Impeachment Time

It is interesting to read some of the democratic opposition to impeaching VP Dick Cheney. It's said there isn't time; it's a waste of time; or that trying to uphold the Constitution will somehow "backfire" on us, as if the conservative and moderate democrats in congress have done anything to stop the war in Iraq or prevent the administration's assault on the Constitution. I think that this quote from Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail expresses how many of the progressive democratic grass roots activists feel about it:

"All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy ….

"….Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action works to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension ….This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. ….Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create (that) kind of tension ….

"….Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. …. I had hoped that the …moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress….. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out into the open so it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Letter from Birmingham City Jail; Martin Luther King, Jr.; April 16, 1963

are unAmerican!

K & R

impeach!!

investment of elected officials' time and energy than upholding the oath of office they took on the day they were supposed to stop being "mere politicians" and became members of congress.

I couldn't agree more.

rather than at the wellspring itself.

They're in a position in government to exercise power at a meta level, but they feel that having their subordinates right down the line put Humpty Dumpty together again, piecemeal, is more fun than preventing his falling.

Thank you for the link!

That's honestly how I feel. If we do not CHECK this unparalleled grab for power, there will never be a restoration of the BALANCE between the co-equal branches of government. Ever.

Likewise, we will be relinquishing our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and limping towards a fascist state. The time to impeach is now.

Because the likelyhood of removal (on these charges) as less than slim and nil. I don't oppose Impeachment, but unless you plan to "WIN AND REMOVE HIS ASS" it's just grandstanding. And in this case, the arguement simply isn't strong enough to win yet. (Yes, I know that seems odd, but unfortunately the House and Senate voted to support what Cheney actually did and send us into War - so we need another issue that doesn't tar them all with the same brush that we'd use on him) I say - since the Plame/Libby case is in the dumpster - let's follow the inherent contempt of congress case right up the food chain from Gonzales into the White House and get all of them for Violating the Voting Rights Act, the Hatch Act, not to mention knowingly violating FISA, Torture and War Crimes.

If we're going to Impeach, we need to do it right - we need to do it to Win, not make a vainglorious effort and ultimately lose in the Senate.

Impeach to Win.
Remove.
Prosecute.
Rinse and Repeat.

Vyan

in perception:

#1: The purposeful lying to the Congress and the public is, in fact, against the law. It is an error in perception to assume that because Congress was lied to, that they somehow share in the responsibility for Cheney's purposefully telling of lies to them.

#2: The Plame case involves abuses of power directly related to the lies that led our nation to war. The House Judiciary Committee has the ability to access the information from the FBI/grand jury investigation that is specific to Cheney. Thus, the case is not in any dumpster.

is not against the law, neither is simply being horrifically wrong.

It's annoying, but not illegal. Fraud is illegal, but that takes a bit more than a simple lie - you have to *know* what you're saying isn't the truth and unfortunately that's difficult to prove with someone as freaking DELUDED as Cheney. He actually believes is own claptrap, so he's not really a "liar"; he's a sociopath.

Again, that's not illegal either.

Lying to Congress is illegal, however the information Congress was given via the NIE was true, it's just that the really important parts were either classifed (the State Dept dissension on the validity of the Niger documents - the Energy Dept dissension on the use of the Aluminum Tubes) or ommited (the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency had been advised that statements by "Curveball" and Ibn Sheik al-Libi about Mobile Chemical Labs couldn't be trusted).

On point two, yes I agree Plame was an abuse of power but I don't agree that the House committee has access to the Grand Jury investigation data. That information is priviledged and protected by law and can not be shared with any other investigative body. You may be thinking it can be shared simply because Ken Starr did exactly that with the Bill Clinton Grand Jury testimony, but that was because he was operating under a Special Prosecutor statute that has since expired. Unless Libby gives us direct indication that Cheney was cognitively aware that Plame's status was covert prior to sending him out on his little smear campaign - we have nothing, and since Libby's sentence has been commuted, we're going to get nothing.

The old cases, Iraq and Plame are losers, we've been outmaneuvered on them both. We need to address a new issue where all the tracks haven't yet been covered up.

Vyan

You might want to take a little time to learn more about what the law is .... because either you don't have a clue, or you are purposely saying something that isn't true. And that is, by no coincidence, what constitutes fraud. For an accurate source of information, for anyone who is interested, read Elizabeth de la Vega's "US v Bush." She is a retired federal prosecutor, and her book shows that your claims are -- at very best -- utter nonsense.

why don't you be specific.

Which law states that a public official is required at all times to tell the public the truth?

(Arlen Specter was fond of citing "False Official Statements" in regards to Alberto Gonzales, but unfortunately all I've found related to that is a military reg under the UCMJ, which applies to Officers in Uniform but not to Civilians)

Which statements by Cheney or any of his supporters has ever given the impression that he personally *believed* that any of his claims about Iraq were wrong?

(To this very DAY, Cheney continues to claim there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Yes, that's clearly wrong - but does he know that or does he simply refuse to believe the truth?)

Now, could an effective prosecutorial case be brought against Bush and Cheney on any number of issues? Yes. Would it Win either in court or before the Senate? I don't think so?

Why should I? In light of your having no respect for the truth -- with shit like "Which law states that a public official is required ...." -- why would I waste the time?

Because you made the accusation in the first place, and that requires you IMO to back it up.
I'm not the one claiming to know everything in the world, you are. And sorry, I'm not doing your research for you I've got plenty of homework of my own already.

I asked a fairly simple question and even gave an example of why I felt there really isn't a law that applies in this case (Cheney lying to the public). Answer the question and you prove me wrong. Easy right? But if you chose not to answer - it's fair to assume you can't isn't it?

It's not like I haven't written extensively in favor of Impeachment - which I have here, here, here, here. here and here.

However as time has passed and the facts have shifted, particularly the passage of the MCA which foreclosed some of the best impeachment options, I've looked at this in a manner far more in line with both John Dean (who argues that lesser figures such as Gonzales should be Impeached before Cheney) and John Conyers who favors full and thorough investigations to get at the facts *BEFORE* we put forth articles of Impeachment.

Right now I feel we shouldn't RUSH INTO IT - if we want to do it right. It took almost two years from initial Watergate Break-in, and one year after John Dean's testimony to Nixon's eventual resignation. There's a right way to do this and a wrong way. The Republicans did it the wrong way against Clinton and ultimately strengthened his Presidency, I would prefer if we didn't let our anger and passion (and believe me I'm pretty well pissed about all this) lead us down the same path that they went down in 1998. The last thing we need to do is what the Republicans did to Clinton and make Bush even stronger than he already is by trying to Impeach him and failing.

You may disagree, and that's fine - but calling me names isn't going to change my feelings or the facts.

Vyan

Or read John Nichol's book on impeachment. Or the 3-part essay I posted last week, that listed the specific laws that VP Cheney could be charged with violating, as well as the abuse of power issue related to Plame.

Regarding the idea that I need you to do "homework" for you, I think you are confused. And if you want to assume I am incapable of answering your question, you would have to believe that the book by a retired federal prosecutor doesn't exist -- but it does. The opinion that you have expressed is simply wrong. If you are interested in learning more, you have the option of reading de la Vega's book, which I recommend. But that's your responsibility, not mine. There are a number of anti-impeachment folks on this forum, who raise the same incorrect "opinions," misinformation, and nonsense on the impeachment threads, and I have no interest in debating the same foolishness week after week.

John Dean and others, and what they say makes a ton of sense to me.

Regarding the idea that I need you to do "homework" for you, I think you are confused. And if you want to assume I am incapable of answering your question, you would have to believe that the book by a retired federal prosecutor doesn't exist -- but it does.

I never said it didn't exist. You said my claims are wrong, but you provided no specifics, no examples, no geniune argument - just ridicule. I've provided numerous links to detailed specifics on what I'm saying.

Besides your snide attitude, my reluctance is also financial - I'm self employed and don't have disposable cash to go running out and buying every book mentioned by someone who clearly already has a copy but won't bother backing up their claims with even a single quote which would otherwise quickly clear this discussion up.

The opinion that you have expressed is simply wrong.

Which one, that there isn't law against being wrong? Or lying to the public? Or was it that Congress can somehow breach Grand Jury Secrecy Rules?

If you are interested in learning more, you have the option of reading de la Vega's book, which I recommend.

Which is in my case, is much like saying I have the "option" of having this 2-inch lump on my leg removed anytime I like - except that I don't have health insurance so it's no option at all. Thanks.

But that's your responsibility, not mine. There are a number of anti-impeachment folks on this forum, who raise the same incorrect "opinions," misinformation, and nonsense on the impeachment threads, and I have no interest in debating the same foolishness week after week.

Apparently not, in which case why should anyone have any interest in your - rather rudely presented - assertions? Sorry but insulting people is not persuasive, and that's really a shame since I've been on the Pro-Impeachment Bandwagon for far longer than most and this stridency is more likely to drive supporters away than help convince the reluctant.

Vyan

As I recall it, I think he thought the rest was up to higher officials on the Plame case --- ???

And, while I don't believe that Congress should be unaccountable for their acceptance of the unlikely tales that Cheney was weaving -- I agree that it was administrative policy to lie in order to move to illegal wars of aggression.

sent Mr. Fitzgerald a letter, requesting that he provide congress with information from his investigation, he responded that there are two areas: first, the information that was already made public in the Libby trial, which congress has access to; and second, the information not made public -- which includes the investigation of people other than Libby, including Cheney -- which Mr. Fitzgerald does not have the legal authority to release. Congress has requested the DoJ release the information, and they refuse.

To get the complete FBI/grand jury investigation results, congress has one sure option: initiate impeachment, and a federal court will follow the well-established case law, and order the DoJ to turn the information over to congress.

Keep in mind that article #2 of the Nixon impeachment (never completed, due to his resignation) was based fully on his abusing the power of his office. This is exactly what Mr. Fitzgerald was speaking of when he said that there is a cloud over the office of the vice president, and asking if the public was not entitled to the truth?

This is where we should be . .

QUOTE:
To get the complete FBI/grand jury investigation results, congress has one sure option: initiate impeachment, and a federal court will follow the well-established case law, and order the DoJ to turn the information over to congress.

the "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow. It includes Mr. Fitzgerald's June 2004 interviews with both Bush and Cheney. It contains documentation of Cheney's role in the response to Wilson, and though it may not have been enough for a criminal charge by Patrick, it is enough for a charge of abuse of power in the civil trial of impeachment.

but I still don't see how an impeachment inquiry itself trumps Grand Jury secrecy rules. Maybe I'm uninformed on this issue, I grant - but the dots don't connect IMO. AFAIK an Impeachment inquiry would trump Executive Priviledge claims which the Bush Administration has been using at every oppurtunity to help "sprint to the finish line" but not with Grand Jury investigations. There may be a technical loophole since Bush and Cheney themselves didn't appear before the Grand Jury and were instead only interviewed by Fitz and the FBI - is that what you mean?

Please explain?

Vyan

There are various types of law in the US. One type is "case law," in which the court rules, based upon previous court rulings. If, for example, you read through the pre-trial and trial documents in the Plame case, there are numerous references to previous cases. Some of the cases are quite famous, and have to do with things such as the responsibility of the prosecutor to turn over specific types of files from their investigation to defense attorneys. There is a famous case from Maryland that sets the "Brady" standard, and it holds true for cases from the Hurricane Carter to the Scooter Libby trials.

The grand jury proceedings in all cases are, of course, secret. Getting such things unsealed is rare. But there are cases where it has happened. In the case of a federal grand jury, only a federal judge, under limited circumstances, can open the files when certain standards are meet.

Cases of impeachment have been relatively few, yet there are some clear laws from the processes involved. This includes the investigations of the crimes and abuses of power of the Nixon administration, which included efforts by the administration to deny congress access to evidence.

In impeachment, including a House Judiciary Committee's investigating possible crimes and abuses of power, the congress has the ability to go to the federal courts and request the grand jury investigation's evidence for specific purposes -- in this case, that which relates to VP Cheney, including his interview with Mr. Fitzgerald, Bush's interview with Mr. Fitzgerald (which has information regarding Cheney's instructing Libby to release parts of the NIE to Miller), and the testimony of any/all others, both to the FBI and grand jury, regarding Cheney's role in the Plame scandal.

Patrick Fitzgerald did not indict Cheney on criminal charges, but he was clear that there was a cloud over the vice president. In impeachment proceedings, the House serves as a civil grand jury, and an impeachment is literally a civil indictment to be tried in the Senate. And the case law on federal grand jury evidence, along with the case law regarding congress's authority in impeachment hearings, gives congress the ability to access the FBI/grand jury records that the Justice Department is currently denying them. This is a topic which I have discussed at length with the staff of a couple democratic representatives in the House, including citing the specific case law that applies.

(It's important to read the Article 2 that was facing Nixon when he resigned; it was about abusing the power of office to punish political enemies -- which is what Cheney did when Libby and he ran the operation against Joseph Wilson.)

1) That the relevant Grand Jury Judge would grant the Congressional Request - which from what you're saying they may or they may not. Which would depend on...

2) Some indication that probative information was revealed in these interviews.

The best we could hope for is the following...

The portion of the LIbby Case which points specifically to Cheney is the fact that Libby first learned about Plame's CIA employement from Cheney himself according to the trial transcripts. Libby was prosecuted based on his attempts to hide this fact by the FBI and Grand Jury. Did Cheney also attempt a similar dodge during his interview?

Another factor which is rarely discussed is the limitations of the IIPA which Libby, Rove, Armatage and Fleischer escaped through. Technically the person revealing the identity of an undercover agents has to be fully aware that this person is covert, and has to reveal it specifically for the purpose of aiding a foreign entity to be in violation of the law. It's not as people such as Victoria Tensing suggests that Plame "wasn't Covert" or "hadn't been overseas in the last two yeas" - she had been - it's that there wasn't any evidence presented at trial that Libby, Rove, Armatage and Fleischer specifically KNEW she was covert. It could be argued that the violated rules for handling classifed information (since the INR memo which mentioned her was classifed), but it's also clear that Bush granted Cheney the power to selectively declassify information near the start of the Iraq War under this Executive Order, and that some of that information, particularly from the NIE, was indeed unilaterally declassfied for political purposes just prior to Libby speaking with Judith Miller.

Libby's question to David Addington indicates that he may have suspected her status, but may have deliberately kept himself in the dark to avoid possible IIPA violations if she was. Unfortunately it doesn't prove that he knowingly violated IIPA. Most of the transcripts indicate he wasn't told of her covert status.

For example the CIA's head of Iraq issues told Libby about Plame, but didn't know her status and didn't pass that fact on to him. He suspected it after the fact and felt remoseful for divulging the information, but he didn't have confirmation. And he didn't bother to check! Ari Fleischer didn't know when he mentioned Plame to reporters such as David Gregory, but when he found out the truth he freaked and called the FBI himself.

The one unanswered question is how did Cheney know about Plame and how much did he know when he told Libby about her?

If he knew she was covert, and shared only part of that information with Libby without also giving him an indication of her status - THEN you've got something. That violates standard classified information protocols and the national security non-disclosure letter that anyone with a security clearance is required to sign (As I myself did in 1982 when I gained a Secret/SAR clearance while working for a Defense Contrator).

It would also satisfy a key portion of the IIPA.

The other portion is the requirement that the leak has to be done to help a foreign power, and the primary indication in this case is that the leak was done for domestic political purposes which sadly, aren't prohibited by the IIPA. (This is coincidently part of why the Plame suit has been stalled by a neo-con stooge Judge who has argued that essentially that "this was just politics" - and is pending appeal)

Any indication that Cheney knowingly violated the IIPA would be a great catch, but I still think it's pretty unlikely he revealed this to Fitz or the FBI. The "Cloud" is Fitz suspicious that this is exactly what happened, but IMO if he didn't get it in the interview - Congress won't find it there either.

Vyan

P.S. I already know what Case Law is, you could have just cited an example which trumped GJ secrecy. Thanks anyway.

History will harshly judge the Dems who do not back impeachment of Cheney.

the constitution and allowing immoral wars.

Another well written piece H2O man!

There is always time to do the right thing for time is itself is indeed neutral and impeachment requires direct action in use of that time.

Great quote and wisdom from a great leader.
Thanks

important time for us to stay focused on what is important. The other side will attempt to distract and discourage us. Martin provides the answer to those attempts, and helps us to keep our eyes on the prize.

As if there's going to be a fair and honest one next year anyway.

from: Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King
4 April 1967



"We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." "

Thanks. Words to live by.

I believe there are natural laws that resist us. Social laws. Against gravity, and entropy, we fall and dissolve into the soil. Where Martin King uses the word tension, I believe there is a potential pressure which must be created in order to enact productivity. As an example, I see how the founders built a house. One that we continuously remodel and rebuild, as it is attacked by the elements. It only takes a match to burn it down. But it takes great effort, skill, and time to produce and maintain. There is good, but what we fight is that which is bad. The fire, gravity, entropy. The playing field is always tilted. And that is why it is so noble to produce that which is good. It transcends the forces of decay and evil.

And it is just what you say, that we find ourselves fighting to protect our efforts. The house that was built for everyone to live in. The noble and selfless and unselfish fight. The extra work that burdens us from those who would be selfish. And there is no guarantee that we will produce anything today. But unless we work at it, we never will. It's a dream that won't die. The dream has no resistance. And from it, a reality will come.

As usual H2O Man, you hit the nail on the head. Our first obligation is to get our house in order, then we can attack other issues with the right principles and perspectives!

Recommended.

like the present.

I've stopped listening. I don't know precisely what ails them, nor do I care. They are a disgrace in Congress, most of them.

As to Dennis Kucinich, I was embarrassed for so many people today. All the cool kids who were making fun of him. Don't know a real man or Congressman when they see one. Perhaps that's the problem.

Dennis did a very fine thing today. In the future - that other time, lol -- the "cool kids" will be judged by their response to his effort.

A great motto to live by and govern.

I'm sending this to my congressperson tomorrow.

It might be good for them to think about Martin's message when they consider their next move.

History will not be kind to the enablers of BushCo, the ones who stood by and said and did nothing.

and :kick: :kick: :kick:

"It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills."

I wonder. Are those Dems who are against impeachment against it because they believe tha the flow of time will resolve our
Constitutional crisis?

Or is it because of political calculations that cause them to become paralyzed at the thought that impeachment could impair their political chances for 2008?

Or are those just two different ways of saying very much the same thing?

Like Conyers saying he has the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other.

Here's what's confusing about so called political calculations. The American people have indicated, again and again, in the polls that they are very unhappy with Congress. The dems won majorities because the American people were fed up with corruption and Iraq. *'s poll numbers drop every week and Cheney is at 9% approval. So just what are they calculating? How many cocktail parties for enablers they won't be invited to? Perhaps what they need isn't a calculator as much as a better PR company, one who knows how to fight republicon bs and spin, cause the dems aren't very good at that either.

but those political calculations can be easily disturbed by the actions of republicans, as we saw briefly in the fiasco that followed Kucinich's motion. It will be very interesting to see what transpires as Hillary Clinton moves closer to becoming president.

That's exactly what it is- a boil. Those words can most definitely be applied today. We need healing and only through exposure can it be done.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/


Colbert "Did you shrink that constitution down your self?" Kucinich " No, No, No George Bush already did that!"



In Twenty years of military service I never violated my oath to defend the US. The criminals in the White House have never upheld thier oaths period from day one they have been out to do nothinig but lie steal and cheat for their own good and the good of the corporations that put them there.

Impeach Indict and Convict then lockup and throw away the key!

I think that when they take that oath of office, they are supposed to stop being mere politicians, and to respect the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Oh, that we as a people could individually and collectively mature to the level of this letter.

Dr. King was a poetic visionary. I think that Dennis Kucnich is a philosophical and pragmatic brother to Martin. May he be heard by all the people.

It's important that we help the younger folk understand that Martin was often mistreated by his allies, especially when he began to connect the civil rights movement with the anti-war movement. People said cruel things about him, much like we hear and read being said about Dennis Kucinich today. It takes a brave human being to tell the truth, knowing that not just their opponents would be attacking them.

Although I know it's not a particularly popular view, I maintain my position that, technically speaking at least, Cheney and his buddies are not actually human... yes, there is SOME human DNA in the mix, but it's been tampered with; it's just not right...


Deep in his undisclosed lair, the
Hideous Octocheney watches and waits...

T-shirts, mugs, buttons n' cards with this very lovely and crowd-pleasing image, and other similar suchlike (somewhat) at http://cafepress.com/laughcity">Laugh City

http://steponnopets.com/peo">President Evil Online has risen from the grave!

The Constitution

We've had nearly seven years of destructive action.

Democrats, for all their strengths seem to lack understanding of symbols. A strong call for accountability here would not add to our "do nothing" reputation like our leaders say but instead send the message we are willing to hold the guilty responsible, hold their actions up for discovery and get to work fixing the damage.

They are not willing to take a chance and their pragmatism is really just a way of masking their fear.

:thumbsup:

is that the offices that we have targeted on DU in the past week have been getting a lot of phone calls ans e-mails, and they do understand that there is a power at the greass roots level.

We are in a tough struggle in the USA. It's not as terrible as in Iraq or many other places. But it is a strange struggle, against an impersonal machine. The machine can't listen, or read, but we are reaching some people. The effort we are putting in is a good investment.

CHENEY FIRST.

heal all wounds it can be the vehicle that leads to forgetfulness (stagnation). Thanks for posting. K&R

Are they BushcOfascists, or American partiots?