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.
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) 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 ?
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.
Predictable and boring. Thanks for sticking to the template. 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.
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.
First, let's return to the following: 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... 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." 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. 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... 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.
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. 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. And that other issue can be impeachment, if Congress is defied. Those are grounds. 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. 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.
And they've found what, exactly? 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. 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... 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... 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?
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: 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. 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. 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/ch...=/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.
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, 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;
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. 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. I never said they weren't. 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... 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 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. 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
