Meteor Blades of dKos has all the info you could ever need about the current situation in the Judicial Committee, where Kucinich’s H. Res 333 to impeach Vice President Richard B. Cheney was sent.
Roughly, the recent developments have another Dem on the Committee, Robert Wexler, who is not one of the six Committee cosponsors of the legislation, asking for this bill to go forward and for there to be hearings. That means seven of 23 Dems are confirmed to be for further action on this resolution.
Conyers has expressed a “we’re really busy doing the work of the Committee” noncommittal response, and another Dem has said no, won’t do it. That leaves 14 Dems plus Conyers to convince, and with pressure from the weak Dem leadership to kill Res 333, the only way to attempt to keep it alive and have effect is for us constituents to put our own pressure. I’ve already called Rep. Delehunt (no indication yet on where he stands) at (202) 225-3111, but I am not in his district, so my voice has less impact than yours (still doesn’t hurt, and all MA should call to let him know we are watching him). I will also be calling Conyers as the Committee Chair to allow these hearings (which is NOT impeachment!) to take place, his number is (202) 225-5126. Remember, be polite.
As far as I can tell, to offset the rubber-stamp Republicans who will likely all vote to kill Res. 333 (there are 17 of them) we only need 18 of the 23 Dems. With 7 on board, that’s 11 yeses of the 15 wafflers, (14 wafflers if one wants to defy a reluctant Conyers, which is too bad, I thought he was cool and a little rebellious). If we can turn the tide, at worse case, we lose by a little but we make the White House SWEAT. Or have hearings that don’t result in impeachment (how that could happen I don’t know, there’s too much wrongdoing). These situations would at least be SOMETHING, considering we got nothin’ – we keep bending and scraping to the administration’s will, and the Democrats are suffering electorally for it. I ask, what about the PEOPLE’S will??
I don’t think Clinton ever would have been impeached without the irrefutable evidence of his perfidy provided by the stained dress.
<
p>
Cheney seems to have covered his tracks more carefully. But maybe there is something out there that hasn’t been publicized yet.
<
p>
As to the founders, I don’t think they expected impeachment to be common. In general, I think they thought elections were the way to change leaders, and that impeachment should be used only when the leaders reneged on some promise, or fundamentally changed the approach they advanced during the campaign. In the case of Cheney, I think we have exactly the leader we voted for (or against), so by that measure impeachment is not warranted according to the thinking of the founders. You can read some of the original debates about impeachment here.
I said they didn’t expect them to be rare. As in, we should be reluctant to do it because it’s such a BIG STEP – they wanted it to be considered a last resort, but not a sacred cow never to be touched. If you know what I mean.
Just to be clear Clinton didnt get impeached for perfidy he got impeached for PERJURY.
<
p>
Boy that Cheney really covers his tracks! No one has yet figured out that he had an illegal hand in the illegal no bid giant Haliburton Iraq contract that he illegally pushed through after he illegally forced the administration to illegally invade that poor poor country.
to impeach him on the grounds of operating under a theory of executive authority that does not respect our traditions and history, and is incompatible with the organic documents of the republic. For failing to respond appropriately to Congressional oversight, and for gross interference in the operation of the USDoJ through his lawyer, Addison.
Everyone needs to call our Congressperson.
<
p>
Sometimes it seems real fruitless…this Mukasey thing is just about the last straw. But the House is always a bit more rowdy, and chaotic. Harder for the Establishment to control. So maybe, just maybe…
Never done that before.
And Al Gore: Re the millions of dollars from Asian contributors, “There was no controlling legal authority”
<
p>
The Bill lies to a grand jury—a felony, and they drag out the dress with cum stains on it. jesus Christ gimme a break. Call Cheney whatever you want, but don’t dredge up those two former vipers that infested the White House ten years ago.
<
p>
AND—don’t bother with Delahunt. I’ve been around long enough to know where the bodies are buried. Ask Bill D who Amy Yaepel is? And his pal from Quincy who burned the building down to conceal a homicide—no one was allowed to do an investigation to ascertain if it was murder or an accidental death. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Delahunt has been in a photo finish with a grand jury for twenty five years now.
Run for your lives!
<
p>
Clinton lied to a grand jury about who was sucking his dick.
<
p>
This, says you, is the equivalent of, oh, blatant and consistent disregard of the constitional system of government that has worked pretty well for most of the last 225 years— establishing what amonts to a quasi-monarchy. I’m not sure what one else they could do to desecrate the legacy of Madison and Jefferson than what they have done, and what they claim to be able to do.
<
p>
I have no idea what you are, but I know what you are not: a conservative. Instead, it appears that you are little more than a Bush fanboy. Hooray Bush! He’s a leader! Ooooh, he looked at me! Who cares where he leads?
<
p>
We could elect Leon fucking Trotsky and he would be a more conservative president than GWB.
<
p>
So, the present administration claims not be bound by any law at all, for any reason. They could, if they chose to do so, impose martial law. Forcibly deport the residents of Nevada to Wyoming. Suspend elections and continue in office beyond 2009. They claim the right to do any of these things because there is now, and will forever more be, a state of war, and the Commander in Cheif has the absolute right to do whatever he pleases. The only reason they don’t do these things is because they choose not to, which means we are not at present governed by law, but by men, and their whims. This is anathema to our system of government. It is indeed, the very thing that our predecessors revolted against, which is why you get a day off in early July.
<
p>
But at least they didn’t lie under oath about a blow job! Thank goodness! It is all OK then!
Is beyong belief for its ineptness and shortsightedness.
That being said, Bush and company is doing not one iota less that the Bill and Hillary show and that grotesque woman (?) that Clinton employed as AG. You know—the AG that ordered the mass murders of the branch davidians then Randy Weavers wife and son. You had better get your historical time line in order. If it wasn’t for a staute of limitations Clinton his wife and half his cabinet would or should be looking at 5 to 8 in a federal prison.
Ruby Ridge (Weaver) occurred in 1991, long before Clinton was even inaugurated.
<
p>
Waco (Branch Dividians) occurred in Feb-early Apr 1993, shortly after Clinton was inaugurated, but while most of the people in charge of the BATF, FBI and DoJ were GHWBush’s holdovers.
<
p>
Don’t you wingnuts know anything of history?
But thanks for that logic because Bill Clinton is most certainly responsible for 9/11.
I thing you were refering to Janet Waco Reno whos role in history is well recorded.
…the people who were responsible for 9/11 were the people who carried it out. Or are you suggesting that the peope who refuse to “stop me before I kill again” are responsible for the killings? Nobody forced them to “kill again.”
<
p>
At some point, you nutcases become unworthy of response.
Your pomposity, conceit (the king of know it alls) arrogance and endless supply of invictives and personal attacks make you perhaps the most incredibly boorish individual on the Internet.
Just your last 3 posts alone says it all about you.
<
p>
“Don’t you wingnuts know anything of history”
“For those of us who aren’t terminally stupid.”
“At some point, you nutcases become unworthy of response”
boorish?
Now that’s boorish! And the follow-up comments are double and triple boorish.
Is why MCRD/wavemaker, Tom/Asa and nomad all live double lives between here and RMG. If they hate liberals as much as they purport to, why do they need to come here for validation?
<
p>
My favorite quote from the responses is this, BTW:
<
p>
You wouldn’t know a christian if he came up and slapped your sissy face.
<
p>
Uh huh.
It was about the sexual relationship and it was RELEVANT because the CONTEXT was a SEXUAL HARRASSMENT suit.
<
p>
Scooter Libby ate jail time because he lied about who he learned Plame’s identity from, no crime anywhere in sight, whats the difference?
<
p>
Either pejury matters or it doesn’t.
<
p>
Oh and how do you square your constant Bush-spends-like-a-socialist theme with the fact that he keeps vetoing spending bills? (SCHIP, water) On the grounds that they are too expensive?
I think there are smoking guns. The best examples being the whole Judy Miller and Valerie Plame things. We know a lot about what went on there and I say it at least merits a major congressional hearing over whether or not there’s just cause to impeach Cheney.
Hey newsflash pal: the leaker was Richard Armitage.
<
p>
I realize that most of your side didn’t really want to acknowledge this and kept on singin’ the conspiracy tune, but here’s a lefty source (Wash post!) for you nonetheless:
<
p>
http://www.washingto…
<
p>
<
p>
…
<
p>
<
p>
Too bad you can’t impeach Joe Wilson eh?
<
p>
WELCOME TO REALITY!
I feel we should have a FAQ for answers to common conservative canards so we don’t have to keep answering them. I’ve gotten bored with the Congressional approval canard. No doubt there are three global warming ones regarding sun spots, Mars, and a certain weather man. Kerry’s military career is another. Here again, we are offered “reality”. Yawn.
<
p>
One advantage to pushing all that stuff into a FAQ is that we can return to the more important work of convincing “centrist” Democrats that they don’t have to be afraid of meany Republicans but can actually vote for principles.
The problem with the “Armitage did it first” line is that it took a bunch of effort to get the Wilson-Plame story out to the media. Plame’s identity was shopped around to multiple media outlets. Some had the good sense not to publish it. Novak, whose sliminess was confirmed by this episode, lacked such compunctions. That’s how it got into the press. He published it first. What a “patriot”! The Republican “patriots” must be proud of him.
<
p>
So it did not begin or end with Armitage. The available evidence is that this really was an effort out the Vice President’s office.
<
p>
Finally, the Washington Post’s editorial page has been notoriously slanted on just these sorts of issues.
Your argument is paper thin but it does provide a good example of people struggling to retrofit their foregone conclusions to emerging facts. Good thing none of your narrative had to change when Armitage was revealed!
“The Armitage thing was such a wonderful gotcha our side had and you, you try to ruin it with actually trying to understand what happened.”
…your possibility as a comedian is highly in doubt.
<
p>
Hey newsflash pal: the leaker was Richard Armitage.
<
p>
Apparently you have never heard of the concept of conspiracy. Just who do you believe authorized Armitage to blow Plame’s cover? Somebody tending bar at Foggy Bottom? I might have been born at night, but not last night.
Please source any evidence whatsoever for your assertion that Cheney’s office “authorized” Armitage to leak. Also it would be good if you could explain how the deputy secretary of state reports up to the VP’s office. i admit, this is the first I’ve heard of any of this.
<
p>
Awww, you just made it up didn’t you!
<
p>
Please source any evidence whatsoever for your assertion that Cheney’s office “authorized” Armitage to leak.
<
p>
I am supposed to provide evidence that I don’t have access to, and that Cheney isn’t going to voluntarily provide.
<
p>
You tell me. How did Armitage know that Plame was a covert CIA agent? Who told him? And who authorized Armitage to reveal that fact to the news media?
<
p>
It may surprise you to know that there is a “rule of evidence” that suggests that one can probably correctly infer indicia from silence, when one might expect that there be no silence. So, you tell me. Who told Armitage that Plame was a CIA agent? And who authorized him to release the information?
<
p>
If the Democrats in Congress had any backbone (which they don’t) they would be calling Armitage, Cheney, and everyone in the DeptState and Office of VP to testify. Plame and Wilson apparently will be doing it themselves.
I know it was Hillary Clinton’s team but how am i supposed to prove it with evidence that I don’t have access to, and you aren’t going to provide it?
<
p>
I think your problems begin with the presumption that Plame’s ID and job were super secret, continue into believing the various lies that Wilson told, your reasoning becomes critically flawed when you ingest the shifting leftist narrative on the case, and you implode when you either invent your own or repeat someone else’s conspiracy theory.
<
p>
If someone authorized and/or encouraged Armitage to talk don’t you think he would have mentioned it? And don’t even tell me that people are afraid to “tell-all” about this administration.
<
p>
If you look at the chain of events it actually makes alot of sense:
Wilson comes out and tells a double whopper:
“Cheney sent me to Niger..
.. where I debunked uranium claims and easily detected forged docs”
<
p>
Both were untrue, but the first was easily countered by saying no, your wife sent you to Niger. (Actually that may have been a triple whopper with cheese!)
<
p>
Ooga booga.
Why lookee here at what just hit the wire:
<
p>
http://www.cnn.com/2…
<
p>
<
p>
BTW can you explain again how Plame was undercover at the time?
<
p>
Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.
First Who authorized you to write that post? Me, myself and I. I was unaware that I required authorization to write a comment.
<
p>
Second “Cheney sent me to Niger…. where I debunked uranium claims and easily detected forged docs” thank you for not posting a link to primary sources. Some of us know how to detect lies: no links to primary sources.
<
p>
Third, regarding Armitage said he had seen a memo that said Plame was publicly chairing a meeting, so he assumed her CIA employment was not a secret., oh, please. Some of us were born at night, but not last night. Armitage saw a memo. Where did he get it from? Who gave it to him? Who, in as secretive an administration as that of GWBush, would have authorized him to release the information to Robert NoFacts, a known Republican appartchik? How would Armitage have known that NoFacts would have been interested in the information for an article he was writing?
<
p>
And, why would Cheney, shortly thereafter, have been running around saying that he, himself, had the authority to declassify previously classified information if it was not classified to begin with?
<
p>
I’m sorry, but your excuses hold no water. It is obvious that the GWBush admininstration has no interest in national security. Outing a covert CIA agent has a number of national security implications, including, but not limited to, the fact that it will now be more difficult for the American intel agencies to recruit foreign assets. If it is clear that a US government would out their own assets, who would be interested in becoming an asset?
<
p>
BTW, your citation to the suck-up Blitzer is humorous, given the fact that CNN has prostituted itself at least by its hiring of Glen Beck.
<
p>
BTW2, I have a pretty good idea why the GWBush malAdministration was out to “get” Plame. She was head of a CIA operation that was tasked to find Iraqi WMDs. They didn’t and they weren’t going to certify that the WMDs were there. Aside from the fact that they were correct, the GWBush malAdministration wanted to get rid of her. That is the reason that she was outed.
Too many folks in USA, some on the right, most on the left, would mych prefer to live and think in Alice in Wonderland. Don’t confuse the issue with facts.
<
p>
Cheney’s aide de camp was convicted of having a crappy memory. Armitage, as everyone knew—including the prosecutor, was the bad guy. And as it turns out, since Mrs. Wilson was a pencil pusher and not a covert agent, the elements of the crime went unfulfilled. But the federal prosecutor deemed that it was unnecessary to have a valid crime—–so he invented one. Just to show Cheney who was boss. Who do you think will win this pissing contest? The score will be settled some years from now—–but it will be resolved.
Three cheers for Lynne!!
Is Ted going to swing into action?
I don’t know. Would it not be faster to let them ruin the US? To get to a better world America has to end?