0
   

Impeachment against Cheney?

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 09:57 am
Since the definition of graft has been changed to political contributions by the supreme court it would be difficult.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 11:15 am
rabel22 wrote:
Since the definition of graft has been changed to political contributions by the supreme court it would be difficult.

So, do you have any actual evidence (not guesswork or mere adjectives) of any crimes whatever by the VP?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 07:26 pm
Are you denying that the only reason there isn't is because the supreme court changed the definition of graft to political contributions.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 07:30 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Are you denying that the only reason there isn't is because the supreme court changed the definition of graft to political contributions.

According to liberals, he's supposed to be a one man crime wave, so even ignoring the graft issue, you should have countless tangible examples of his misdeeds. How about giving one?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 08:03 pm
The war on and occupation of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 08:10 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The war on and occupation of Iraq.

In what way is that a crime, that is a violation of some law? Which law? News flash - every policy you don't agree with isn't automatically a crime.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 10:00 pm
Cheney blocked official's promotion

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a Justice Department official involved in a bedside standoff over President Bush's eavesdropping program, a Senate committee learned Wednesday.

In a written account, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey said Cheney warned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he would oppose the promotion of a department official who once threatened to resign over the program.

Gonzales eventually decided against trying to promote Patrick Philbin to principal deputy solicitor general, Comey said.

"I understood that someone at the White House communicated to Attorney General Gonzales that the vice president would oppose the appointment if the attorney general pursued the matter," Comey wrote. "The attorney general chose not to pursue it."


Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

Quote:
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby was convicted in March of perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald filed a memo on Friday asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who will sentence Libby next week, to put him in prison for at least two and a half years.

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)

Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .

"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."

To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president


Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Quote:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.


Cheney has been the power behind the throne since the beginning, to me it makes perfect sense to after Cheney rather than Bush. I hope they do it. But I doubt anyone actually does, it would take a lot of courage to go after Cheney and if anyone does, they better be prepared to be vilified and perhaps even defeated. But at least it would get it all out there for everyone to see.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 04:09 am
revel wrote:
Cheney blocked official's promotion

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a Justice Department official involved in a bedside standoff over ...


Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

Quote:
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame...


Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Quote:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress...

Of these three things, even if they were true, only the one related to Valerie Plame would be a crime. If it's true, he should be indicted in a court of law. Since he hasn't been, I assume it's just more rumor mongering.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:05 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
Cheney blocked official's promotion

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a Justice Department official involved in a bedside standoff over ...


Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

Quote:
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame...


Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Quote:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress...

Of these three things, even if they were true, only the one related to Valerie Plame would be a crime. If it's true, he should be indicted in a court of law. Since he hasn't been, I assume it's just more rumor mongering.


There is enough evidence to impeach Cheney and possibly kick him out of office even if there is still just a cloud of evidence in a court of law.

That's good enough for me. He deserves to be impeached. He is the one behind every single misdeed in the white house. I hope Waxman sticks to his guns and really puts the screws on him regardless of the fallout from it and even if it cost the democrats the Whitehouse. You may call it rumor mongering or what have you but Mr. Cheney is responsible for turning this country into a country that is unrecognizable and he should pay for it so that others will know when they get up there in a position to be in charge that they can't just do anything they want. We are not a monarchy despite Mr. Cheney's wishes and thoughts on the matter.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:13 am
revel wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
revel wrote:
Cheney blocked official's promotion

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a Justice Department official involved in a bedside standoff over ...


Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

Quote:
Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame...


Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Quote:
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress...

Of these three things, even if they were true, only the one related to Valerie Plame would be a crime. If it's true, he should be indicted in a court of law. Since he hasn't been, I assume it's just more rumor mongering.


There is enough evidence to impeach Cheney and possibly kick him out of office even if there is still just a cloud of evidence in a court of law.

That's good enough for me. He deserves to be impeached. He is the one behind every single misdeed in the white house. I hope Waxman sticks to his guns and really puts the screws on him regardless of the fallout from it and even if it cost the democrats the Whitehouse. You may call it rumor mongering or what have you but Mr. Cheney is responsible for turning this country into a country that is unrecognizable and he should pay for it so that others will know when they get up there in a position to be in charge that they can't just do anything they want. We are not a monarchy despite Mr. Cheney's wishes and thoughts on the matter.

Well, all the hyperbole aside, you seem virtually incapable of specifying any crimes he's committed, despite the fact that you talk about him as though he were a one man crime wave. The Valerie Plame affair is the only crime you've mentioned. It remains to be seen whether he was involved. What else, aside from the crime of believing in policies that you don't agree with?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 08:49 am
Quote:
It remains to be seen whether he was involved.


Only because his underling successfully Obstructed Justice.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 09:07 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It remains to be seen whether he was involved.


Only because his underling successfully Obstructed Justice.

Cycloptichorn

Well, there are two points. Like George Bush, Dick Cheney is oft referred to by liberals as though he were a one man crime wave, but when you ask what the crime is, you either get a list of things that aren't crimes, evasion, or personal insults, all of which suggest that there are no crimes. As for the Valerie Plame issue, I would be interested in seeing real evidence suggesting that Cheney committed a crime connected with it. So far, I see only accusations and dramatic adjectives.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 10:06 am
I am not good articulating specifics in such a way as to be clear cut and understood. I am only slightly better at articulating the abstract. (at least in the comparison of only myself in articulating specifics)

However, if one was to take the partisan blinders off for one second and just search around the internet for information regarding Cheney actions, words and deeds since 9/11 they would come to a general understanding of just awful Cheney has been all this time. Rove may have been the PR guy but Cheney has been a mastermind behind the whole bush administration in his mild mannered, arrogant, condescending fashion. Cheney along with Rumsfeld have been the ones to aggressivily advocate torture not to mention thinking 'waterboading' is a "no-brainer" even though it is against the law.

anything goes

no-brainer

Having said that there are few links I can leave and at the end of it hyperbole or not, I think it is condemning. The man stinks of rotting fish whether you want to face it or not. If all activities of anyone in public office have to rise to level of being able to bring an indictment of a court of law, why in the world did the framers put in the articles of impeachment?

destorying documents

Quote:
"The latest filings make clear that the administration has been destroying documents and entering into secret agreements in violation of the law," said Anne Weismann, CREW's chief counsel.


Spotlight Isssues

Impeaching Richard Cheney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_06082007_520.gif

Like the libby case, if there was an impeachment trial of Cheney it woud serve to bring all sorts of evidence into the light of day to have on record if nothing else. For me it would be well worth it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 04:56 pm
revel said...

Quote:
Like the libby case, if there was an impeachment trial of Cheney it woud serve to bring all sorts of evidence into the light of day to have on record if nothing else. For me it would be well worth it.


So using your own words,lets try this...

Like the Clinton case, if there was an impeachment trial of Cheney it woud serve to bring all sorts of evidence into the light of day to have on record if nothing else. For me it would be well worth it.

Tell me,do you go along with that also?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2007 09:32 pm
Yes in as much as I can make out how Clinton fits into the equation.

I personally doubt Kucinich manages to get enough votes from even democrats for it to come to anything, but if it does and at the end of the day, he is not impeached but we still have evidence in some kind of chronological order on record for history to judge, yes it would be worth it to me.

But enough of this unless something comes of it. I don't want to seem like I am going off on a tangent or something. (might be too late for that)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 03:58 am
You want him to be impeached so that evidence of something impeachable might come out? Rolling Eyes

I've looked at the above links, and I cannot see one single piece of evidence of a crime - not one. That he deceived the people about WMD in Iraq? First of all, that's probably not a crime, and, secondly, I don't believe he did. I believe that he simply propounded a theory that he believed. How about instead of giving me links to other people's thoughts you give me, in your words a piece of evidence suggesting that he committed any crime at all, and be specific as to what law was violated?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:29 am
Valerie Wilson was a covert agent as has been finally confirmed by the CIA. It is clear from the Libby trial that Cheney was Libby's source of Valerie Wilson's identity. Libby then went on to tell reporters of Valerie Wilson identity in effort to smear Joe Wilson because of his Niger article. He violated the law which protects covert agents. He showed zero respect for the law and for the security of this nation as Valerie Wilson was working on security issues at the time she was outed by Novak. The only thing important to him was getting his way in whatever means necessary.

The whole gang aught to be prosecuted and put behind bars for this and a hundred other things. However, in my judgment, Cheney has shown the most arrogant contempt for other branches of the government, the rule of law both in the United States and international law on all sorts of issues namely the torture issue and the breaking of other long held views. He repeatedly does private things and has expanded his office past any other vice president so that he can away with hiding his activities the same as a president can. (I know those things might not be impeachable offenses)

In my opinion there is more to get him impeached with the Valerie Wilson thing than on his misconceptions with pre war intelligence of which he knew at the time was in doubt because there was intelligence out there to tell him there was doubt of the things he was going around telling everybody in order to get this nation to go war with Iraq at the very time he was telling it. They can't get him on any of that because Cheney and Bush and the rest can just say they formed an opinion on the overall intelligence they had.

Everyone knows they cherry picked intelligence; it has been proven by subsequent articles. But how do you prove a thing like that? And if you could, like you, I am not sure it is against the law. (I am not all that bright or informed about those things anyway.) If you could prove it, it might reach the level of high crimes and misdemeanors because they knowingly put this nation in a war which has cost lives on shaky (at best) intelligence because it was just something they wanted to; ignoring all the intelligence which they did not like and the intelligence which told them how bad it could be after the capture of Saddam Hussein. All of these deaths and the whole situation in Iraq is on their head; personally I don't know how they sleep at night. But somehow they should be made to pay and Cheney was the one going around talking to the news the most about how he knew Saddam had chemical weapons, about how knew Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons when he didn't know any such thing. In fact there was doubt of both in some intelligence so he couldn't know anything. He could highly think so but not know for sure. In this way he deceived over and over again on television the American public on Saddam's WMD and on the issue of nuclear weapons and on the issue of the Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein links. He did this just so they could go to war, they didn't care what lies (deception is lies) they had to tell, who they had to hurt and who they put in danger in order to do it. They are directly responsible for the all deaths involved in Iraq because if they did not insist we needed to invade by any means fair or foul, then none of this would be happening. (other things might be happening but not what is happening right now in Iraq)

But like I said I doubt anyone does it or if they I doubt they do it right. I know you disagree and that is your right. It is also my right to hold my views and in my view Cheney (bush too, be he has just been like a puppet in my opinion and not worth going after) deserves to be impeached from the office of Vice Presidency. Actually the whole blamed crowd should be impeached and sentenced to serve out their term in Iraq without protection.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:32 am
You guys sound just like the whiners in the last presidency whining about Clinton and how evil and vile he was. Hope you can live with yourselves knowing that.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 09:42 am
McGentrix wrote:
You guys sound just like the whiners in the last presidency whining about Clinton and how evil and vile he was. Hope you can live with yourselves knowing that.


Easily because I can see the huge difference in deceiving a nation into war and deceiving a nation about a blow job.

Now lets get into the whole clinton argument again why don't we?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jun, 2007 11:26 am
revel wrote:
...The whole gang aught to be prosecuted and put behind bars for this and a hundred other things. However, in my judgment, Cheney has shown the most arrogant contempt for other branches of the government, the rule of law both in the United States and international law on all sorts of issues namely the torture issue...

Okay, let's start with this, since you assert it's so important. What law did he break, and exactly how did he break it? You seem unable to cure yourself of providing only vague suggestions and inflammatory, but unsubstantiated, descriptions. What law was broken by Cheney and how - specifically?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 12:44:04