A Dangerous Rush to Impeach John Koskinen

First, the House must prove that the IRS commissioner acted in deliberate bad faith.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The power of impeachment is a responsibility entrusted to the House of Representatives by the Constitution and to the House Judiciary Committee by our peers. I take this charge very seriously—and, for the most part, so do my colleagues in the majority.

I have served on the House Judiciary Committee long enough now to see impeachment done right and to see impeachment done wrong. I have participated in six of the 19 impeachments approved by the House since its inception. I voted in favor of five of them. In the early 1970s I helped to draft articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. I joined with 20 Democrats and six Republicans to send three of those articles to the House floor.

But I have never seen anything quite like the obsession of a few House members determined to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen—without much evidence to back their claims, without an independent investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, and without even basic due process for the accused.

To be successful, the impeachment process must transcend party lines. Part of this is by design. Article I of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict on each article of impeachment—a threshold that has always required some degree of consensus.

Consensus matters in the House as well. We have built decades of precedent around the notion of formal, rigorous due process in impeachment proceedings. According to House rules, impeachment does not begin until the House approves a resolution that authorizes the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether impeachment is warranted.

The Judiciary Committee must carefully and independently review the evidence—even if it has already been analyzed by our colleagues on other committees. And we can only address allegations that are supported by the record and proven, not inferred.

Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) summarized the importance of this practice in 2010, when the committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment unanimously recommended four articles of impeachment against a federal judge. Mr. Goodlatte said: “This recommendation was the culmination of an exhaustive investigation by the task force, which included reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and federal scholars.”

This process is hard work. It takes time. But it is designed to separate truly substantive charges from merely expedient ones. And when the House Judiciary Committee follows its own precedent, we generally arrive at the right conclusion. In almost every modern case, a bipartisan consensus on impeachment in the House leads to a swift and successful impeachment in the Senate.

In the past few days, the actions of a small group of conservative House members threaten to break from this precedent and to lead us down a dangerous path. Earlier this year, they delivered an ultimatum to Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.): Hold impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, or face a vote on this matter on the House floor. Speaker Ryan and Chairman Goodlatte opted for the hearings.

In May and June, the Committee held Parts I and II of a hearing to “Examine the Allegations of Misconduct against Commissioner John Koskinen.” As the carefully worded title would suggest, these were not formal impeachment hearings.

Last week this group struck again and attempted to force a vote on impeachment on the House floor. In the 11th hour, when it appeared they would fall short of the necessary votes, they withdrew the measure—and a third hearing was held Wednesday. This hearing was titled “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III.” Despite the name change, this hearing also was not an actual impeachment hearing. It was one more exploratory hearing in the series, with none of the hallmarks of real impeachment.

On the merits, Mr. Koskinen’s critics have simply failed to make their case. They have been unable to produce evidence that the commissioner acted in bad faith at any point in his tenure. The Senate Finance Committee, the Justice Department and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration have all concluded that there is “no evidence” of intentional misconduct of any kind.

But even if there were some evidence of Mr. Koskinen’s wrongdoing, the push to impeach him without due process in the House Judiciary Committee is dangerously misguided. Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

In this case, Mr. Koskinen has actually been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform—interviews that we are told were key in forming the charges against him.

If the commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward: The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness toward the accused.

Forcing a vote on impeachment in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of Commissioner Koskinen. Even if his critics succeed in the House, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter. So for all their efforts they will have profited nothing. And in the process they will have turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III” before the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you, Commissioner Koskinen, for joining us today on short notice, under these unusual circumstances.

Last week, a handful of my colleagues attempted to force a vote on your impeachment. When it appeared that they would fall short of the necessary votes, that effort was abandoned—and this hearing was scheduled instead.

I hope that my colleagues now see what I see when I look back at the history of impeachment in the House of Representatives: No matter how we feel about a particular official, no matter what we think about his or her agency, successful impeachments are bipartisan efforts—and partisan attacks cloaked in the impeachment process are doomed from the start.

Mr. Chairman, the effort to impeach Commissioner Koskinen is destined to fail both on the merits and as a matter of process. And if they somehow force this measure to the floor again, I fear it will set a terrible precedent.

On the merits, the Commissioner’s critics simply have not proved their case.  In fact, every other investigation to have examined these facts has refuted the charges against Commissioner Koskinen.

The Senate Finance Committee, in a report that serves as the only bipartisan account of the matter, found no evidence that the Commissioner had intent to mislead Congress at any time.

The Department of Justice “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives,” and “no evidence that any official . . . attempted to obstruct justice.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found no evidence to show “that IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress.” 

Despite these findings, some Members continue to insist that the Commissioner “ordered 24,000 emails erased before Congress could review them.”  Citing “zero evidence” to back the claim, independent fact checkers rate this statement as categorically false. There is simply no evidence that the Commissioner has acted with intentional bad faith in his leadership of the Internal Revenue Service.

           

But even if there were some evidence of wrongdoing, the push to impeach the Commissioner on the House floor without even basic due process in the Committee is wildly misguided.

According to Parliamentarians of the House past and present, the impeachment process does not begin until the House actually votes to authorize this Committee to investigate the charges.

In other words: this is not an impeachment hearing.  Merely including the word “impeachment” in the title doesn’t do the job. At an actual impeachment hearing, the Commissioner would be represented by counsel.  He would have the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence presented against him. 

In this case, by contrast, the Commissioner has been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee—even though we are told that those transcripts were key in forming the charges against him.  Many members of this Committee are in the same position, I might add.

I am not alone in being skeptical of short process, or in noting the importance of a full and independent investigation by this Committee.

In 2006, Mr. Sensenbrenner argued: “only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether articles of impeachment might be warranted.”

In 2010, Mr. Chairman, you expressed confidence in our Impeachment Task Force because it had conducted “an exhaustive investigation.”

That investigation included, in your words: “reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and scholars.”

           

All of that process is missing here.  Yes, we have it within our power to skip these steps—but what kind of precedent does that set?

Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

If the Commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward:

The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness towards the accused.

Forcing a vote in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of the Commissioner.  Even if his critics succeed here, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter.

                                                                                                                                             

And in the process, I fear, we will have stripped our responsibilities of their weight and dignity, and turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

I cannot accept that.  None of us should.  Commissioner Koskinen, thank you again for your willingness to be here today.  Stick to the law and the facts and you’ll be fine.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Impeachment Articles Referred on John Koskinen, Part III” before the Committee on the Judiciary

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And thank you, Commissioner Koskinen, for joining us today on short notice, under these unusual circumstances.

Last week, a handful of my colleagues attempted to force a vote on your impeachment. When it appeared that they would fall short of the necessary votes, that effort was abandoned—and this hearing was scheduled instead.

I hope that my colleagues now see what I see when I look back at the history of impeachment in the House of Representatives: No matter how we feel about a particular official, no matter what we think about his or her agency, successful impeachments are bipartisan efforts—and partisan attacks cloaked in the impeachment process are doomed from the start.

Mr. Chairman, the effort to impeach Commissioner Koskinen is destined to fail both on the merits and as a matter of process. And if they somehow force this measure to the floor again, I fear it will set a terrible precedent.

On the merits, the Commissioner’s critics simply have not proved their case.  In fact, every other investigation to have examined these facts has refuted the charges against Commissioner Koskinen.

The Senate Finance Committee, in a report that serves as the only bipartisan account of the matter, found no evidence that the Commissioner had intent to mislead Congress at any time.

The Department of Justice “found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives,” and “no evidence that any official . . . attempted to obstruct justice.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found no evidence to show “that IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress.” 

Despite these findings, some Members continue to insist that the Commissioner “ordered 24,000 emails erased before Congress could review them.”  Citing “zero evidence” to back the claim, independent fact checkers rate this statement as categorically false. There is simply no evidence that the Commissioner has acted with intentional bad faith in his leadership of the Internal Revenue Service.

           

But even if there were some evidence of wrongdoing, the push to impeach the Commissioner on the House floor without even basic due process in the Committee is wildly misguided.

According to Parliamentarians of the House past and present, the impeachment process does not begin until the House actually votes to authorize this Committee to investigate the charges.

In other words: this is not an impeachment hearing.  Merely including the word “impeachment” in the title doesn’t do the job. At an actual impeachment hearing, the Commissioner would be represented by counsel.  He would have the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence presented against him. 

In this case, by contrast, the Commissioner has been denied access to the transcripts of interviews conducted by the House Oversight Committee—even though we are told that those transcripts were key in forming the charges against him.  Many members of this Committee are in the same position, I might add.

I am not alone in being skeptical of short process, or in noting the importance of a full and independent investigation by this Committee.

In 2006, Mr. Sensenbrenner argued: “only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether articles of impeachment might be warranted.”

In 2010, Mr. Chairman, you expressed confidence in our Impeachment Task Force because it had conducted “an exhaustive investigation.”

That investigation included, in your words: “reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered in previous investigations, conducting numerous interviews and depositions with firsthand witnesses, and conducting hearings to take the testimony of firsthand witnesses and scholars.”

           

All of that process is missing here.  Yes, we have it within our power to skip these steps—but what kind of precedent does that set?

Never, in the history of this body, have we impeached a government official without first proving he has acted in deliberate bad faith.

Never, in modern practice, have we declined to provide the accused with the most basic due process: the right to counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence against him.

If the Commissioner’s critics have their way, I fear we will have a new rule going forward:

The House may impeach any government official, for any reason, without supplying evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, without an independent investigation, and without regard to basic fairness towards the accused.

Forcing a vote in this manner will certainly not result in the removal of the Commissioner.  Even if his critics succeed here, Senators of both parties have already stated their intent to bury the matter.

                                                                                                                                             

And in the process, I fear, we will have stripped our responsibilities of their weight and dignity, and turned impeachment from a constitutional check of last resort into a tool of political convenience.

I cannot accept that.  None of us should.  Commissioner Koskinen, thank you again for your willingness to be here today.  Stick to the law and the facts and you’ll be fine.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

GOP Attacks On IRS Commissioner Are Not Impeachment Proceedings

Fact Sheet

GOP ATTACKS ON IRS COMMISSIONER ARE NOT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

Impeachment Hearings Entail an Independent Investigation and Due Process for the Accused

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Under the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee investigation.  This committee may, after investigation, recommend the dismissal of charges or it may recommend impeachment.”  The effort to impeach Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen contains none of the hallmarks of actual impeachment hearings—which would entail an independent investigation and due process for the accused.

The Impeachment Process:

·         In the modern era, the impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives only after the House has voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether charges are warranted. 

·         This rule holds even when the underlying charges have been under investigation by other authorities and other congressional committees for years. For example, in the 93rd Congress, the House adopted H. Res. 803, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether to impeach President Nixon; in the 105th Congress, H. Res. 581 authorized and directed the Committee to inquire into the impeachment of President Clinton; and in the 110th Congress, H. Res. 1448 directed the Committee to inquire whether to impeach Judge Porteous.

o   The sole exception for a successful impeachment occurred in the 99th Congress—when the judge under investigation was already in jail by the time he was convicted by the U.S. Senate.

·         In all modern cases, the Committee has conducted an independent, formal investigation into the charges underlying a resolution of impeachment—again, even when other authorities and other congressional committees have already investigated the underlying issue.  

·         Chairman Bob Goodlatte summarized the importance of this practice in 2010, when the Committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment unanimously recommended four articles of impeachment against Judge G. Thomas Porteous.  Goodlatte said, “This recommendation was the culmination of an exhaustive investigation by the task force, which included reviewing the records of past proceedings, rooting out new evidence that was never considered.

Fact Sheet: Impeachment Hearings Entail an Independent Investigation and Due Process for the Accused IRS Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on “Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Part I”

In the history of the Republic, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach a federal official only 19 times. I served on this Committee to consider six of those 19 resolutions.  I voted in favor of five of them.  And I helped to draft articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon—and joined with 20 Democrats and six Republicans—to send three of those articles to the House floor. The lessons I draw from these experiences are hard earned.

To begin with, the power of impeachment is a solemn responsibility—entrusted to the House of Representatives by the Constitution, and to this Committee by our peers.  The formal impeachment process is not to be joined lightly.  We do not rush into impeachment for short term political gain.

Second, before we can approve any resolution of impeachment, it is our responsibility to prove the underlying allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the House authorizes us to do so, we must carefully and independently review the evidence—even if it has already been analyzed by our colleagues on other committees.  And we can only address allegations that are actually supported by the record.  We cannot infer wrongdoing from the facts.  We have to prove it.

Finally, a successful impeachment process must transcend party lines. The Framers knew this.  Article I of the Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict on each article of impeachment.

The public knows this too.  When this Committee comes together and decides unanimously to remove a federal officer, our constituents know that we take the job seriously. 

When a vote for impeachment is divided on party lines—as it was on one occasion in my service to this Committee—we undermine our credibility and make it all but impossible to secure conviction in the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today because a small group of members wants us to take up H. Res. 494, a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. This resolution fails by every measure.  It arises from the worst partisan instincts.  It is not based in the facts.  And it has virtually no chance of success in the Senate.

Commissioner Koskinen is a good and decent civil servant.  He took office months after the so-called “targeting scandal” had concluded.  He then undertook a massive effort to respond to each of the investigations into the matter.

We are here today to consider the allegation that the Commissioner deliberately misled Congress as part of those efforts. The claim is not that we disagree with his decisions, or that we question the speed and completeness with which his agency provided answers—but that he knowingly and intentionally supplied us with false information.

Mr. Chairman, the record simply does not support this charge.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration investigated these allegations.  He concluded: “No evidence was uncovered that any IRS employees had been directed to destroy or hide information from Congress, the DOJ, or the Inspector General.”

In addition, career investigators at the Department of Justice also looked into these claims. They also found “no evidence that any official involved in the handling of the tax-exempt applications or IRS leadership attempted to obstruct justice.” It is no wonder, then, that we have read reports of Speaker Ryan doing his best to make certain this measure never reaches the floor of the House—as Speaker Boehner did before him. It is also not a surprise that many in the Republican conference have been critical of the strong-arm tactics that forced this hearing.

Representative Boustany, Chairman for the Subcommittee on Tax Policy, has argued that this hearing is a waste of time and potentially damaging to our priorities.  He told reporters last week: “If we do this, it’s going to further delay the investigation.  I think it’s time to move on.” Senator Orrin Hatch, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has said that there is simply no interest in impeachment in the Senate—where a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction. When asked about Commissioner Koskinen, Senator Hatch said: “We have a very different experience with him.  We can have our disagreements with him, but that doesn’t mean that there’s an impeachable offense.”  He added: “[F]or the most part, he’s been very cooperative with us.”

To summarize, Mr. Chairman: the proposed articles of impeachment have been debunked by independent investigators.  The resolution faces stiff, bipartisan opposition in the House, and even worse odds in the Senate. There are precious few working days left in this Congress, Mr. Chairman.  I am disappointed that we plan to spend, not just today, but an additional day in June discussing these unsubstantiated claims.

If at all possible, Mr. Chairman, please consider returning that second day to the substantive work of this Committee.  In any event, I urge you to lead us past this distraction quickly, and back to work of some actual benefit to the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.    

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©