittees, so it would not affect the regular work of Congress.
Dean includes a quote from J. Proctor Knott, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Grant's Secretary of War, William Belknap. Mr Knott said:
... "The purpose was not simply to harass, to persecute, to wantonly degrade, or take vengeance upon a single individual; but it was that other officials through all time might profit by his punishment, might be warned by his political ostracism, by the ever-lasting stigma fixed upon his name by the most august tribunal on earth, to avoid the dangers upon which he wrecked, and withstand the temptations under which he fell ..."
Dean goes on to say that there are many civil officials who may have been involved in "high crimes or misdemeanors" and where evidence is found to that effect, impeachment proceedings should be started. According to Dean, impeachment proceedings would not only get rid of those who have comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors" and disqualified from ever again abusing powers of the federal government, but would also bring Congress back into the reality of the political world.
With subpoena power, evidence of "high crimes or misdemeanors" should not be that difficult to find. Every Democratic leader going into the new Congress has said that there will be oversight, and investigations where evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered. With all the obviously criminal activity that has been going on for the past five years, it is a matter of time before evidence of criminal activity is discovered.
While Speaker-designate Pelosi has said that impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney is "off the table," she also said in an interview on the May 7 episode of "Meet the Press":
... We will have subpoena power, and that’s why the Republicans are so afraid ... investigation does not equate to impeachment. Investigation is the requirement of Congress...
And, Nancy Pelosi does not speak for every member of Congress. For example, look at Senator Rockefeller's November 15, 2006 statement:
... We must insist on full access to the NSA warrantless surveillance program and the CIA detention and interrogation program. Only then, can we conduct thorough oversight of these programs and determine whether they are legal, appropriate, and effective ...
... Finally, as part of our core oversight responsibilities, the committee must complete its long-overdue, unfinished business, related to the use and misuse of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. We have already put out three reports related to pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, and we will complete the three remaining sections of Phase II. No decisions have been made about the timing and process going forward, but our goal has always been to tell the full story about the role of intelligence and the mistakes that were made in the lead up to the war.
Patrick Leahy, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has said that he will subpoena the "detainee treatment memorandum" that the Justice Department has failed to produce. Senator Leahy was quoted as saying:
... "I want to find out what is in the...memo ... I intend to continue to try to get it. I would hope we could get these without a subpoena ... It is legitimately within our oversight ... If we don't get these things which are legitimately within our oversight, I'll ask the committee to give me the power to subpoena them." ...
Today, the Associated Press is reporting that "Katrina fraud likely to balloon past $1B." The article says:
...Federal investigators have already determined the Bush administration squandered $1 billion on fraudulent disaster aid to individuals after the 2005 storm. Now they are shifting their attention to the multimillion dollar contracts to politically connected firms that critics have long said are a prime area for abuse.
In January, investigators will release the first of several audits examining more than $12 billion in Katrina contracts. The charges range from political favoritism to limited opportunities for small and minority-owned firms, which initially got only 1.5 percent of the total work...
...Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner is reviewing whether some small and local businesses were unfairly shut out in favor of winners such as joint venture PRI-DJI. DJI stands for Del-Jen Inc., a subsidiary of Fluor, which has donated more than $930,000 to mostly Republican candidates since 2000...
I don't think this will escape the notice of Congressman Henry Waxman, the incoming Chair of the House Committee for Government Reform. From the Minority Office of the Committee website:
... Congress has a responsibility under the Constitution to conduct oversight of the executive branch. The Committee on Government Reform has the specific responsibility to oversee whether laws and programs are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress and whether they should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated; the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of laws and programs; and the organization and operation of federal agencies and entities having responsibilities for the administration and execution of laws and programs. As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee also may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter...
Today's WaPo is reporting:
... When the Democrats take control of the House next month, the new majority staff directors of the major committees will range from grizzled Capitol Hill veterans to relatively fresh-faced newcomers. All anticipate that their committees will mount aggressive oversight of the Bush administration ...
By all accounts, there is going to be "aggressive oversight of the Bush administration." Serious oversight will almost certainly uncover evidence of criminal activity and lead to legal problems for them. And, once we start turning over rocks, there is no telling what kind of slime will ooze to the surface.