He’s Impeachable, You Know (Congress can impeach Attorney General)

New York Times (Slimes) ^ | May 3, 2007 | Frank Bowman

[jiggyboy]

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).

*snip*

A cabinet officer, like a judge or a president, may be impeached only for commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But as the Nixon and Clinton impeachment debates reminded us, that constitutional phrase embraces not only indictable crimes but “conduct ... grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government.”

*snip*

An attorney general called before Congress to discuss the workings of the Justice Department can claim the protection of “executive privilege” and, if challenged, can defend the (doubtful) legitimacy of such a claim in the courts. But having elected to testify, he has no right to lie, either by affirmatively misrepresenting facts or by falsely claiming not to remember events.

*snip*

The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases and, when called to account, send an attorney general of the United States to Capitol Hill to commit amnesia on its behalf.

[jiggyboy]

This NYT article from 2005 outlines their rationale for impeaching the Attorney General of the United States. Undoubtedly it was the megaphone for hounding AG Alberto Gonzales out of office, a true abuse of the press and the legal system.

Let's see how loudly the NYT and their acolytes scream in the next few days about how impractical, constitutionally "extreme", time-consuming, and partisan an effort it would be to consider Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's threat of impeachment (Holder? Obama? both? more?) in the unfolding "Fast and Furious" scandal.

[WOBBLY BOB]

how many dead bodies did Watergate result in?

[puppypusher]

Sounds like a lot of talk and very little action.Action is something very rarely seen among Republican politicians.Their usually afraid of their own shadows.

[detective]

Holder is responsible for murder of a federal agent, suborning perjury of federal officials, committing perjury, refusing to comply with numerous subpoenas, money laundering and allowing drug gangs to operate freely in the U.S. The members of Congress have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. They have a duty and an obligation to impeach and prosecute Holder, Napolitano, Obama and all other administration officials responsible for these acts.

It's as simple as that.

[Snickering Hound]

Right.

[Elle Bee]

I agree ... impeachment is a lot to expect from the crowd that rubber stamped Obama's dreadful supreme court justices

.

[Chuckster]

[Red_Devil 232]

I don’t think it is a fact that the US Ag can claim “executive privilege”. Am I right or wrong? I thought “executive privilege” was limited to the White House and the President’s staff.

[jiggyboy]

I don’t have any insight into who or when, here’s wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

[2harddrive]

RE: Eric Holder: When in doubt, IMPEACH him OUT!

I believe that Barak Obama is NOT subect to impeachment, however, any more than you or I are, since he was never the legal President in the first place.

[TigersEye]

bttt

[pushforbush]

This is timely. Eric Holder you are next!!!

[TigersEye]

Good find! I certainly didn’t remember this article.