The House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday to address the impeachment or censure of Gov. Mark Sanford was classic House. There were impassioned speeches, some ill-chosen remarks and after all that noise, little actually was accomplished.
It started out with debate over the impeachment resolution, which was passed unfavorably out of subcommittee last week. It didn’t go so well in full committee, falling to an 18-6 vote. Reps. Greg Delleney, Keith Kelly, Vida Miller, Todd Rutherford, Bakari Sellers and Seth Whipper went for it. Rutherford got rather animated in his evaluation of the subcommittee’s work, saying at one point, “We really are the idiots people make us out to be.” He also chimed in with, “We care more about striped bass than we do about this.” Some of his comments rankled Rep. Jim Harrison, who asked, and received, an apology.
The committee moved on to the censure resolution, which passed unanimously. Censure comes down in the gray middle between a genuine punishment and having to have something on the books that shows members of the General Assembly do not approve of what Sanford has been up to. Rep. James Smith said in an AP story, “A vote for censure is not an endorsement for the governor’s conduct. It’s quite the contrary.”
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, reflecting on the censure bill moving to the full House, said in a statement, “The Committee’s ruling to honor the recommendation from the subcommittee was the right decision. Our state’s Constitution sets a very high standard for removal from office. While this process revealed the Governor’s actions to be irresponsible, misguided and hypocritical, the evidence available did not reach the Constitutional level to remove the Governor from office.
“The censure resolution — a legislative decree condemning the Governor’s actions — will now move to the House floor. I expect the full House to quickly address this censure and move on to more pressing issues facing our state.
“While the Governor’s irresponsible actions did not meet the Constitutional definition for removal, they clearly warrant an official censure by the House of Representatives. In fact, the embarrassment and continued distraction caused by these actions should have warranted the Governor’s resignation from office — an action that I and an overwhelming majority of lawmakers urged the Governor to take in the best interest of our state months ago.”
Sanford isn’t totally off the hook. His suspected ethics violations are still subject to investigation and sanctions from the State Ethics Commission. However, getting a few fines levied on him isn’t likely to provide too much pain to the Governor, who has already seen his biggest punishment — the death of his political career — happen months ago.
Maybe it’s the mind’s inevitable draw to the salacious, from the sybarites to the Ned Flanders clones. But the ad-hoc House impeachment panel is going down Lovers’ Lane. It threw out 28 charges suggested by the State Ethics Commission, but on Monday began nailing additional charges to what will be considered for impeachment. And it goes back to that illicit nookie in Buenos Aires.
State Rep. Greg Delleney this morning said Gov. Mark Sanford arranged a 2008 economic development trip to Argentina so Sanford could meet with his mistress.
“It’s obvious that this was a personal trip and state business was just thrown in as a cover,” said Delleney, R-Chester, a member of the House subcommittee considering an impeachment resolution against Sanford.
Well, obviously. But, making that one flight — and frankly, unprovable allegations that Sanford took the trip just to get laid by a woman not his wife — is probably going to kill the impeachment effort. Committee chairman Jim Harrison and Rep. Walt McLeod tended to agree with Delleney, but our political bookie still says the odds are that neither men will vote to recommend impeachment to the full House Judiciary Committee.
But, sex will dominate the headlines and the thinking. Screwing around on your wife doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even if the guy is seen as even more of a creep. A few grand on the state dime, which was refunded? The charges look worse, but this looks essentially like the impeachment process against former President Bill Clinton.
House Republicans had been pissed off for years because they kept getting owned by Clinton (after he passed the learning curve in ’93-’94). Faced with the fact that he lied about getting a hummer and diddling an intern with a cigar, he was suddenly up for trial on “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was a revenge play, pure and simple. Plus, it gave U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham the stage to become a national political figure.
And what happened was a total political fuck-up on the part of the House GOP. It got truly absurd when the House went through two Speakers in a week because Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston resigned because, horror of horrors, they cheated on their wives. The end? The impeachment battle was good for Clinton, good for Democrats in general but horrible for former Vice President Al Gore. The only people who got taken to task were congressional Republicans and Gore.
This is a big deal, as far as political intelligence. People have a low tolerance for constitution-based revenge when there are so many other pressing concerns. If the House panel does recommend impeaching Sanford, the chamber better move damn fast, or there will be fallout. The longer it seems like it, Sanford just looks like a very bad governor. Unfortunately, that’s not impeachable, either.
We consider ourselves quite disciplined in that we have avoided reading the editorials in The Post & Courier for the two years since we moved back to South Carolina. The lead editorials in the P&C have, shall we say, a reputation. For instance, when you’re reading one, you may feel the intense need to slap your forehead and exclaim, “Fuck! Did they actually collaborate on and approve this hot mess?!”
Exhibit One is the Dec. 5 edition. The paper that has all but put on knee pads for Gov. Mark Sanford, again led with not addressing Sanford, but attacking members of the ad-hoc House impeachment committee. And maybe it’s our blue-collar Birmingham roots, but the following passage was a tad upsetting.
The committee realized that and dropped 28 of the charges, many of them relating to improper campaign reimbursements and his penchant for flying business class.
That was stupid from the start. It makes sense for state employees to travel on the cheap, but do we want our governor — the chief representative of South Carolina — preparing to meet with company executives while sitting next to the moron in sweats listening to Nickelback on his iPod?
Do we really want to be the state that flies coach?
Yes, yes, goddamn a million times yes. We don’t want our tax dollars going to make sure a douchebag we didn’t vote for gets the “good” food and extra leg room. If he wants it, that perma-tanned freakshow can pay for the upgrade himself. But ultimately, the braintrust at the P&C just wants the dogs called off their boy. Well, sorry, guys. We’ve had to put up with this clown for two terms, and he’s been past due for a paddling.
Thursday, the ad-hoc impeachment committee went over the allegations provided by the State Ethics Commission. There was a lot of back-and-forth between the legislators and Gov. Mark Sanford‘s high-priced attorneys. Then it came. The big move. The committee dismissed 28 of the charges.
Yep, there were 37 counts of wrong-doing, and now only nine survive.
But the House impeachment panel took just 31 minutes Thursday to decide 28 of those charges did not meet the “serious” crimes or misconduct standard the state Constitution requires for impeachment.
The committee said Tuesday it likely would ignore half of nine other ethics charges relating to Sanford’s use of state-owned aircraft for personal or political travel.
Lawmakers still could impeach Sanford for serious misconduct because he left the state without informing other officials where he was and misled his staff.
Sanford also still faces the possibility of up to $74,000 in fines from those 37 charges when an S.C. State Ethics Commission panel debates his case in January.
Really, this is simply more good news for Democrats. The longer the GOP is saddled with dealing with the Sanford mess, the worse for the party.
Hey, kids! Did you remember that Dec. 1 was another one of those prefiling days for the House? Well, it can be excused if you forgot, considering the thrilling back-and-forth between Gov. Mark Sanford‘s high-priced attorneys and the ad-hoc House impeachment committee that morning. Actually, speaking of impeachment….
Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the committee, filed a resolution taking the lesser path, censuring the man with a love of Latin women with a penchant for Austrian economic theory. Like the impeachment resolution submitted by Rep. Greg Delleney, it uses some military terminology.
H. 4219: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CENSURE MARK C. SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR DERELICTION IN HIS DUTIES OF OFFICE AS GOVERNOR AND FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS BROUGHT DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO ITS CITIZENS.
On another note, the annual tax-free holiday on firearms in South Carolina brings a lot of yuks from the peanut gallery, and for good reason. A gun is not a necessity. Food is a necessity — how about eliminating sales tax on groceries, permanently? Eh, no, it’s important to make sure that sportsmen and those of other ideas (home security, building a militia in Oconee County) can buy a weapon of several hundred dollars and not pay sales tax. Really — if you have the cash to spring for a gun, you can chip in a few more bucks on sales tax without having to wait for a special time after Thanksgiving. However, Reps. Mike Pitts and Brian White want to make sure you can still get that tax-free gun.
H. 4220: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REENACT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT” EXEMPTING FIREARMS SOLD ON THE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING OF EVERY YEAR.
A lot of states and municipalities have laws against scalping. As in, it’s illegal to buy a ticket to an event — usually sports or a concert — and resell it. Some have relaxed that to say you can sell your ticket, but it has to be at face value. And if you’ve walked around Williams-Brice Stadium on game day, you know that nobody is enforcing scalping laws. Rep. Bakari Sellers is attempting to throw out the law altogether.
H. 4223: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY REPEALING SECTIONS 16-17-710 AND 39-5-36 BOTH RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AND PRICE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESALE OF TICKETS TO EVENTS.
Finally, a bill that is likely to go nowhere. Sure, there are tons of bills that get referred to committee every year and never see the light of day, but if you have legislation that’s likely to play well among the base of the minority party (in this case, Democrats), forget about it. Rep. John King is putting in a hate crimes bill. South Carolina is a national leader in hate crimes, according to a recent study (what a surprise), but considering the conservative opinion is that every crime is a hate crime, this bill is DOA.
H. 4224: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 18 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 SO AS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER WITH THE INTENT TO ASSAULT, INTIMIDATE, OR THREATEN A PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, RELIGION, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Sometimes, journalists have to write bullshit process stories when they already know the outcome. We’d be surprised if Associated Press writer Jim Davenport didn’t break out in a massive yawn while penning, “AG not close to decision on SC gov ethics case.” The collective reaction, no doubt, is, “No shit.”
Right now, Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster has to give his little tap dance about how he’s seriously considering the State Ethics Commission findings of 37 violations to determine whether there is a criminal case against Gov. Mark Sanford. Henry Mac has to look deliberative, contemplative — dare we say, competent. But if you don’t think gubernatorial politics is already wrapped around this issue, you haven’t been paying attention.
This song-and-dance will go on for a little while, then McMaster will say that he can’t give an opinion as to civil matters or the machinations in the House, but that there aren’t any violations of criminal law. Done. It doesn’t help his campaign any to launch a criminal prosecution of the Governor. That’s the mindset that will be driving the decision. A lot of law is about interpretation, and Sanford will be ruled to be in the clear, naturally.
There have been plenty of mentions during the impeachment process of Gov. Mark Sanford about an impeachment in 1877. The year struck us as meaningful, since it was when the old guard of South Carolina retook the government from the Federal occupying forces and the “Radical Republicans.” Former Confederate Gen. Wade Hampton III was inaugurated as governor, and a push began to throw out everyone elected or appointed during Reconstruction.
One of those under the gun was S.C. Supreme Court Asst. Justice Jonathan Jasper Wright. He was originally from Pennsylvania, and arrived in the Palmetto State after the Civil War to set up schools for freed slaves. After a brief return to Pennsylvania, he came back and became one of the first blacks to be admitted to the South Carolina bar in 1868. That year, he was elected to the Senate, representing Beaufort, and two years later was elected by his fellow legislators to the Supreme Court.
The 1876 gubernatorial race, though, proved to hasten his downfall. The race between Hampton and former Union 2nd Lt. Daniel Chamberlain was beset by voter fraud and violence, much of it perpetrated by a paramilitary organization known as the Red Shirts. These men were former Confederate soldiers who took up arms to reassert the old ways. One of their typical activities was shooting into and disrupting election rallies of the blacks and few moderate whites who were supporting the Republican ticket.
The decision about the winner went to the Court, and Wright and fellow Justice A.J. Willard voted in favor of Hampton. A while after, Wright tried to reverse his opinion, but it was too late. That drew the ire of Democrats who had flooded into office, and rumors ran around town that he was a drunk and susceptible to bribery. The House put together a set of impeachment charges and that spelled the end of Wright’s term on the Court. He knew his days were numbered, so he resigned and went on to private practice until his death in 1885. Wright’s also known for setting up a law department at Claflin University after leaving office.
Today, the ad-hoc House committee on the impeachment of Gov. Mark Sanford had its first meeting to discuss the resolution put forward by Rep. Greg Delleney and set the plan for which the committee will discuss the issue and formulate a report.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell led off the proceedings by saying, “Removal from office is a very serious issue, and it is something that neither the Judiciary Committee nor the House takes lightly. The Committee members will give full consideration to all the facts in this case and will make an informed recommendation that reflects our state’s Constitution.
The amount of information we have to consider in this case is massive. I’m pleased and encouraged by the members’ willingness to conduct their work deliberatively so that we can properly address this issue and move our state forward. When we start the new Legislative session in January, we need to be fully prepared to begin working on the issues South Carolinians care about the most. Putting our citizens back to work needs to be our primary focus.”
From there, the talk was limited to the impeachment resolution, as the members had only just received the 1,000-plus word full report from the State Ethics Commission regarding misuse of state aircraft, improper seating upgrades on commercial aircraft and misuse of campaign funds. Rep. James Smith, in this light, made a motion, which was passed, to open up the SEC allegations to the investigative purview of the committee.
Beyond that, the main bone of contention was the position of Sanford as the commander-in-chief of, according to the S.C. Constitution, the military forces of the state. Delleney’s statement kicked things off, using military-style language.
“The Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety, in order to affect his absence from the state,” he said. “And, that conduct alone constitutes a dereliction of duty. He left his post, he left his state, he left his country without notifying anyone in authority. He was, in effect, AWOL.”
Rep. Walt McLeod, who looks to be against the resolution, said, “It’s a little shrill for a civilian to hear the comments made. As far as I know, I, at this time, nor the Governor, are members of a military organization. And, to speak about dereliction of duty, absent without leave, abandoning one’s post, are terms that are ordinarily reserved for those who are in uniform, and who are not civilian citizens of our state and nation.”
However, Smith, well-known for his service in Afghanistan, backed up the language, remarking that the words used were analogous to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
“The commander-in-chief, I believe, should not be judged at a lesser standard than the soldiers and the airmen with whom he commands,” he said. “And, I think the analogy that was provided by Rep. Delleney is an appropriate one. We’re not trying him according to the UCMJ, this is not a trial. This is an impeachment process pursuant to the Constitution and the standard that we set is going to be an important one.”
Ultimately, nothing was settled on that matter, as of yet. It’s more expected that the committee won’t make a decision on what to do on any number of matters until the end of its meetings. Chairman Jim Harrison laid out a general idea of what is up ahead.
“It is my hope that we can complete our work, for the full Judiciary Committee to take up our report prior to Christmas,” he said. “This would enable full House debate on the issue, if it rises to that level, as soon in the legislative session as possible.”
There are three more meetings in the offing, set for the first week of December, each at 10:30 a.m. in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. They’re slotted for Dec. 1, Dec. 3 and Dec. 7. At the Dec. 3 meeting, the members will consider Sanford’s alleged violations of ethics law as it pertains to his air travel.
Image courtesy of the House Republican Caucus.
It’s Impeachment Meeting Eve. Fired up and ready to go? They’re getting the logistics nailed down, and it’s looking like it’s going to be a crowded affair. Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing the committee, and will be joined by Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
There’s an expected large media contingent coming, so there will be a specific area for credentialed media, and news photographers will be given general free reign as long as they don’t interrupt the proceedings. However, the only video camera in the room will be from ETV, which is good news, since video cameras and their peripherals tend to take up a lot of room.
If you’re interested, it’ll be at 1 p.m. Tuesday in Room 101 of the Blatt Building. It’s advised to show up early — it’ll probably fill up quickly.
Gov. Mark Sanford‘s getting his neck stretched over the tree stump as legislators will be meeting next week in what’s called an ad-hoc committee to consider impeachment. Local Rep. Jim Harrison will be chairing it, according to Rep. Alan Clemmons and the Associated Press.
After a couple months of it looking like impeachment momentum had hit a wall, having this committee meet and discuss removing one of the least effective governors of this state seems to point to the gears spinning again toward removing Sanford. According to the AP, “The meeting is to take up the issue at the heart of an impeachment resolution that four Republicans filed this week. It says Sanford left no one in charge of the state, a dereliction of duty, while he ‘directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials’ about where he was. His staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.”
Per Clemmons, the committee includes Harrison, Reps. Greg Delleney, Walt McLeod, James Smith, David Weeks, Garry Smith and Jenny Horne.
