Impeachment by Frog-Marching Congressional Oversight

[shraby]

An excellent piece on dailykos explaining how congress can take the reins by using the criminal investigation powers it has to find out what the administration is hiding. Well worth the read!!! Here are the first 2 steps. There are 3 steps with the reasoning he used to explain it. Send it to your congresscritters!
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/20378/62042>

It's time for Congress to use its powers in a 3-step plan to get the evidence we need to convince the public and lawmakers that "Impeachment is the right remedy right now."

Step 1: Congress commences a "criminal proceeding" to investigate allegations of criminal obstruction of justice by Bush and his minions.

Congress has clear authority -- supported by Supreme Court decisions and historical legislative precedent -- to use its investigative powers to probe whether the executive branch has committed criminal conduct, such as obstruction of justice. This criminal investigation would be based on the WH pattern to interfere with Congressional subpoena powers by instructing witnesses not to testify or submit documents in regular or non-criminal oversight hearings, whether it be the use of the private email system provided by the GOP, the US Attorney probe, illegal domestic NSA spying, etc. It would also investigate whether Bush was obstructing justice by invoking executive privilege in a manner not authorized by law.

The Supreme Court has recognized that this proceeding does not invade executive or judicial functions, such as criminal trials, because the purpose of this investigation would be to determine if the Executive Branch has obstructed justice, and, if so, whether legislation could remedy or prevent abuse of powers that impede Congressional oversight.

1. Authority for Congressional Investigative Powers

It is pretty well-settled that Congress has implied constitutional powers to investigate the executive branch and exercise compulsory process to enforce these investigative powers. The implied investigative power is a necessary implication or inherent component of the constitutional legislative function to enable Congress to obtain the facts and information it needs in order to perform its legislative duties. Moreover, the investigative power is necessary to prevent "the danger to effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislature's power to probe corruption in the executive branch were unduly hampered."

2. Power to Investigate Potential Crimes or Unlawful Acts

According to the Congressional Oversight Manual (2007) (pdf file), oversight authority of the executive branch includes the right to conduct specialized investigations into "suspected illegal conduct", "alleged abuses of authority" and "unethical conduct" as shown by cases of historical precedent:

Oversight at times occurs through specialized, temporary investigations of a specific event or development. These are often dramatic, high profile endeavors, focusing on scandals, alleged abuses of authority, suspected illegal conduct, or other unethical behavior. The stakes are high, possibly even leading to the end of individual careers of high ranking executive officials. Indeed, congressional investigations can induce resignations, firings, and impeachment proceedings and question major policy actions of the executive, as with these notable occasions: the Senate Watergate Committee investigation into the Nixon Administration in the early 1970s; the Church and Pike select committees’ inquiries in the mid-1970s into intelligence agency abuses; the 1981 select committee inquiry into the ABSCAM scandal; the 1987 Iran-contra investigation during the Reagan Administration; the multiple investigations of scandals and alleged misconduct during the Clinton Administration; and the Hurricane Katrina probe in 2005 during the Bush
Administration.
The Supreme Court has affirmed Congressional power to investigate possible criminal or unlawful conduct of executive branch officials. In McGrain v. Daugherty (1927), the Senate investigated misfeasance and nonfeasance in the AG's office in order to determine effective legislative measures that "might be taken to remedy or eliminate the evil." The concerns about misconduct were brought to the attention of the Senate by individual Senators. The Senate authorized a select committee of 5 Senators to investigate the facts and circumstances, including whether the AG had failed to properly arrest and prosecute violators of federal statutes.

When Congress uses its investigative powers to probe potential criminal conduct by executive branch officials, the process may qualify as a "criminal proceeding," but it does not constitute a trial that would be beyond Congressional jurisdiction. Congress would issue subpoenas to compel uncooperative witnesses to testify and produce documents. This testimony may reveal crimes or wrongdoings by the executive branch officials. And, if witnesses do not cooperate, then Congress may use contempt powers to arrest the person and bring the person before the bar to hold a "mini-trial" on contempt and send the guilty to jail. On these facts, McGrain v. Daugherty rejected argument that the proceeding constituted a trial beyond Congressional purview. All of this may be accomplished without the need for any enforcement assistance by the executive branch. After the congressional Sergeant-At-Arms arrested Rove, for example, Rove could file a writ of habeas corpus (ironic, yes) to object, but the Supreme Court precedent supports this process and these powers as necessary for Congress to perform its constitutional duties.

<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/9/20378/62042>