republicans vote for bill to impeach cheney hell they voted for to a 2:1 margin roughly than the dems 66 democrats and 156 republicans voted not to kill the bill so repubs want to impeach cheney there is a god

republicans vote for bill to impeach cheney hell they voted for to a 2:1 margin roughly than the dems 66 democrats and 156 republicans voted not to kill the bill so repubs want to impeach cheney there is a god

That's pretty bad when you become so neo that your own conservative party wants to impeach you.
He needs to be impeached. I wish they could still impeach Rumsfeld even if it's no longer a cabinet member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_333

Where did you see this? According to wikipedia:

On 6 November 2007, Kucinich read his resolution on the House floor as a "Question of the Privileges of the House." A few hours after his notice, the Chair ruled the resolution to be a "Question of the Privileges of the House" and the House proceeded to consider the resolution. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer immediately moved to table the resolution, but the House failed to agree on that motion. Then, Representative Hoyer moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee (to which it was previously referred.) The House agreed to that motion and the resolution was again sent to the Judiciary Committee for its review.

republicans vote for bill to impeach cheney hell they voted for to a 2:1 margin roughly than the dems 66 democrats and 156 republicans voted not to kill the bill so repubs want to impeach cheney there is a god

That sounds HIGHLY questionable in the way you're reported it. (A result of very poor wording, perhaps??)

Do you have solid evidence to show that it was exactly as you say it is?? If so, let's see it.

He's totally mischaracterizing the situation. Here's the real story from the Hill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-keep-cheney-impeachment-bill-alive-2007-11-06.html

Ah, I see. Thanks countezero.

That sounds HIGHLY questionable in the way you're reported it. (A result of very poor wording, perhaps??)

Do you have solid evidence to show that it was exactly as you say it is?? If so, let's see it.

cspan

He's totally mischaracterizing the situation. Here's the real story from the Hill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/republicans-keep-cheney-impeachment-bill-alive-2007-11-06.html

Now that's more like I figured it would be. Makes sense - once again he's distorted something to have it come out the way HE wants it to be!:bugeye:

Thank you for the REAL story, CZ.

Now that's more like I figured it would be. Makes sense - once again he's distorted something to have it come out the way HE wants it to be!:bugeye:

Thank you for the REAL story, CZ.

GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.

Ah, I just love Washington.

There is something unclear in all this: Why is the House Democratic leadership so anxious to avoid this? Have they somehow mangaged to not be ready for this?

Well basically it does show just how screwed up the Democrats are, instead of tending to the Nations business they are chasing Impeachment Charges that will go no were, they are not taking care of the country, they are not taking care of the peoples business, there isn't enough votes to impeach or convict, the Dummycrats don't have a large enough majority, so why are they wasting time on a useless gesture?

You're right, Buff. Potential criminal wrongdoing by our nation's leaders is not "the Nation's business".

so why are they wasting time on a useless gesture?

pfft
this is good governance
what alternate reality do you come from

pork, squander, waste, futile
these are all good things

There is something unclear in all this: Why is the House Democratic leadership so anxious to avoid this? Have they somehow mangaged to not be ready for this?

Because they have been out maneuvered on this, guess who can now say in the election campaign that they were in favor of the investigation and point to who wanted to kill the investigation.

Well basically it does show just how screwed up the Democrats are, instead of tending to the Nations business they are chasing Impeachment Charges that will go no were, they are not taking care of the country, they are not taking care of the peoples business, there isn't enough votes to impeach or convict, the Dummycrats don't have a large enough majority, so why are they wasting time on a useless gesture?

You do realize that it's the Democrats who're trying to put the bill to rest and the Republicans who're keeping it alive to try and embarrasses the opposition right? So, add "and Republicans" after every "Dummycrat" in your sentence and you've got it.

... so why are they wasting time on a useless gesture?
Their frantic attempts at auto-stimulation is both habitual and no less frustrating.

You're right, Buff. Potential criminal wrongdoing by our nation's leaders is not "the Nation's business".

No wasting time on something that they weren't prepared to carry out is not doing the peoples business.

They don't have the votes, they don't have the evidence, or they would be pushing the hell out of the investigation, if they had anything real you wouldn't be able to stop the investigation and the Impeachment charges, and the trial, they have nothing and they know it, so like in a poker game they tried to fold, only this isn't poker and the Republicans won't let them fold, they are going to make them put up or shut up, so you are right they weren't prepared because they don't have the evidence, and they were hoping that the Republicans would fight tooth and nail to back V.P. Cheney, and have a campaign issue, but the Republicans out maneuvered them into them being the ones trying to kill the Bill.

ashura
You do realize that it's the Democrats who're trying to put the bill to rest and the Republicans who're keeping it alive to try and embarrasses the opposition right? So, add "and Republicans" after every "Dummycrat" in your sentence and you've got it.

Well what do you think the Democrats were trying to do to the Republicans? The Dummycrats got beat in their own game.

Well what do you think the Democrats were trying to do to the Republicans? The Dummycrats got beat in their own game.

The better way to put it is the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, instead of just bashing one side like your normally do. If the Republicans were any better, they wouldn't be continuing this farce.

Well basically it does show just how screwed up the Democrats are, instead of tending to the Nations business they are chasing Impeachment Charges that will go no were, they are not taking care of the country, they are not taking care of the peoples business, there isn't enough votes to impeach or convict, the Dummycrats don't have a large enough majority, so why are they wasting time on a useless gesture?

Ah, but the Republicans did something interesting, they voted to continue the procedure to impeach Vice President Cheney. Will this get out of the Democrat led Judicial Committee? One can only hope.

Ah, but the Republicans did something interesting, they voted to continue the procedure to impeach Vice President Cheney. Will this get out of the Democrat led Judicial Committee? One can only hope.

Nope. It will just die in committee - like so many other half-thought-out plans...

Nope. It will just die in committee - like so many other half-thought-out plans...

cept it is not half thought out

republicans vote for bill to impeach cheney hell they voted for to a 2:1 margin roughly than the dems 66 democrats and 156 republicans voted not to kill the bill so repubs want to impeach cheney there is a god

Rats, leaving a sinking ship and taking the cheese that was on board.

How unpatriotic.

How unpatriotic.

how so?

It's NEVER gonna happen. No one will be impeached. The libs are just grasping at straws. Again...:rolleyes:

It's NEVER gonna happen. No one will be impeached. The libs are just grasping at straws. Again...:rolleyes:

um cheney should be impeached do your self a favor and read the bill

You're right, Buff. Potential criminal wrongdoing by our nation's leaders is not "the Nation's business".

Impeachments are fairly rare in the history of this country, so I think the "potential" for criminal wrongdoing is not enough to actually persure such a course. And then there's the whole, show me something that Cheney has done that is illegal. Of course, to the rabid left, proof isn't necessary. Only intense dislike.

Impeachments are fairly rare in the history of this country, so I think the "potential" for criminal wrongdoing is not enough to actually persure such a course. And then there's the whole, show me something that Cheney has done that is illegal. Proof is an emergent from investigation and impeachment, not a precursor.

The simple act of stonewalling Congressional demands for information,

involving simultaneous claims of executive privilege and non-membership in the executive branch,

without the connection to various obvious illegalities (the Plame outing, the warrantless wiretaps, the secret meetings with corporate interests, the conflicts of interest re Halliburton, etc etc etc)

would be enough for an impeachment, if Congress had not been weakened and corrupted in advance.

If the weak sisters, naysayers, and crybabies hadn't spent three years now whining about how it's too much trouble, you can't do it anyway, it'll never happen, his term will be over soon, etc etc etc,

and instead done their job as responsible citizens and officials

we might have saved ourselves much of the very serious attorney general mess, made some real steps toward cleaning up the vote fraud operations in time for the 08 elections, interrupted the misdirection of many billions in government contracts, and possibly caught the subprime mortgage scandal with a year or so less in exponentially growing damage.

(Yawn)

Networking with Haliburton and the oil industries and certain portions of the armed forces to manipulate americans into going to war and thus transferring funds from taxpayers to Cheney's former and future employers and co board members should not be an impeachable offense. This was standard practice for thousands of years and I stand behind tradition.
Anyway all these seeming links between the administration and the companies who are and will profit from the war are coincidences. Public figures are NEVER motivated by money.

Your attempt to be witty has been noted...

There is something unclear in all this: Why is the House Democratic leadership so anxious to avoid this? Have they somehow mangaged to not be ready for this?

because it will show who stands where on this impeachement issue, which is that only a fringe "reality-based" minority would like to proceed with impeachment. most of them know that there are no grounds for impeachement and this will confirm and legitimize the Administration's actions, and will show that the Dems are showing more support for Bush & Co. This will also stop any further talk of impeachment.

not having to vote and confirm this shows to the Dems' base that they believe the Administration is criminal, and enables them to distance themselves from Bush.

one bad thing coming out of this is that it sends a confusing signal that Republicans DO want to impeach Cheney. even people in this thread were confused. in reality the Republicans want the opposite.

most of them know that there are no grounds for impeachement Everyone with a lick of sense who can read newspaper knows there are grounds for impeachment. That's not the issue.

Everyone with a lick of sense who can read newspaper knows there are grounds for impeachment. That's not the issue.

so why don't they? why not impeach if you can increase anti-Republican sentiment and gain more seats?

You attempt to be witty has been noted...

Witty? Are you kidding?
There are people who actually believe the fact that Haliburton got certain contracts could have possibly had something to do with their connections to Cheney. This is no laughing matter. Stuff the Dems would have defended Clinton to the death on they become conspiracy theory buffs about when it comes to Republicans. If we elect a president...or perhaps better put: if a president is elected who has ties to the oil industry then their desire for military intervention in the last two nations we invaded should not be assumed to play any role in the decision-making process. We should assume integrity. Innocence until proven guilty is the rule of this land. Cynicism sees patterns. Some Dems. have pointed out that Republicans 'went into a tizzy' over Whitewater and blow jobs when current administration decisions affected American lives - such as more soldiers or Americans now having died in Iraq than on 9/11 and other horrible unpatriotic ways of looking at things - but this is simply cynical. The fact that the administration was trying to find excuses to go into Iraq before 9/11 is not taking into account how forward thinking the Bush Administration has been.
And the fact that Cheney was a strong supporter of Hussein and even backed
up the idea of suppressing criticism of his killing Kurds en masse to waving the flag for Hussein's removal without ever explaining his past positions. But this shows no understanding of realpolitik by trying to mingle morals and consistency where they don't belong.
And whatever he's done it probably isn't an impeachable offense and there's justice and synchronicity in that.
If you don't like Cheney you're just hanging on to some sick ideal of what the country should be.

so why don't they? why not impeach if you can increase anti-Republican sentiment and gain more seats?

Exactly. And that's a simple fact that many dummies here avoid admitting.

so why don't they? why not impeach if you can increase anti-Republican sentiment and gain more seats? "They" don't have the power, in the first place. "They" are only some of the Dems and one or two of the Reps, and even if they were all of the Dems it wouldn't be enough.

And the increase in anti-Republican sentiment is not a given - there are plenty of people like you and Count, who regard the whole issue as one of illusion-based partisan conflict between Dems and Reps, while the media that would be mediating the "sentiment" is widely corrupted and coopted, as well as weakened in its resources.

And there is an election coming up - an impeachment proceeding would throw a serious turd in that pool.

And it could be that the more powerful Dems - who are in partisan conflict with the Reps, possibly as an overwhelming consideration - think they will gain more toward their various ambitions from the continued presence of these guys in office, making the kinds of headlines inevitable in the next few months, than they would from an impeachment proceeding that could be spun against them more easily. That kind of realpolitik may appear cynical, but the argument that more of this garbage must be borne to make sure of getting rid of the source is persuasive to some.

I think that is dangerous and damaging, as a strategy, for the country itself - but probably when up to one's ass in alligators it's hard to concentrate on draining the swamp.

cept it is not half thought out

And you can show that to be true how?

making the kinds of headlines inevitable in the next few months, than they would from an impeachment proceeding that could be spun against them more easily

are you kidding? any talk of formal impeachment hurts Republicans. i cannot picture a way how this can be spun by the [left-leaning] mainstream media to make Republicans look good.

picture some average guy reading the newspaper -- "Cheney is facing corruption charges". do you think he will be voting Republican next November?

And it could be that the more powerful Dems - ... - think they will gain more toward their various ambitions from the continued presence of these guys in office
that, right there, makes the Dems unworthy of any sort of position in government.
if Cheney is as corrupt as they believe, and they don't impeach him, that makes them an accessory to a crime, doesn't it? or just unbelievably cynical.

but it is a potential reason. still though, all the commentary i've read about this says the same thing i've said in my first post here -- that Dems simply don't want having their daily claims of 'corruption' and 'criminality' laid to rest.

"They" don't have the power, in the first place. "They" are only some of the Dems and one or two of the Reps, and even if they were all of the Dems it wouldn't be enough.

And the increase in anti-Republican sentiment is not a given - there are plenty of people like you and Count, who regard the whole issue as one of illusion-based partisan conflict between Dems and Reps, while the media that would be mediating the "sentiment" is widely corrupted and coopted, as well as weakened in its resources.

And there is an election coming up - an impeachment proceeding would throw a serious turd in that pool.

And it could be that the more powerful Dems - who are in partisan conflict with the Reps, possibly as an overwhelming consideration - think they will gain more toward their various ambitions from the continued presence of these guys in office, making the kinds of headlines inevitable in the next few months, than they would from an impeachment proceeding that could be spun against them more easily. That kind of realpolitik may appear cynical, but the argument that more of this garbage must be borne to make sure of getting rid of the source is persuasive to some.

I think that is dangerous and damaging, as a strategy, for the country itself - but probably when up to one's ass in alligators it's hard to concentrate on draining the swamp.

Excuses, excuses, excuses - nothing of solid value in this post, folks. Just grasping for straws...

Yeah, I was going to respond but "grasping for straws" sums it up well enough. There's no arguing with Ice or any of the impeach now crowd. They're thinking with their hearts, not their heads. I mean, what can you say when a person writes: "Everyone with a lick of sense who can read newspaper knows there are grounds for impeachment."

I read newspapers — several, in fact. And while I don't particularly like Cheney or his behavior, I can't see the legal grounds for impeachment. Of course, I'm certain Ice would say I don't have the "lick of sense" part of his statement. But he doesn't think anyone does, unless they agree with him.

are you kidding? any talk of formal impeachment hurts Republicans. i cannot picture a way how this can be spun by the [left-leaning] mainstream media to make Republicans look good. Not make Reps look good - that's difficult - but make Dems look bad - much easier. You've already seen it, here on this thread and in the recent daily mockery of Kucinich (and dismissal of Paul) on your favorite news outlet.

("Left-leaning" mainstream media?! LOL)
I read newspapers — several, in fact. And while I don't particularly like Cheney or his behavior, I can't see the legal grounds for impeachment. Of course, I'm certain Ice would say I don't have the "lick of sense" part of his statement. Yep. Willful blindness might be a better way to put it.

When Cheney cashes his remaining stock options in Halliburton - options worth several times what they were before his tenure in office coincided with various unusually favorable Federal contracting arrangements in which he was involved - do you suppose he will receive the money in a bank account vulnerable to US legal authority? Or will he have it paid to, say, an account in the country to which Halliburton has transferred its legal existence, with which no extradition or other such treaty has been signed ?

Yeah, I was going to respond but "grasping for straws" sums it up well enough. There's no arguing with Ice or any of the impeach now crowd. They're thinking with their hearts, not their heads. I mean, what can you say when a person writes: "Everyone with a lick of sense who can read newspaper knows there are grounds for impeachment."

I read newspapers — several, in fact. And while I don't particularly like Cheney or his behavior, I can't see the legal grounds for impeachment. Of course, I'm certain Ice would say I don't have the "lick of sense" part of his statement. But he doesn't think anyone does, unless they agree with him.

All very true. If there WAS solid evidence against him - as opposed to a handful of allegations - Cheney's opposition would be steaming FULL SPEED AHEAD instead of retreating into committee. But plain and simple facts like that are totally overlooked by people who are ruled by emotion instead of logic. I strongly dislike his behavior also, but as any prosecuting attorney will tell you it takes PROOF, not just allegations to make a case.

Yep. Willful blindness might be a better way to put it.

Predictable and boring. Thanks for sticking to the template.

When Cheney cashes his remaining stock options in Halliburton - options worth several times what they were before his tenure in office coincided with various unusually favorable Federal contracting arrangements in which he was involved - do you suppose he will receive the money in a bank account vulnerable to US legal authority? Or will he have it paid to, say, an account in the country to which Halliburton has transferred its legal existence, with which no extradition or other such treaty has been signed?

I don't know. Does Cheney have stock options on Halliburton? I thought the holdings weren't public because they are in a blind trust? Regardless, even if they are public, his holdings are in a blind trust, and so legally speaking, the scenario you've outline cannot be prosecuted as some kind of conflict of interest. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing anything he's done, etc. (As I've mentioned, I'm no Cheney fan). I just don't think you CAN impeach him...

This is the same argument we have about the "secret meetings." That is, you don't like something, so you claim it's illegal and the man should be prosecuted for it. The fact is the meetings weren't illegal, and I can't see how profitting from your (hitherto unproven) scenario is prosecutable.

Cheney is one fucked up dude.

Thank god the law requires more than that for prosecution...

Regardless, even if they are public, his holdings are in a blind trust, and so legally speaking, the scenario you've outline cannot be prosecuted as some kind of conflict of interest That depends. So how blind is the trust, in fact - does Cheney know he has Halliburton stock options in it? And what was Cheney's role in Halliburton's rapid, government-fueled growth during his tenure ?

These are legally establishable facts. Waving one's hands and speaking the words "blind trust" does not satisfy the normally functioning SEC, or the normally alert IRS, or a normally diligent Attorney General.

Let's assume a normally diligent AG.

Rather than just accept assurances from the powerful and temptation prone, the formulators of relevant law provided yet more checks and imposed requirements. Government officials are, for example, required by law to keep records of their official business, and provide these records to oversight committees in Congress, as well as provide testimony under oath regarding dubious circumstances. That way, if Cheney is, say, meeting with Halliburton executives or related executives, and in these meetings he negotiates unusual deals which boost his stock options at the expense of ordinary sound governmental policy, this will become known to Congress and the public.

Cheney has refused to provide these records, or testimony. That is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, in these circumstances.

So we have grounds for impeachment. We may discover, during the discovery phase or during the trial, that all this has perfectly innocent, or at least excusable, explanations. Incompetence, say. If so, we dismiss or acquit.

And move on to the next affair. There are at least a half dozen, involving Cheney alone.

But we do not have a diligent, competent AG. Nor do we have a diligent, competent, independent Congress. So the options are limited.

Cheney is one fucked up dude.

Haven't you heard? Cheney is a model vice president (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/giuliani-weighs-veep-choice-already/).

First, let's return to the following:

Proof is an emergent from investigation and impeachment, not a precursor.

I think you're misunderstanding what the impeachment process is. Wikipedia is not above reproach, but what I found there jives with my understand of the process. That is, "The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been "impeached.'" It is not, in other words, an investigation. An impeachment, per my understanding, is similar to an indictment, which is typically handed down after evidence of a crime has been gathered. I think, for example, that the Justice Department investigate Nixon and gathered evidence prior to the possibility of impeachment being discussed. Now the Congress, as you know, has wide investigatory powers. If it wants to investigate Cheney and thinks such an action is necessary for the people of the US, then it should investigate him. Impeachment would come later...

That depends. So how blind is the trust, in fact - does Cheney know he has Halliburton stock options in it? And what was Cheney's role in Halliburton's rapid, government-fueled growth during his tenure? ... These are legally establishable facts. Waving one's hands and speaking the words "blind trust" does not satisfy the normally functioning SEC, or the normally alert IRS, or a normally diligent Attorney General.

There's a lot of questions (and speculation) in the above for something you ultimately conclude is "legally established facts," a nebulous phrase that I'm not sure I even understand. I mean, have your allegations been proved "legally" somehow? It seems neither of us really knows exactly what Cheney's business holdings are. Yet, you're ready to indict him for what you think they are. Typically, you don't like something, so it's "illegal."

Government officials are, for example, required by law to keep records of their official business, and provide these records to oversight committees in Congress, as well as provide testimony under oath regarding dubious circumstances. That way, if Cheney is, say, meeting with Halliburton executives or related executives, and in these meetings he negotiates unusual deals which boost his stock options at the expense of ordinary sound governmental policy, this will become known to Congress and the public.

You're very obviously ignoring and/or forgetting the all-important executive privilege. Again, you and I might not "like" something, but that doesn't make it illegal. So far as I understand the law, Cheney can meet with as many company execs as he wants and violate nothing. Your talk of "unusual deals" and such is just that: Talk. I've seen nothing in this thread that proves it. You seem to be claiming that because Halliburton has made a lot of money from the war, Cheney must have to. You need to establish this with something other than your imaginary lines of thought and establish that Cheney's benefit, if there are any, are in fact illegal.

Cheney has refused to provide these records, or testimony. That is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, in these circumstances.

He doesn't have to testify. He doesn't have to cooperate. It's called the 5th Amendment, and in criminal matters, not testifying cannot be construed as prima facie of anything. As for the records, this is the gray area. I don't know enough to know what is and isn't applicable to FOIA or Open Records Laws, but whatever is applicable can and should be released. Again, Congress can ask for the documents, just as it has with the firing of the six attorneys at the Justice Department. Whether they get them or not, is another issue...

So we have grounds for impeachment.

The majority of the US Congress doesn't think so. And personally, I think you've failed to produce anything of substance here in this thread beyond your typical complaints, which are the typical sort I hear fringe Leftists like you espouse all the time. The problem is complaints aren't proof...

Regardless of all your mental hand-wringing, the Democrats, who people like you elected, haven't delivered on one of their tacit campaign promises (again). They didn't even want to debate the issue on the House floor. You guys must be so disappointed...

Then what do you have to worry about countezero? According to you Cheney will be absolved and the Democrats will look bad.

- - An impeachment, per my understanding, is similar to an indictment, which is typically handed down after evidence of a crime has been gathered. I think, for example, that the Justice Department investigate Nixon and gathered evidence prior to the possibility of impeachment being discussed. - - Yes. And had we a diligent and competent Justice Dept, the whole process woudl be easier - we might have had a resignation years ago.

You go to impeachment with the Justice Dept you have, not the one you want. Congress itself has been investigating for over a year now, after a very late start.
He doesn't have to testify. He doesn't have to cooperate. It's called the 5th Amendment, and in criminal matters, not testifying cannot be construed as prima facie of anything. We haven't got to the trial yet. Refusing to turn over records that Congress believes one is by law required to turn over, in a matter of apparent serious conflict of interest, is adequate cause for Congressional impeachment. If Cheney wishes to defend himself at trial by claiming the records were not legally required of him, that is his right.
Again, Congress can ask for the documents, just as it has with the firing of the six attorneys at the Justice Department. Whether they get them or not, is another issue... And that other issue can be impeachment, if Congress is defied. Those are grounds.
You're very obviously ignoring and/or forgetting the all-important executive privilege. Again, you and I might not "like" something, but that doesn't make it illegal. So far as I understand the law, Cheney can meet with as many company execs as he wants and violate nothing. Congress is not bound by your understanding of the law. Cheney is supposed to keep records of his official business, and present them to oversight committees upon request. He is not allowed to meet with unknown company execs secretly, and do the public's business without Congressional oversight and accountability. Congress is bound to diligently provide oversight, and take what measures are necessary. If defied, Congress is empowered to impeach. Congress has been defied. That is grounds.
There's a lot of questions (and speculation) in the above for something you ultimately conclude is "legally established facts," a nebulous phrase that I'm not sure I even understand. I mean, have your allegations been proved "legally" somehow? Your misreading and misquoting have led you astray from the argument - or the other way around, again.

The question was whether there are grounds for Congressional impeachment of Cheney. As is obvious, there are. Several. It might be a bad idea, it might not be possible politically, etc, but the grounds are there.

Again if there were legal grounds for Impeachment of Vice President Cheney it would be happening, there would be know way that you would be able to stop the Democrats from bringing Impeachment charges.

The Democrats were looking for a election issue, and it was suppose to be that the Republicans were stalling the investigation of V.P. Cheney, but they were beat at their own game, the Republicans went along with their idea, and it was put up or shut up time, well now they are trying to shut up, and they are the ones who are now blocking the investigation into Impeachment Charges for V.P. Cheney, and the reason that they want it dropped is that they know that they have nothing criminal to charge the Vice President with.

Again if there were legal grounds for Impeachment of Vice President Cheney it would be happening, Well, there are and it's not, so - - -

Congress itself has been investigating for over a year now, after a very late start.

And they've found what, exactly?

We haven't got to the trial yet. Refusing to turn over records that Congress believes one is by law required to turn over, in a matter of apparent serious conflict of interest, is adequate cause for Congressional impeachment.

That's your opinion, and I tend to think you're wrong. For starters, it's not Congress who wants the documents (as was the case with Richard Nixon), it's a few kooks like your favorite Kucinich. As for impeachment, all the Constitution says, I think, is "high crimes and misdemeanors." I tend to think that if they had a case that would stick, the Democrats wouldn't hesitate to impeach, even if it was over something silly as not cooperating with an investigation. Not turning over documents hardly seems to be that certain of a case, though. Again, with executive privilege, there's so much gray area that it would make for a difficult hearing.

If Cheney wishes to defend himself at trial by claiming the records were not legally required of him, that is his right. And that other issue can be impeachment, if Congress is defied. Those are grounds.

Again, that's your opinion. Your operating under some pretty wild assumptions, too. You seem to have the logic a lot of bullshit political operators in DC have. That is, when you don't like someone and you think they have done something illegal or immoral, you start an investigation against them, then when they slip up and say something out of step, or fail to hand something over, you convict on that and not on what you were actually even attempting to investigate. This is faux sort of show trial is exactly what the Republicans did to Clinton, and now you're cheering for it to happen to Cheney...

Congress is not bound by your understanding of the law. Cheney is supposed to keep records of his official business, and present them to oversight committees upon request. He is not allowed to meet with unknown company execs secretly, and do the public's business without Congressional oversight and accountability. Congress is bound to diligently provide oversight, and take what measures are necessary. If defied, Congress is empowered to impeach. Congress has been defied. That is grounds.

As was the case in our past discussions, you illustrate little or no understanding of the rules that cover "Open" government (You also seem to think Congress IS bound by your understanding of the law). Again, Cheney can meet with as many people in secret as he likes. I know of no statue or law the requires the executive branch to hold open meetings every single time someone comes to the White House, etc. The reason I suspect that this is so is because the Executive Branch are not officially policy-makers, the Congress is. But I know there's really no convincing you of this, so harp on and continue with your jihad. Just for amusement's sake, go and find the law Cheney broke by meeting with people and point it out here. Unlike some people on this site, when I'm wrong, I can admit it...

The question was whether there are grounds for Congressional impeachment of Cheney. As is obvious, there are. Several. It might be a bad idea, it might not be possible politically, etc, but the grounds are there.

As is obvious? You've proven NOTHING in this thread. You've done nothing but make accusations without any facts (typical, again), and to top it off, you characterize your accusations as "legally established facts?" Again, you're disconnect from reality is palpable; your self-belief and solipsism overwhelming.

For the record, I don't like Cheney. I think he probably has bent and stretched the law. I think he is an odious insider who has profited off his time in and out of government based on the tiny little clique he inhabits. But should he be impeached? I can't see any law he's broken, and most of your claims on this site (maybe not in this thread, but certainly in the past) have been the stuff of deranged skepticism. I mean, didn't you accuse the guy of being a murderer a few months ago?

As is obvious? You've proven NOTHING in this thread. You've done nothing but make accusations without any facts (typical, again), and to top it off, you characterize your accusations as "legally established facts?"
- - -
I mean, didn't you accuse the guy of being a murderer a few months ago? Has it ever occurred to you that a consistent pattern of misquoting and misparaphrasing and misreading and misremembering might have some basis in misunderstanding? You never paraphrase accurately, and you misquote all the time, and then you get the arguments wrong, and it's a constant hassle.

Anyway: For starters, it's not Congress who wants the documents (as was the case with Richard Nixon), it's a few kooks like your favorite Kucinich My favorite's probably John Conyers. And a few others. All kooks, of course, by definition - as the media will be happy to remind us, in framing this issue. But you are definitely correct - Congress as a whole is not hotly pursuing this matter. No Republican is, for example.

That does not mean the obvious routes of pursuit are not available.
I tend to think that if they had a case that would stick, the Democrats wouldn't hesitate to impeach, And you have dick for evidence behind that odd and baseless presumption, pulled out of your ass. These Dems have never done anything scary like that, regardless of opportunity, and we have no reason to believe they would start now. It's a big deal to them merely threatening to get testimony under oath, in hearings on fuckups and malfeasance.

Just for amusement's sake, go and find the law Cheney broke by meeting with people and point it out here. Unlike some people on this site, when I'm wrong, I can admit it... He has apparently broken several such laws in various ways, not counting the defiance of oversight committe requests and simlar legal obligations of the office. Here are three:
The Presidential Records Act http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=44&sec=2207 ( That's the one that forbids doing official business off the record, and mandates keeping records made, and requires they be made available to Congress)

Federal Advisory Commissions Act. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8203&channelPage=/ep/channel/gsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-13170
and amended in 2001: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/FACAFinalRule_R2E-cNZ_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf (That one he defies by claiming executive privilege as an agency of the executive branch)

Executive Order 12958 http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html (That one he defies by claiming his office is not an agency in the executive branch)

All this is just one set of grounds for impeachment, of course. The Plame affair, the War Crimes stuff around the Gitmo connection, the WMD evidence rigging and lying to Congress, and so forth, add up to several more.

It is a high crime to lie to Congress, if you are VP. Or defy Congresional oversight. Or betray your oath of office.

He has apparently broken several such laws in various ways, not counting the defiance of oversight committe requests and simlar legal obligations of the office. Here are three:
The Presidential Records Act http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=44&sec=2207 ( That's the one that forbids doing official business off the record, and mandates keeping records made, and requires they be made available to Congress)

1. Federal Advisory Commissions Act. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8203&channelPage=/ep/channel/gsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-13170
and amended in 2001: http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/FACAFinalRule_R2E-cNZ_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf (That one he defies by claiming executive privilege as an agency of the executive branch)

2. Executive Order 12958 http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html (That one he defies by claiming his office is not an agency in the executive branch)

All this is just one set of grounds for impeachment, of course. The Plame affair, the War Crimes stuff around the Gitmo connection, the WMD evidence rigging and lying to Congress, and so forth, add up to several more.

It is a high crime to lie to Congress, if you are VP. Or defy Congresional oversight. Or betray your oath of office.

Now explain exactly how Vice President Cheney broke this law?

1. United States Code
TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 22 - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2207. Vice-Presidential records

Vice-Presidential records shall be subject to the provisions of
this chapter in the same manner as Presidential records. The duties
and responsibilities of the Vice President, with respect to
Vice-Presidential records, shall be the same as the duties and
responsibilities of the President under this chapter with respect
to Presidential records. The authority of the Archivist with
respect to Vice-Presidential records shall be the same as the
authority of the Archivist under this chapter with respect to
Presidential records, except that the Archivist may, when the
Archivist determines that it is in the public interest, enter into
an agreement for the deposit of Vice-Presidential records in a
non-Federal archival depository. Nothing in this chapter shall be
construed to authorize the establishment of separate archival
depositories for such Vice-Presidential records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This law deals with the classification of National Security Information, so please explain how this law was broken?

2. THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release -- April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for you throwing the stew pot against the wall method of trying to prove that the Vice President did something Illegal,

"All this is just one set of grounds for impeachment, of course. The Plame affair, the War Crimes stuff around the Gitmo connection, the WMD evidence rigging and lying to Congress, and so forth, add up to several more.

It is a high crime to lie to Congress, if you are VP. Or defy Congresional oversight. Or betray your oath of office"

Again if there was something illegal done, the Democrats in Congress would already be holding the Impeachment Hearing, it has been 7 years, and all we have is opinion from people like you that the Vice President and the President have done something illegal, and what is the situation as it stands today?

The Democratic leadership, are trying to blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney, a Resolution that they brought forward, now if there were laws broken, why would they not go forward with the Resolution of Impeachment, could it be that they don't have any evidence that any law was broken? and that they were hoping that the Republicans would be the ones trying to block the resolution, which would give the Democrats a campaign issue? that it is the Republicans who are hiding something?

It is the Democrats who are hiding something, and that something is that the President and the Vice President have not broken the Law, and that in a court of fact, the Democrats don't have any True Fact to present as Evidence.


The Democratic House is trying to stop the and most of what you claim is illegal is nothing but your opinion, now to have a charge brought you need something know as;

cause of action - a claim sufficient to demand judicial attention; the facts that give rise to right of action

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually

Haven't you heard? Cheney is a model vice president (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/giuliani-weighs-veep-choice-already/).

I stand corrected.

Has it ever occurred to you that a consistent pattern of misquoting and misparaphrasing and misreading and misremembering might have some basis in misunderstanding? You never paraphrase accurately, and you misquote all the time, and then you get the arguments wrong, and it's a constant hassle.

Whatever, Ice. You stated that you've proven there are grounds for impeachment. I don't think you've proven anything. You've lobbed accusations. That's all. And again, didn't you accuse this man of murder a few months ago? Answer the question.

Anyway: My favorite's probably John Conyers. And a few others. All kooks, of course, by definition - as the media will be happy to remind us, in framing this issue. But you are definitely correct - Congress as a whole is not hotly pursuing this matter. No Republican is, for example.

No Democrats — beyond your kooks — are either. And it's funny, you disparage the media (typical for you), while at the same time overlooking or ignoring the fact that the media constantly cover what these kooks say, even when nobody else in the Congress is talking about them. And it's me calling them kooks, not the media. The media, at least the powerful media, love them.

That does not mean the obvious routes of pursuit are not available.

I never said they weren't.

And you have dick for evidence behind that odd and baseless presumption, pulled out of your ass. These Dems have never done anything scary like that, regardless of opportunity, and we have no reason to believe they would start now. It's a big deal to them merely threatening to get testimony under oath, in hearings on fuckups and malfeasance.

What lovely language! It's nice to know that when I have an opinion is "odd and baseless," whereas your opinions are "legally established facts." Typical, Ice. Typical...

He has apparently broken several such laws in various ways, not counting the defiance of oversight committe requests and simlar legal obligations of the office.

I read these (or most of them, as I have a life). The first seems to deal with archives. The other two are national security provisions, and I'm not certain what you're trying to assert with them...

The Plame affair, the War Crimes stuff around the Gitmo connection, the WMD evidence rigging and lying to Congress, and so forth, add up to several more.

The Plame affair has been resolved. Cheney never entered into it, so far as the courts can determine. Your allegations of war crimes are just that: allegations. You have no proof Cheney rigged or lied to Congress about WMD evidence. Or if you do, produce it.

It is a high crime to lie to Congress, if you are VP. Or defy Congresional oversight. Or betray your oath of office.

Give examples when the above happened? Wait, don't bother. I'm done here. There's no talking with you or reasoning with you on this issue. Your mind is made up, and all you will try to do is assemble strands of data that prove your preordained conclusion. Such a routine, which is your typical fare, bores me...

I love Cheney. He's awesome! :bravo:

LIberal moonbat hero George Soros owns Haliburton stock. So STFU about Haliburton already. :rolleyes:

Soros isn't in office, Sandy.

The first two charges focus on the Vice President’s successful effort to mislead the Congress and American public into a war against Iraq. The last charge focuses upon the Vice President’s determination to again mislead the Congress and American public into a war, this one against Iran.

Supporting documents can be found here:
http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=3750

Full text of the resolution:
http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

Neither are impeachable offenses, I think. If lying or misleading, neither of which have been proven here, were impeachable offenses, nobody in politics would still be in office. Lying under oath is different, of course.

Decieving the country to enter a war seems to be against his oath of office.

How do you prove "deception" beyond a resonable doubt in a court of law?

Read the bill, it would probably go something like:

Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

What lovely language! It's nice to know that when I have an opinion is "odd and baseless," whereas your opinions are "legally established facts." Typical, Ice. Typical... For the third time: you are misquoting me, and thereby misreading as well as misrepresenting my posts and arguments. Kindly remove the quote marks - there is no hope of you comprehending the argument, I know, but I want it clear that I did not say what you claim I said.

Meanwhile,if you can come up any reason, argument, or evidence, in support of your opinion that this crop of Dems would be sure to jump on any opportunity for impeachment of Cheney (their failure therefore evidence that there is none),it would be illuminating. It seems to have no basis in reality whasoever, as far as I can see.

I read these (or most of them, as I have a life). The first seems to deal with archives. The other two are national security provisions, and I'm not certain what you're trying to assert with them... You asked me to come up with the laws that say Cheney cannot do the business of his office in secret meetings with unknown people, and then refuse to deliver to Congressional oversight the records of those meetings and an account of the business done. There you are handed three such laws.

Moreover, his justifications for breaking them are both self-contradictory and ludicrous. Hence grounds for impeachment are visible.

How do you prove "deception" beyond a resonable doubt in a court of law? That you take that for a rhetorical question speaks volumes.

And it's me calling them kooks, not the media. The media, at least the powerful media, love them. So that's where all the mockery of Kucinich, and overlooking of Conyers, and softball interviews of their critics, comes from - it's love. Tough love, maybe - but that's the best kind, we hear.

For the third time: you are misquoting me, and thereby misreading as well as misrepresenting my posts and arguments. Kindly remove the quote marks - there is no hope of you comprehending the argument, I know, but I want it clear that I did not say what you claim I said.


I went back in the thread and found the following: " That depends. So how blind is the trust, in fact - does Cheney know he has Halliburton stock options in it? And what was Cheney's role in Halliburton's rapid, government-fueled growth during his tenure? ... These are legally establishable facts."

So you're right (this is humility, Ice, you ought to try it sometime). You wrote your opinions and accusations are "legally establishable facts." I assume you would say that this would be established during an impeachment proceeding. I would counter, again, that an impeachment is not where one tries to discover or establish anything other than innocence or guilt. In other words, impeachment is like indictment. They discovery and evidence of a crime should already be gathered.

Meanwhile,if you can come up any reason, argument, or evidence, in support of your opinion that this crop of Dems would be sure to jump on any opportunity for impeachment of Cheney (their failure therefore evidence that there is none),it would be illuminating. It seems to have no basis in reality whasoever, as far as I can see.


I said it was my opinion, nothing more. I base that opinion on the rank partisanship that present in DC, the obvious attraction investigations hold for the Dems and the boon they would gain from a legitimate impeachment process. In other words, if they thought they had the goods, I think it stands to reason they would move ahead in the process. I mean, why would they not? They would be crazy not to. What have they to lose, if they know they are right? Compare that analysis to your supposition, which seems to be that they know about all this wrongdoing — or are in a position to "legally" establish it — and choose to do nothing.

You asked me to come up with the laws that say Cheney cannot do the business of his office in secret meetings with unknown people, and then refuse to deliver to Congressional oversight the records of those meetings and an account of the business done. There you are handed three such laws.


Right, and I fail to see how they relate to the business you describe. Look, we can't even get Hillary's papers from Bill's term, do you really think a sitting vice-president has to conduct open meetings and disclose all his papers. You're mad if you do...

Moreover, his justifications for breaking them are both self-contradictory and ludicrous. Hence grounds for impeachment are visible.


So now being "self-contradictory and ludicrous" are grounds for impeachment? If that's the case, I vote Hillary be removed, based on her performance in the debate the other night...

That you take that for a rhetorical question speaks volumes.

It's a legitimate question. There's absolutely no way to prove he intentionally deceived anyone. I happen to think Cheney et al "sexed up" the intelligence for the war, but proving that would be difficult, given that George Tenet was doing things like handing them that business from Niger, and the British and Germans were passing along equally damning information about Iraq (all wrong, of course). A night-school attorney could get Cheney out of that, given all that we know about the intelligence, and if you can't see that, then that "speaks volumes."

You wrote your opinions and accusations are "legally establishable facts." I assume you would say that this would be established during an impeachment proceeding. No. The argument I was making was about these kinds of claims: There's absolutely no way to prove he intentionally deceived anyone. if they thought they had the goods, I think it stands to reason they would move ahead in the process. I mean, why would they not? They would be crazy not to. What have they to lose, if they know they are right? Another good question, that you might consider answering.

The first and most obvious answer is that they have the balls of a millipede. The same people who have been shuffling around on impeachment were the ones who couldn't muster the nerve to vote against the Iraq war powers bill - and we know they had the same info in front of them then that the ones who did vote against it had. They got logrolled, by political leverage and a full court press PR campaign, in the wake of 9/11.

Impeachment is scary, unless it's trivial partisanship launched by people too shallow to be frightened, like Clinton's.

Another obvious consideration is the effect of an impeachment hearing on the Presidential election. It will be spun as partisanship, overreaching, a childish response to Clinton's (Bill's troubles will be dredged up at every turn), and it will look like that to the uninformed - the electorate. These Dems may think they have this election in the bag - unless they do something to blow it. So they don't want to do anything. Those are the Dem leaders - the most powerful people in their Party - thinking like that.

And a third is that they can expect no cooperation from the Justice Dept, the AG, or any intelligence agency under Cheney's thumb. Congress doesn't have it's own intelligence, Justice, or investigative agencies. Impeachment without Justice dept cooperation - maybe even with active interference -could be a lame business.

And a fourth is that they can expect no cooperation from any Rep and several Dems - they don't have even a majority in Congress.

And so forth. There are many reasons why this matter is not pressed in Congress, some darker than the ones I've mentioned (don't forget all that warrantless wiretapping - W&Co have fat files on anyone they need them on). Not having grounds doesn't even make the top ten. Cheney is dirty as they come,and blatantly so.
So now being "self-contradictory and ludicrous" are grounds for impeachment? No. It illustrates how flagrant the lawbreaking of Cheney has been. He hasn't even bothered to cook up decent cover stories - he knows he's invulnerable.

IMHO he's wrong about that.

Neither are impeachable offenses, I think. If lying or misleading, neither of which have been proven here, were impeachable offenses, nobody in politics would still be in office. Lying under oath is different, of course.

you don't really understand the concept of high crimes and misdeamenors do you what cheney did falls under that
as a side note i have read the bill in full

Good for you.

you don't really understand the concept of high crimes and misdeamenors do you what cheney did falls under that
as a side note i have read the bill in full

Sorry you are the one who doesn't understand high crimes and misdemeanors, the Democrats have a whole battery of high priced lawyers that if there were any high crimes and misdemeanors, the laywers would let them know what they were and the charges would be brought.

If the Democrats had anything, there would already be a Impeachment Hearing, it takes a lot more than your interpretation of the phrase of high crimes and misdemeanors to stand the scrutiny of a hearing, and then to actually convict in a Senate Trial.

If the Democrats really had anything that would make the grade they wouldn't be trying to back out of privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, they know they don't have anything that will stand the light of a Impeachment Hearing, or the Trial in the Senate, if they did it would be happening right now.

If the Democrats had anything, there would already be a Impeachment Hearing,
That's not how John Conyers reacted - his Judiciary Committee currently has seven members publically endorsing the startup of Committee hearings on impeachment, but he has his doubts:
(Washington, DC)- A spokeswoman for the House Judiciary Committee issued the following statement today in response to floor action on a house resolution to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney:

"The committee has a very busy agenda - over the next two weeks, we hope to pass a FISA bill, to vote on contempt of Congress citations, pass legislation on prisoner re-entry, court security and a variety of other very important items. We were surprised that the minority was so ready to move forward with consideration of a matter of such complexity as impeaching the Vice President. The Chairman will discuss today's vote with the committee members but it would seem evident that the committee staff should continue to consider, as a preliminary matter, the many abuses of this Administration, including the Vice President." - House Judiciary Committee Spokeswoman
And another member of the Judiciary Committee, Debbie Schulz, had a similar take: A year ago yesterday the people in America voted to put the Democrats in the majority in Congress so that we could move the country in a new direction. And they asked to focus on withdrawing our troops from Iraq, on expanding health-care access, on making sure that we can refocus our efforts in terms of alternative energy and putting resources into that. You know, they did not ask us to spend any time on the impeachment of the Vice President. And knowing the mainstream media, like we do, and remembering back to the dark days when the Republican Congress pursued impeachment against President Clinton, that is all that the media will focus on, that is all the attention that would be focused on in Congress, and we would not be able to spend the next 13 months focusing on the issues that are important to the American people.
- - - -
I have to tell you that I would feel somewhat differently, but only somewhat differently, if there were two-and-a-half years left in the Bush Administration. But I think that we need to tough out the next 12 months and focus hard on the results-oriented Democratic Congress that we know we are and make sure that we deliver that new direction to the American people so that they reward us by electing more of our Democratic candidates to the 14 – now 14 – open Republican Congressional seats because they are giving up and bailing out. And to beating more of their Republican incumbents and then electing a Democratic President so that we can really get the job done. If we don’t focus on those things, Ed, then what will happen is we will spiral downward into ... and play right into the Republican hands. Why do you think they voted to table ... against tabling ... Kuncinich’s resolution the other day? Because they know that if impeachment happens, it will distract from the Republican failures and distract from our abilities to get the job done and move the country in a new direction. ...
Nothing in there about "grounds". Partisan politics all the way, and worries about the media. And this discussion is about merely holding preliminary hearings - the actual impeachment months in the future.
And for the standard Dem-lefty take, from the site http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/8/141239/890 : As for the elections, I'm more and more convinced - personally convinced - that the Republicans will suffer extra losses if impeachment hearings focus on what we already know to be true about Cheney and what may yet be revealed. But no doubt impeachment involves some risk if swing voters now trending heavily Democratic see it as vindictive and time-wasting. And those frames will obviously be part of the traditional media spin. How those extremely disgruntled independents view things next November will depend not merely on the fact of impeachment hearings but upon their quality. As I have said for a year, I think it's worth the risk. But I don't deny there is one. Again, just political calculation.

None of the Dems, even arguing with each other, are worried about there actually being grounds to impeach.

There is something unclear in all this: Why is the House Democratic leadership so anxious to avoid this? Have they somehow mangaged to not be ready for this?

Maybe the House Democratic leadership are puppets, and cowardly ones at that?;)

iceaura all that I see you proving about this is your hatred for Vice President Cheney, and the Republicans in general, you make leaps of logic that are not supported by any thing other than you hatred of the Conservative, it still comes down to the fact that the Lawyers of the Democrats, who know the Law, have told the Leadership that they don't have anything that will stand up for a Impeachment charge, and the other fact is that the Democratic leadership has failed to get anything accomplished of their own agenda, and have been totally out maneuvered by the President and the Republicans since they took office, so now when they have been out maneuvered again, ( The failure of the Republicans to fight back on the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch,) by the Republicans agreeing to the resolution, and taking the charge of obstruction away from the Democrats, they are trying to do a DO OVER, as they have been caught with their pants down and nothing that will stand up under investigation, and would take up a inordinate amount of time to conclude, during which period nothing would be able to be done of the Nations Business, which will reflect poorly in the election campaign.

it still comes down to the fact that the Lawyers of the Democrats, who know the Law, have told the Leadership that they don't have anything that will stand up for a Impeachment charge, Interesting bit of mind reading.

No evidence for that, of course. Lots of evidence otherwise.

The issue immediately before Congress is not the impeachment itself, but merely holding hearings on it. And the opposition to that seems to be based on partisan political calculation alone - not even the Reps are making loud, firm assertions of Cheney's good faith and innocence, but instead making claims about what can be "proven" in the arena that an impeachment involves.

Ice, all you (and a handful of Democrat and handful of kooks like Conyers) want is to get Cheney under oath he can be asked about all your wonderful theories and allegations. That's not the way impeachment or law enforcement in general works. You need proof to charge someone. Not suspicions and allegations...

Interesting bit of mind reading.

No evidence for that, of course. Lots of evidence otherwise.

The issue immediately before Congress is not the impeachment itself, but merely holding hearings on it. And the opposition to that seems to be based on partisan political calculation alone - not even the Reps are making loud, firm assertions of Cheney's good faith and innocence, but instead making claims about what can be "proven" in the arena that an impeachment involves.

Again if they had the evidence the Democrats would already be holding the Impeachment Hearings instead of trying to back out of a privileged resolution brought forward by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, and again the Democratic Party has high priced lawyers that are telling them they have nothing that will stand up for a Impeachment Indictment by the House, or in a trial by the Senate.

The Democrats are already having enough trouble with thing that they haven't done to end up with egg on their face by starting a Impeachment that will go no where.

Again if they had the evidence the Democrats would already be holding the Impeachment Hearings No, they wouldn't. They aren't. And they say they aren't going to, for partisan political reasons with an election coming up.

Ice, all you (and a handful of Democrat and handful of kooks like Conyers) want is to get Cheney under oath That would be reasonable first step. It's long overdue,don't you think? - it's kind of interesting how this adminsitration has managed to avoid swearing to tell the truth to oversight committees, even after getting caught in lies and contradictions.

And where would anyone get the idea that John Conyers, of all people (who is not at all eager to impeach Cheney, btw - see the quote above) is a "kook" ? Compared with somebody like Cheney or Romney, he's middle-road sanity personified.

Conyers is an idiot. If I have to elaborate on that, then it won't be worth the time it would take me to cite stories and type an argument. In other words, I'm not wasting the time. You like him. You like Kucinich. You're welcome to them. Their share many of your kooky ideas and viewpoints, so you attraction to them is understandable.

That would be reasonable first step. It's long overdue,don't you think? - it's kind of interesting how this adminsitration has managed to avoid swearing to tell the truth to oversight committees, even after getting caught in lies and contradictions.

That's not the first step. As I've said many times, proof worthy of an indictment or an impeachment is the first step. Or do you think it's legitimate to just randomly put the executive branch under subpoena and oath, so people like yourself can take pot shots at them and try to prove their theories and allegations? That sounds like something that happens in police state. Thank god you don't work at the Justice Department.

You get points for honesty, though. You all but admitted all you want is them under oath, so you're true motivation is out there for all to see...

No, they wouldn't. They aren't. And they say they aren't going to, for partisan political reasons with an election coming up.

That would be reasonable first step. It's long overdue,don't you think? - it's kind of interesting how this adminsitration has managed to avoid swearing to tell the truth to oversight committees, even after getting caught in lies and contradictions.

And where would anyone get the idea that John Conyers, of all people (who is not at all eager to impeach Cheney, btw - see the quote above) is a "kook" ? Compared with somebody like Cheney or Romney, he's middle-road sanity personified.

Again if the Democrats legal team said they had something to impeach the Vice President, the Impeachment Bill would already be passed by Congress, and the Impeachment Trial would be happening in the Senate.

The Democrats would love to have this as a feather in their Campaign for next year, it would solidify their standing with the far left, as it stands right now the Move On.Org people are disgusted with the Democrats who have delivered on nothing that was promised in the last election, they haven't tried to Impeach President Bush, they haven't tried to Impeach Vice President Cheney, they haven't forced a pull out of the troops from Iraq, they haven't cut the funds for the war in Iraq, and now they are running from a fight over the impeachment resolution by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, hell they have been out maneuvered by the President and the Republicans for the last two years, and haven't accomplished a thing in the Democratic agenda.

You like him. You like Kucinich. You're welcome to them. Their share many of your kooky ideas and viewpoints, so you attraction to them is understandable. Wrong as usual, when ranting on that pet subject.

That's not the first step. As I've said many times, proof worthy of an indictment or an impeachment is the first step. Getting Cheney under oath would be a reasonable first step toward acquiring that proof, if there is any. It's already not the first step - so it's long overdue, then, in such obviously dubious and apparently incriminating circumstances.
You get points for honesty, though. You all but admitted all you want is them under oath, so you're true motivation is out there for all to see... ? ? I've been saying for years that it's long past time to put Cheney under oath, in investigating half a dozen matters. I think the failure to do that is a severe mark against the credibility and apparent integrity of the Congressional oversight committees. What false motivation did you have in mind ?

Again if the Democrats legal team said they had something to impeach the Vice President, the Impeachment Bill would already be passed by Congress, and the Impeachment Trial would be happening in the Senate. There is no evidence of that, and plenty against it. Why do you insist on something that appears to be contradicted by every fact and circumstance and event in front of you ?

There is no evidence of that, and plenty against it. Why do you insist on something that appears to be contradicted by every fact and circumstance and event in front of you ?

Why do you ignore the evidence? if the Democrats had anything that would stand up in a impeachment hearing and a trial they would already be holding them, instead the Democrats are backing water and trying to bury the Privilege Resolution by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, they are running from it as fast as they can.

As a fact their legal team is telling them that they have nothing, and their central committee is telling them this is not a winning election issue.

this is not a winning election issue...

That's the only reason.

this is not a winning election issue...

That's the only reason.

exactly

Why do you ignore the evidence? You have presented no evidence for me to ignore. There is no evidence or argument visible for your repeated assertions that the Dems would jump on impeachment if it were possible.

If you have any, lets see it.

And your evidence is nothing more than allegations you want tested under oath. McCarthy did the same thing. So did Stalin.

You have presented no evidence for me to ignore. There is no evidence or argument visible for your repeated assertions that the Dems would jump on impeachment if it were possible.

If you have any, lets see it.

The lack of action is evidence in it's self, the fact that the Democrats are trying to bury the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, is evidence of the fact that they know they have nothing to stand up for indictment to impeachment, both parties have lawyers that advise them as to the legality of any action they take, and since there is no action on Impeachment, and the democrats are running from the privileged resolution, it would seem logical that the Legal Advisors to the Democratic Party have told them that they have nothing that would pass muster, and the central committee knows it's a losing campaign issue.

I think a big part of it is that Republicans will vote along party lines, no matter what the charges.

I think a big part of it is that Republicans will vote along party lines, no matter what the charges.

The same as the Democrats?

No.

That's right. Democrats aren't partisan. And they never vote along party lines. They vote for what they believe in. The vote for things like the war. Right, Spider?

The lack of action is evidence in it's self,
- -
and since there is no action on Impeachment, and the democrats are running from the privileged resolution, it would seem logical that the Legal Advisors to the Democratic Party have told them that they have nothing that would pass muster, That's not logic, that's assumption without evidence. The lack of action by some - not all - Democrats has many other explanations and is evidence of other things entirely, many of which have been given explicitly by the parties involved, none of which involve mindreading by you.

That's right. Democrats aren't partisan. And they never vote along party lines. They vote for what they believe in. The vote for things like the war. Right, Spider? Some do, some don't, some do part of the time.

Quite a few did vote their beliefs, with the Iraq war powers bill - did any Republicans ? Which Republicans would you depend on to vote for impeachment if presented with even clearer evidence of wrongdoing than we already have ?
And your evidence is nothing more than allegations you want tested under oath. No. It is dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances that should have been explained under oath years ago.

There is a great deal of difference between an event, or a combination of circumstances, and an allegation. It is not an allegation that Cheney has refused to submit records of meetings in which he did official business, denying Congressional oversight even the names of the attendees. It is not an allegation that Cheney's office was involved in much of the compilation of evidence for Iraqi wmds, and its preparation for delivery to Congress, evidence later determined to be false, much of it apparently rigged.

And so forth.

That's not logic, that's assumption without evidence. The lack of action by some - not all - Democrats has many other explanations and is evidence of other things entirely, many of which have been given explicitly by the parties involved, none of which involve mindreading by you.
.

Just how dumb are you, it is very logical to make a hypothesis on things that don't happen when stimuli is applied, and the stimuli was applied by the introduction of the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, and the lack of action to the stimuli by the Leadership of Democratic shows that they don't have any thing to stand up for a impeachment charge, again if they did there would be a impeachment hearing today.

There is one other reason that they just might not want the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, to go forward, and that is that they supported all of the actions that lead to the war, they passed a Authorization for the use of Military Force, a authorization for the President to go to war, remember the Democrats insisted that it be brought up before Congress and that Congress needed to authorize the actions of the President, which they did, so they played a major part in the authorization to go to war.

There were no actions that led to war, it was decided to go to war all along no matter what.

I was looking at the Presidential Order of Succession in the context of what would happen if there was an impeachment and removal from office of both Bush and Cheney. The next person in line is President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd.

The immediately obvious problem with this is that in the case of impeachment Byrd would clearly play a leading role in the proceedings. To me this introduces an unacceptable conflict of interest. There are also a host of constitutional questions about whether a member of the legislative branch can succeed a member of the executive.

One way around all of this would be for Condoleeza Rice to succeed to the presidency in the case of a dual impeachment and removal.

Regardless of how I or anyone else might feel about Rice, it would be quite something for both Senators Clinton and Obama to be preempted as the first female and black president.

It is dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances that should have been explained under oath years ago.

What you fail to recognize is that people cannot and should not be expected to testify about "dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances." In fact, in criminal cases, they aren't required to testify at all. So what's your point?

There is a great deal of difference between an event, or a combination of circumstances, and an allegation.

And people should have to answer every allegation under oath? That's ludicrous and unconstitutional.

It is not an allegation that Cheney has refused to submit records of meetings in which he did official business, denying Congressional oversight even the names of the attendees. It is not an allegation that Cheney's office was involved in much of the compilation of evidence for Iraqi wmds, and its preparation for delivery to Congress, evidence later determined to be false, much of it apparently rigged.

And is any of the above illegal?

Let's remember you said: "Getting Cheney under oath would be a reasonable first step toward acquiring that proof..." In other words, you want to question the man to get information to build a case agains the man. That's dispicable, and probably illegal. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I tend to think one has to have some sort of proof before someone can charge a person and put them under oath.

I was looking at the Presidential Order of Succession in the context of what would happen if there was an impeachment and removal from office of both Bush and Cheney. The next person in line is President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd.

The immediately obvious problem with this is that in the case of impeachment Byrd would clearly play a leading role in the proceedings. To me this introduces an unacceptable conflict of interest. There are also a host of constitutional questions about whether a member of the legislative branch can succeed a member of the executive.

One way around all of this would be for Condoleeza Rice to succeed to the presidency in the case of a dual impeachment and removal.

Regardless of how I or anyone else might feel about Rice, it would be quite something for both Senators Clinton and Obama to be preempted as the first female and black president.

You are incorrect, it would first go to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

What you fail to recognize is that people cannot and should not be expected to testify about "dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances." In fact, in criminal cases, they aren't required to testify at all. So what's your point?



And people should have to answer every allegation under oath? That's ludicrous and unconstitutional.



And is any of the above illegal?

Let's remember you said: "Getting Cheney under oath would be a reasonable first step toward acquiring that proof..." In other words, you want to question the man to get information to build a case agains the man. That's dispicable, and probably illegal. I'm certainly no lawyer, but I tend to think one has to have some sort of proof before someone can charge a person and put them under oath.


They may take the fifth, provided they are doing so because their answer might incriminate themselves, or because they are afraid they will be prosecuted wrongly. However, they must answer if that answer will incriminate not themself, but another. In other words, Bush may not take the fifth if the answer to a question incriminates Cheney, and visa versa.

Also, impeachment is not, strictly speaking, a criminal case.

Per my understanding, it is. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," so what else could it be, if it's not criminal?

Per my understanding, it is. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," so what else could it be, if it's not criminal?

According to the wiki on impeachment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment), spidergoat is correct in his statements that the impeachment is valid:

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the House rules, states that impeachment is set in motion by: charges made on the floor; charges preferred by a memorial; a Member's resolution referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

As you can see, an investigation and facts aren't a prerequisite.

Per my understanding, it is. Impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors," so what else could it be, if it's not criminal?

There's no penalty, just removal from office, although there could be a criminal trial at a later time.

Right, but if it's for high crimes and misdemeanors, you can't very well argue it's a civil procedure. And even if it is a procedure, a person still has a right to the 5th amendment, I believe. The only difference is that a negative inference can be drawn from refusing to answer a question in a civil trial. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone who knows should chime in.

Regardless, I think we've all stated our cases in this thread, and frankly I'm bored haggling about the particulars of a fantasy fresh from the fringe. But if you and Ice want to sit about and bemoan Cheney and salivate over a trial that will never happen, go right ahead...

What you fail to recognize is that people cannot and should not be expected to testify about "dubious and possibly incriminating events and circumstances." On the contrary, I not only expect public officials to deliver sworn testimony regarding the performance of their duties to House oversight committees, I regard the failure of the House to require such testimony from Cheney (and Gonzalez, et al) to be negligent and cowardly.

When Arlen Specter, back in '06, granted Gonzalez the privilege of not providing testimony under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, he was granting a favor - not recognising some kind of right of public officials to withhold information about their official doings from House oversight committees.

True, it's a favor often granted the upper levels of the executive branch, but in such apparently incriminating circumstances it amounts to collusion in a coverup.

Of course Cheney may, as most (formerly all) citizens may, refuse to answer questions under oath on grounds that he may incriminate himself. ( Anyone except a suspect terrorist or possible terrorist sympathizer may take the Fifth, without being waterboarded). That would be an interesting event, and depending on which questions he refuses to answer would possibly be failure to fulfill the duties of his office as required by law - grounds for impeachment in itself.

How this cabal managed to sell the American media in general on the idea that their job performance was not subject to review by Congress and the public without all the machinery of criminal trial is one of the mysteries of our apparently deteriorating Republic.

How this cabal managed to sell the American media in general on the idea that their job performance was not subject to review by Congress and the public without all the machinery of criminal trial is one of the mysteries of our apparently deteriorating Republic.

Where does it say that the Congress is supposed to concern itself with the job performance of the executive branch?

Where does it say that the Congress is supposed to concern itself with the job performance of the executive branch? I'm just going to quote that one.

No comment.

Scoff all you like, but it was a legitimate question. I understand Congress is the check on executives and that it has oversight duties, in that it can form committees and impeach the executives for high crimes and misdemeanors, but job performance? You make it sound as though the president etc. should appear under the dome periodically for an annual review or something.

You make it sound as though the president etc. should appear under the dome periodically for an annual review or something. It's often called the State of the Union address. It's required by law.

Yeah, I think I have heard of it. But I would hardly call that an annual review of the sort I have at work.

Where does it say that the Congress is supposed to concern itself with the job performance of the executive branch?

Congress has no over sight as to rating the job performance of the President, the over sight goes both ways, that is what the separation of powers is all about, that any one branch can by (Executive) Veto, Legislative, (Veto Over Ride, Comity, and investigation), Judaical, (Constitutional Review) bring each other to question for their actions.

In the U.S. system there is no such thing as a vote of no confidence, that occurs when the election take place.

The Impeachment is for cases of legal misconduct, (High Crimes and Misdemeanors) but those are only spelled out in a limited manner, and require the co-operation of both parties to achieve, so that it can't be used as a witch hunt, or star court for political purpose, and Perjury in front of a Federal Judge, during a deposition is a Impeachable offence, especially when it is over personal misconduct.

It's often called the State of the Union address. It's required by law.

But the President isn't required to make the State of the Union in Public, and it is the President who is stating how he rates the way Congress is running the country and lays out his agenda for the next year.

republicans vote for bill to impeach cheney hell they voted for to a 2:1 margin roughly than the dems 66 democrats and 156 republicans voted not to kill the bill so repubs want to impeach cheney there is a god

It's about time someone did the right thing!

The current story being floated out there is they did it to embarrass the Dems and use the issue as a political bullet, not because they really want to impeach Cheney.

I think that was established pages ago...

I think that was established pages ago...

Sorry, I should have been clearer. My post was directed to USS Exeter who seems to think the Republicans actually do want to impeach Cheney.

This thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73543) would have been a more appropriate place to do so, but since it's locked, I'll post this update here:

At WexlerWantsHearings.com (http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/), you can watch Congressman Wexler present the petition that I (and I expect others here) have supported with our names.

As for the clock running out, that’s precisely why it’s urgent — not to unseat anyone, which they won’t, but to get the facts on record... not all impeachments are frivolous or nakedly partisan... there are limits to executive power in a democracy. That's a principle worth fighting for. (http://www.forward.com/articles/12342/)

Yawn...

Go back to sleep. Your respect for democracy amounts to nothing.