Republicans Vote to Impeach Cheney

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pjdude1219, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Neither are impeachable offenses, I think. If lying or misleading, neither of which have been proven here, were impeachable offenses, nobody in politics would still be in office. Lying under oath is different, of course.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Decieving the country to enter a war seems to be against his oath of office.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    How do you prove "deception" beyond a resonable doubt in a court of law?
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Read the bill, it would probably go something like:

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

    Messages:
    30,994
    For the third time: you are misquoting me, and thereby misreading as well as misrepresenting my posts and arguments. Kindly remove the quote marks - there is no hope of you comprehending the argument, I know, but I want it clear that I did not say what you claim I said.

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

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

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

    That you take that for a rhetorical question speaks volumes.

    So that's where all the mockery of Kucinich, and overlooking of Conyers, and softball interviews of their critics, comes from - it's love. Tough love, maybe - but that's the best kind, we hear.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2007
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590

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

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


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


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


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

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

    Messages:
    30,994
    No. The argument I was making was about these kinds of claims:
    Another good question, that you might consider answering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    IMHO he's wrong about that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    you don't really understand the concept of high crimes and misdeamenors do you what cheney did falls under that
    as a side note i have read the bill in full
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Good for you.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Sorry you are the one who doesn't understand high crimes and misdemeanors, the Democrats have a whole battery of high priced lawyers that if there were any high crimes and misdemeanors, the laywers would let them know what they were and the charges would be brought.

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

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

    Messages:
    30,994
    That's not how John Conyers reacted - his Judiciary Committee currently has seven members publically endorsing the startup of Committee hearings on impeachment, but he has his doubts:
    And another member of the Judiciary Committee, Debbie Schulz, had a similar take:
    Nothing in there about "grounds". Partisan politics all the way, and worries about the media. And this discussion is about merely holding preliminary hearings - the actual impeachment months in the future.
    And for the standard Dem-lefty take, from the site http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/8/141239/890 :
    Again, just political calculation.

    None of the Dems, even arguing with each other, are worried about there actually being grounds to impeach.
     
  16. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Maybe the House Democratic leadership are puppets, and cowardly ones at that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    iceaura all that I see you proving about this is your hatred for Vice President Cheney, and the Republicans in general, you make leaps of logic that are not supported by any thing other than you hatred of the Conservative, it still comes down to the fact that the Lawyers of the Democrats, who know the Law, have told the Leadership that they don't have anything that will stand up for a Impeachment charge, and the other fact is that the Democratic leadership has failed to get anything accomplished of their own agenda, and have been totally out maneuvered by the President and the Republicans since they took office, so now when they have been out maneuvered again, ( The failure of the Republicans to fight back on the privileged resolution of Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch,) by the Republicans agreeing to the resolution, and taking the charge of obstruction away from the Democrats, they are trying to do a DO OVER, as they have been caught with their pants down and nothing that will stand up under investigation, and would take up a inordinate amount of time to conclude, during which period nothing would be able to be done of the Nations Business, which will reflect poorly in the election campaign.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Interesting bit of mind reading.

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

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

    Messages:
    5,590
    Ice, all you (and a handful of Democrat and handful of kooks like Conyers) want is to get Cheney under oath he can be asked about all your wonderful theories and allegations. That's not the way impeachment or law enforcement in general works. You need proof to charge someone. Not suspicions and allegations...
     
  20. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Again if they had the evidence the Democrats would already be holding the Impeachment Hearings instead of trying to back out of a privileged resolution brought forward by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, and again the Democratic Party has high priced lawyers that are telling them they have nothing that will stand up for a Impeachment Indictment by the House, or in a trial by the Senate.

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

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, they wouldn't. They aren't. And they say they aren't going to, for partisan political reasons with an election coming up.

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

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

    Messages:
    5,590
    Conyers is an idiot. If I have to elaborate on that, then it won't be worth the time it would take me to cite stories and type an argument. In other words, I'm not wasting the time. You like him. You like Kucinich. You're welcome to them. Their share many of your kooky ideas and viewpoints, so you attraction to them is understandable.

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

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

    Messages:
    16,931
    Again if the Democrats legal team said they had something to impeach the Vice President, the Impeachment Bill would already be passed by Congress, and the Impeachment Trial would be happening in the Senate.

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

Share This Page