“Well,” Levering said, “she didn’t.” He looked for a waiter. That second Jim Beam was calling. Steady.
“So your official statement is that you have no knowledge of the whereabouts of this man Elijah?” Markey asked.
“You do pretty good cop-speak. They teach you that?”
“No.” Markey put his pen and pad back in his coat pocket. “My father did.”
“Really now? Your daddy a cop?”
“Preacher.”
For some reason Levering felt sweat seeping into his collar.
“Isn’t that nice,” Levering said. “Your daddy teach you to interrupt citizens with pointless questions?”
The cop’s demeanor did not change. “May I have your permission to speak plainly?”
Odd request from a detective. “Sure.”
Markey said. “I have a feeling about this case. Maybe it has something to do with you, Senator, and maybe not. Maybe it has something to do with Ms. Deveraux, and maybe not. But if my feeling is correct, some bad things are going down around here. And I will find out what they are.”
Levering was brought up short. Not because of his brashness, but because of the seeming sincerity with which this detective spoke. Like he knew things he had no way of knowing. Levering inhaled, trying to keep himself as calm as possible.
“Is that the end of your sermon?” Levering responded.
“Amen,” Markey said.
“Then get out.”
With a curt nod, the detective turned and walked out of the inner sanctum. Levering waited a moment, then yelled to the waiter for another drink.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
1
New York Times
Wednesday, November 12
A request for an impeachment investigation of Chief Justice Millicent Mannings Hollander has been officially lodged in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Leigh Barbaros, a California Democrat.
Rumors of such a move have been circulating throughout the Capitol for days. The investigation seeks to delve into the veracity of Hollander’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in light of recent revelations of a religious conversion that could tip the delicate balance of the nation’s highest court.
The request will be reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on the Constitution. If the subcommittee determines there is merit to the charges, Articles of Impeachment will be drawn. The full Judiciary Committee must approve the Articles before they are sent to the full House for a vote. A simple majority is all that is required to approve the Articles and send the matter to the Senate for trial.
“It’s not that we’re against someone converting,” one congressman, who requested anonymity, said. “But if it is in complete disagreement with what you swore to when approved, it bears looking into. Especially if it could mean a completely different Supreme Court.”
Since 1936, the House has initiated seven impeachment investigations. Only one involved a Supreme Court justice. In 1970 an investigation into the actions of Justice William O. Douglas fell short of the filing of formal charges by the House. The last House impeachment was against President Bill Clinton, which resulted in a Senate trial and acquittal.
THE BURROW BULLETIN
Hollander to Be Impeached!
The House of Representatives, currently investigating Chief Justice Millicent Mannings Hollander, already has the votes to impeach! While the official request for an investigation is just in a preliminary stage, sources Burrowing in on the story tell me an impeachment (which is just like a grand jury indictment from the House) is a done deal. “This lady’s toast,” one Burrower said.
“There’s a whole bunch of stuff no one knows about yet,” this Burrower continues. “It’s really going to get hot.”
The Burrow Bulletin will keep its readers updated. But look out! Gloves are reportedly about to come off.
TRANSCRIPTS/LarryKingLive
KING: Tonight, a distinguished panel discusses the impeachment investigation surrounding the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Joining us, from Boston, professor of Constitutional Law at Yale University Law School, Lawrence I. Graebner. In Washington, retired justice of the Supreme Court, the Honorable William T. Bonassi; joining me here in Los Angeles is Rebecca Margullis, President of the National Organization for Women. And they are all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Good evening. The impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, the chief justice in fact, is a distinct possibility tonight. Professor Graebner, I’ll start with you. What do you make of it?
GRAEBNER: Well, Larry, the Constitution gives the people of the United States, through its representative bodies, the power to impeach federal judges. Since the federal judiciary enjoys lifetime tenure, this is the only procedure for removal at our disposal.
KING: For high crimes and misdemeanors.
GRAEBNER: No, no. That is the standard for the impeachment of civil officers. The president, vice president, and so on. The standard for judges is found in Article III, Section I, and states that judges, both of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, shall hold their seats during good behavior.
KING: So what’s good behavior?
GRAEBNER: The real question is what is bad behavior.
KING: Okay. What’s bad behavior then?
GRAEBNER: Well, as Gerald Ford said when he was in Congress, and proposed impeaching Justice William O. Douglas, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.
MARGULLIS: And that’s right now, Larry.
KING: We’ll get to you in a moment, Rebecca. I wanted to ask Justice Bonassi what he thinks of that. Justice Bonassi, it’s an honor to have you on the program.
MARGULLIS: Can I just ask a question?
KING: Rebecca, we’ll get to you. Go ahead, Justice Bonassi.
BONASSI: Thank you, Larry. With all due respect to Professor Graebner, the House is undertaking what can only be described as a witch hunt. A person’s personal religious beliefs are being questioned, as if they were some sort of crime.
MARGULLIS: When it comes to a woman’s right to choose, there is -
KING: Rebecca, just a moment, please.
BONASSI: What? What did she say?
KING: You go ahead, Justice Bonassi.
BONASSI: I was saying that this is not a proper standard for impeachment. The framers never meant this power to be abused in this way. They did not want inquisitions for personal views.
GRAEBNER: If I may, an inquiry into personal views is what the confirmation process is supposed to be. But when a judicial candidate lies to the committee, that is surely grounds for later removal.
KING: Rebecca Margullis, you -
BONASSI: Wait, wait a second, Larry. We’ve just heard a scurrilous charge from the professor. You can’t seriously be suggesting that the chief justice was intentionally lying to the Judiciary Committee. We need proof, Professor Graebner, as you no doubt tell your first-year students.
GRAEBNER: There’s plenty of proof. We have her testimony. And as the House investigation proceeds, I am sure more will be coming out.
BONASSI: That is an absolutely outrageous statement -
MARGULLIS: Larry -
BONASSI: – an affront not only to our system, but to the reputation of a fine justice who has served this country with absolute integrity and dignity.
MARGULLIS: Larry -
KING: Rebecca Margullis in Los Angeles, what’s your take on all this?
MARGULLIS: Millicent Mannings Hollander must go, Larry.
THE NATIONAL EXPOSURE
Pics Show Justice in Arms of Minister!
Is She Seeking Help with an Alcohol Problem?
BY DAN RICKS
There is a “smoking gun” in the House investigation into Chief Justice Millicent Mannings Hollander.