Motions to quash subpoenas, witnesses utilizing the Fifth Amendment protections against self incrimination, a lack of standards for impeachment, and accusations that the committee's lawyer cannot practice law in the state are starting to make the inquiry look like a partisan witch hunt.
In addition, attorneys complain that the impeachment inquiry will hinder their clients' rights in a federal corruption probe, which is impacting many of the same issues and many of the same people.
Governor Rowland is under scrutiny for accepting gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, politically appointed employees and a state contractor and later lying about it. Rowland is also subject of a federal investigation.
According to the Associated Press, Hugh Keefe, a defense lawyer who represents Rowland's former co-chief of staff asserts that the "legislative inquiry was premature and ill-advised" because the U.S. attorney's office is conducting an exhaustive and thorough investigation.
State Representative Michael Lawlor, a Democrat, said "people must realize that the impeachment process is political, not legal:"
"This is not jury duty. This is not a trial," said Lawlor, who has been challenged by Rowland's lawyers for being outspoken about the process and his opinions. "We're a team of prosecutors deciding whether to bring a case to the grand jury, and that would be the House."
The fact that this is a political process is made clear by the fight over what standard should be used for impeachment. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, there is no standard for impeachment in the Connecticut Constitution.
According to the Stamford Advocate, the lawyer for the committee investigating Rowland said that dishonesty and ethical misconduct can form the basis for impeachment. Rowland's lawyer argued that impeachment should be reserved for the most serious offenses.
The Committee's lawyer disagrees that the standard should be serious criminal misconduct or "similarly grave wrongdoing:"
"Impeachment focuses not on the nature of the wrongful act itself, but on the effects that the wrongful act has on the public office or on the public trust," Reich said. "If the act is serious enough to be abusive of a public office, or to violate the public trust, it is impeachable."
Rowland's lawyer stressed that every impeachment of a governor in the United States during the 20th century was preceded by a criminal indictment. Not one, he said, was impeached solely on charges of dishonesty or ethical lapses.
Despite the legal arguments Representative John Wayne Fox, a Democrat and a co-chairman of the committee, suggested that a standard need not be spelled out:
"The standard of impeachment is whether or not the majority of these 10 people come to a conclusion that a recommendation ought to be made to the Senate that certain articles of impeachment ought to be adopted and that the Senate ought to decide whether the governor ought to be removed," Fox said.
Rowland now attacks the lack of defined standards, inquiry's broad focus and its projected $1 million cost:
"You can't just do an investigation and then sometime later figure out what the standards are," Rowland said. "It's never worked that way in most other cases. It's like driving down the highway and telling you to drive to Danbury and when you get there we'll tell you what the speed limit was."Like most Connecticut residents I wish that Rowland would resign and save us the trouble of this impeachment inquiry. I have posted previously that Rowland wont quit.
Nevertheless, Rowland does have a point. It is unfair to conduct an investigation, subpoena thousand of documents, determine what you can prove and then decide what the standard will be. For anyone to defend themselves the standard must be known in advance. The Committee's failure to adopt a standard creates the impression it is on a witch hunt.
In addition, it appears that at least one member of the committee investigating Rowland has prejudged the matter. Representative Lawlor publicly criticized Rowland associates who asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to subpoenas from the impeachment panel:
"Lawlor should hang his head in shame," said Hugh Keefe, the prominent New Haven lawyer who represents Peter Ellef, Rowland's former co-chief of staff and central figure in both a federal criminal investigation and the Rowland impeachment inquiry. "He was a practicing lawyer. He should know better than to say that assertion of one's Constitutional rights constitutes `stonewalling.'"Unfortunately, Representative Lawlor's behavior reflects badly on the Committee.[. . .]
Lawlor was quoted by The Associated Press this week as saying that the impeachment committee "could make a decision based on what is already in the public record, but it would be better to have more."
Lawlor also was quoted as saying that the decision this week by Rowland's ex-driver and former State Homeland Security Director Vincent DeRosa to plead the Fifth Amendment was a bad reflection on Rowland. Lawlor responded to Thursday's criticism by repeating the same quotes.
"In my mind, it does" reflect badly on Rowland, Lawlor said. "Of course, it does."
Comments