Legal. Part of the reason I am writing this about impeaching the Attorney General rather than the President or Vice President is that it seems like the legal case against Mr. Gonzales is much more straightforward. I am not suggesting that Mr. Gonzales' perjury, witness tampering, and other possible crimes are the worst things the Administration has done; or even the worst things Mr. Gonzales has done. That suggestion would be laughable. But they seem to me, a humble law student going into his third year, the most clearly illegal actions we've yet found evidence of a member of the Administration committing.

In contrast, Dennis Kucinich's proposal to impeach the Vice President rests on the fact that the Mr. Cheney spread some big lies to get the U.S. into Iraq and that he has threatened Iran with military action. Those were horrible actions, and the lies about Iraq have had devastating consequences. Yet Kucinich's resolution, with the exception of arguing that the threats against Iran violate the UN charter, doesn't link Mr. Cheney's impeachment to clear violations of U.S. law; it just says he violated his oath of office and abused his position. And that may be true; but if you feel like playing devil's advocate for a moment you could easily argue the other way.

As for Mr. Gonzales, 18 USC §1621 reads as follows:

Whoever--
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Based on Mr. Comey's testimony, Mr. Gonzales lied under oath about there being dissatisfaction within the Justice Department regarding the warrantless wiretapping program. Based on Ms. Goodling's testimony, Mr. Gonzales lied under oath about his interaction with her after the U.S. Attorney firing scandal broke. And those are just the most obvious examples. And that's just perjury.

Most people realize instinctively that perjury undermines the very foundation of the American justice system, but it's nice to find quotes from important people saying so. Were I writing this for law school, the important people I'd look for quotes from would be Supreme Court justices. But I'm not writing it for law school, and these quotes are much more amusing; plus I think Republicans in Congress are more likely to listen to the people who said the following:

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) - "Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses which must not be tolerated by anyone in our society." [Washington Post, 2/12/99]

Senator Sam Brownback (R- KS) - "Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state. Perjury goes directly against the truth-finding function of the judicial branch of government." [Congressional Record,
2/12/99]

And is perjury an impeachable offense? Let's ask Trent Lott:

"Lott declined to fully define what constitutes an impeachable crime but said "I think clearly perjury is an impeachable offense ... I think bad conduct is enough for impeachment." [Market News International, 9/29/98]

Political. As Senator Lott's quote reminds us, impeachment isn't just a legal process, it is a political process. So, I would not be writing this if I did not believe the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales made political sense, for a number of reasons.

First, if Mr. Gonzales is impeached and removed from office, it is not something the President can ignore or undo. That shouldn't seem like a big deal but with this president it is. He stubbornly does whatever he wants to, using whatever justification he can think up and whatever procedure makes it possible. I think the fact that after the midterm elections, Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, and the Iraq Study Group report we ended up with this troop surge should be the final nail in the coffin for anyone who thought the President might give a damn what other people say or think or do. If we want him to do something, we have to force him to do it. The President doesn't care if Congress or the nation has no confidence in Mr. Gonzales; he has confidence in Mr. Gonzales. But if the Senate votes to remove Mr. Gonzales from office, the President's confidence in him won't make a bit of difference.

But I don't think an impeachment of Mr. Gonzales would get to a Senate vote; I think he would be forced to resign before then, to avoid putting Republican Senators in too hard a place. Seven Republican Senators have made statements saying that it'd be best if Mr. Gonzales was no longer in office. I'd imagine that number would be forced to increase if there was an investigation and trial regarding Mr. Gonzales' possible impeachable offenses.

Finally, we all know that the impeachment of President Clinton hurt Congressional Republicans reputation with the American public and I want to say a few words on why I don't think impeaching Mr. Gonzales would hurt the perceptions of the Democratic congress. The simple answer is: the investigation into Mr. Gonzales should be about truth and justice.

If the House investigates his possible impeachment and decides he did nothing wrong, I will write an equally long blog entry, writing over and over, like Bart Simpson at the blackboard "Alberto Gonzales did not commit perjury..." But if Mr. Gonzales did break the law, Congress must impeach him. Not because they hate Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush, but because that's what Congress should do when an executive branch member thinks they are above the law.

That's what would distinguish this from the Clinton impeachment: Republicans went after President Clinton gleefully, like a murderer with a chainsaw in a horror movie terrorizing a camp full of co-eds. But during and after Watergate, when the impeachment of President Nixon was very much on the table, the public's approval of Congress actually went up because they were seen as solemnly doing their constitutional duty.

Moral. I made the arguments for why there is a legal basis for impeaching Mr. Gonzales. I made the arguments for why it would be a politically sound idea to do so. Now, I want to make the most important (and hopefully shortest) part of the argument: the moral argument. Simply put, we have to stand up to the corrupt, criminal, and overreaching behavior of the Bush Administration. We the people, and our elected representatives in Congress must say enough is enough, that the Administration is not above the law. And impeachment is the way that the Constitution gives Congress of saying that.

It seems to me that Democrats tend to make a horrible mistake after each example of executive lawbreaking: they assume it was just a bad president who had bad people working for him. So despite Watergate, Reagan is able to get it into his head that he'll be able to get away with Iran-Contra. And despite Watergate and Iran-Contra, President Bush is able to get it into his head that he can get away with all his crap.

The problem isn't just that men with bad motives get into the White House; it's also that Congress and the people have not stood up strongly enough against executive misbehavior. When it is found out we get upset, but then the Administration wraps itself in national security, and the American flag and apple pie and all that is good and decent and we figure there is nothing we can do about it; they are bad, but they'll be gone in a few years anyway.

But then the next time men with bad motives come into the White House, they'll think they get away with breaking the law too. We can keep having these scandals about executive branch misbehavior over and over again, or we can stand up. We can draw the line. We can say enough is enough.

Alberto Gonzales can be remembered too ways: one is as just another corrupt GOP executive branch official who did a lot of bad things and got away with them all. The other is as the straw that broke the camel's back; the man who reminded the American people and their elected representatives in Congress that the executive branch is not above the law, and that when the executive overreaches, we have the power to step in and do something about it, regardless of whether the president has confidence in how they are doing the job.

Please check out: ImpeachGonzales.org;
Common Cause's petition to Impeach Gonzales

And don't forget: The Onion's take on Mr. Gonzales