Justice Stalks MemberNovember 27th, 2007

(Hartford, November 26, 2007) Congressman John B. Larson, Connecticut Democrat,¬†was today presented with a set of pointed questions challenging his stated position on the impeachment of the President of the United States. Larson has told local impeachment advocates that the Congress has more important things to do and that it’s too late to hold the executive branch accountable.

The questions, twelve in all, originated with a group calling itself “Greater Hartford Impeach.” In a document signed on-line by 27 additional petitioners, 12 of whom vote in Larson’s 1st district, the group challenges Larson to acknowledge (or refuse to acknowledge) that it’s a crime to lie to Congress, to hold prisoners without legal process, to torture captives in the course of interrogation, to apply pressure to federal prosecutors over prosecutorial decisions, and to instruct federal employees to ignore federal laws, among other acts of presidential misconduct enumerated by the group.

Larson is asked to acknowledge that the House of Representatives has sole law enforcement authority over crimes committed by a president and malfeasance by the commander-in-chief. He is challenged to answer whether his failure to hold this president accountable will set a precedent for lawlessness in future administrations, and he is asked explicitly whether it is his intention by his inaction to create a presidency that is above the law.

The spokesman for Greater Hartford Impeach, Hartford lawyer Stephen Fournier, had asked twice for a brief personal audience with the congressman, but staff members who promised to reply never called back. Fournier left the 12 questions with aides in Larson’s Hartford office Monday afternoon.

“It appears that big-d Democrats are more interested in the outcome of the next presidential election than in the future of the presidency, the Congress, and our small-d democratic system,” said Fournier. “My congressman must be held accountable for refusing to discharge his constitutional duties. To this end, I am forming a political action committee whose purpose will be to remind John Larson of his responsibilities and replace him if necessary.”

Fournier says he is making himself available as a candidate for Larson’s seat, but only tentatively. “There are more qualified people than me who haven’t considered the possibility of taking on Larson. This move might empower somebody,” said Fournier. “I want Larson to face the strongest possible opponent who will confront the racketeers that now control Congress. I’ll do it if nobody else will.”

Fournier–former Democrat, former Republican, now Green–made himself a write-in candidate for Larson’s seat in 2006, receiving fewer than 100 votes. Fournier vows that, “in 2008, Larson will face an opponent who is an articulate and passionate advocate of the rule of law and whose name will appear on the ballot. In the last election, Larson could blame the Republican majority, but that excuse evaporated a year ago. Our political action committee will mount a frontal attack on Larson’s performance in office, and we will warn voters in the district about the dire consequences to our nation if we continue on the course Larson and his party have been following.”