IMPEACH MUSK?

David French has written a good column encouraging Democrats to pursue the impeachment of prominent figures in the Trump administration if they regain control of Congress. French reminds readers that officers other than presidents can be impeached:

The impeachment power is also broad. It extends to the president, vice president and all “civil officers” of the United States. While the term “civil officer” isn’t defined by the Constitution, it almost certainly extends to cabinet heads, ambassadors, other senior executive branch officials and federal judges.

And, as French reminds us,

it has an important prophylactic effect that not even a felony conviction possesses — it can ban a convicted person from “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

Which brings me to Paul Krugman's latest Substack post, "It’s Time to Take Starlink Away from Elon Musk."

Did Elon Musk decide by personal fiat to cut off Ukraine’s access to vital communications? Although Musk claims that the decision was made by Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, some U.S. officials state that Musk did indeed take it upon himself to pull the plug on Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is quoted as saying that the administration was blind-sided: “There was no foreknowledge.”

... No private individual should, or indeed even have the capability to, make national security policy. Slowing down Starlink was, in effect, a U.S. intervention in a foreign conflict....

In modern warfare, where communication and real-time information are as important as rockets and artillery, Starlink is ... central to national security.... Decisions about which countries have full access to Starlink’s capacity are as much a matter of foreign policy and national security as decisions about which countries will be allowed to buy and operate U.S. high-tech weapons.

Such decisions cannot, must not, be left up to private individuals.

... Starlink must, one way or another, be taken away from Elon Musk. It’s a matter of national security: we cannot let private individuals make foreign and defense policy....

Krugman is right -- which is why, if we lived in a country that was functioning well under the U.S. Constitution, majority Democrats would impeach Musk next January, and a bipartisan supermajority would lock him out of government for life.

Is Musk eligible for impeachment? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

French says that list certainly includes top government officials. But the plain text of this section says nothing about the prominence of the officials.

On September 30, Musk was named the co-leader of Project Meridian, a group advising the Defense Department on the future of warfare. His partners are Newt Gingrich and Palmer Luckey. This is a 120-day appointment, which means it will continue past the swearing-in of the new Congress.

Does that make Musk one of the "civil Officers of the United States"? Congress's Constitution Annotated page for this section says:

Aside from the President and Vice President, who are plainly identified in the Constitution’s text as impeachable officials, historical practice indicates that federal judges clearly qualify as officers subject to impeachment and removal, as the majority of proceedings have applied to those positions. Congress has also impeached the head of a cabinet-level Executive department. While this indicates a congressional understanding that high-level Executive officers may be subject to impeachment, it is unclear how far down the ranks of the federal bureaucracy this principle travels.

I suspect that if the parties were reversed and Republicans wanted to impeach a similar appointee chosen by a Democrat, they'd simply proceed.

Could Musk avoid impeachment by resigning from Project Meridian? Constitution Annotated says:

The second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump centered on the question of whether former officials remain subject to trial by the Senate after leaving office. There is historical evidence to support an original understanding that former officials remain subject to conviction and punishment by the Senate for actions taken while in office. The constitutional text, however, does not directly address the question.

The purpose of a Musk impeachment would be "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States," as Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 puts it. Would the Framers have understood this as the termination of Musk's government contracts? Again, I suspect that if the parties were reversed, the GOP would simply proceed as if that were the case.

But this is a pipe dream. Democrats who are dependent on tech money wouldn't go along. The "liberal" media would be split on the constitutionality of the move (and would respond sympathetically to the howls of outrage from their tech and non-tech billionaire pals). Republicans would rally around Musk and say the impeachment was the real national security threat, not Musk's pro-Moscow behavior (or his open support for Eurofascism). And there'd be a serious risk that Musk himself would go nuclear -- not literally (I hope), but I'm sure he could threaten dire consequences for the entire country if challenged in this way.

Nevertheless, he should be removed from the government -- for his geopolitcal interventions, for the abuses of DOGE, for his child porn. I don't think that will happen even if Democrats win a trifecta in 2028. But a guy can dream.

*****

OH, AND: Here's a reminder that Americans don't like Musk: