There's no penalty, just removal from office, although there could be a criminal trial at a later time.
Right, but if it's for high crimes and misdemeanors, you can't very well argue it's a civil procedure. And even if it is a procedure, a person still has a right to the 5th amendment, I believe. The only difference is that a negative inference can be drawn from refusing to answer a question in a civil trial. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone who knows should chime in. Regardless, I think we've all stated our cases in this thread, and frankly I'm bored haggling about the particulars of a fantasy fresh from the fringe. But if you and Ice want to sit about and bemoan Cheney and salivate over a trial that will never happen, go right ahead...
On the contrary, I not only expect public officials to deliver sworn testimony regarding the performance of their duties to House oversight committees, I regard the failure of the House to require such testimony from Cheney (and Gonzalez, et al) to be negligent and cowardly. When Arlen Specter, back in '06, granted Gonzalez the privilege of not providing testimony under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, he was granting a favor - not recognising some kind of right of public officials to withhold information about their official doings from House oversight committees. True, it's a favor often granted the upper levels of the executive branch, but in such apparently incriminating circumstances it amounts to collusion in a coverup. Of course Cheney may, as most (formerly all) citizens may, refuse to answer questions under oath on grounds that he may incriminate himself. ( Anyone except a suspect terrorist or possible terrorist sympathizer may take the Fifth, without being waterboarded). That would be an interesting event, and depending on which questions he refuses to answer would possibly be failure to fulfill the duties of his office as required by law - grounds for impeachment in itself. How this cabal managed to sell the American media in general on the idea that their job performance was not subject to review by Congress and the public without all the machinery of criminal trial is one of the mysteries of our apparently deteriorating Republic.
Where does it say that the Congress is supposed to concern itself with the job performance of the executive branch?
Scoff all you like, but it was a legitimate question. I understand Congress is the check on executives and that it has oversight duties, in that it can form committees and impeach the executives for high crimes and misdemeanors, but job performance? You make it sound as though the president etc. should appear under the dome periodically for an annual review or something.
Yeah, I think I have heard of it. But I would hardly call that an annual review of the sort I have at work.
Congress has no over sight as to rating the job performance of the President, the over sight goes both ways, that is what the separation of powers is all about, that any one branch can by (Executive) Veto, Legislative, (Veto Over Ride, Comity, and investigation), Judaical, (Constitutional Review) bring each other to question for their actions. In the U.S. system there is no such thing as a vote of no confidence, that occurs when the election take place. The Impeachment is for cases of legal misconduct, (High Crimes and Misdemeanors) but those are only spelled out in a limited manner, and require the co-operation of both parties to achieve, so that it can't be used as a witch hunt, or star court for political purpose, and Perjury in front of a Federal Judge, during a deposition is a Impeachable offence, especially when it is over personal misconduct.
But the President isn't required to make the State of the Union in Public, and it is the President who is stating how he rates the way Congress is running the country and lays out his agenda for the next year.
The current story being floated out there is they did it to embarrass the Dems and use the issue as a political bullet, not because they really want to impeach Cheney.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. My post was directed to USS Exeter who seems to think the Republicans actually do want to impeach Cheney.
This thread would have been a more appropriate place to do so, but since it's locked, I'll post this update here: At WexlerWantsHearings.com, you can watch Congressman Wexler present the petition that I (and I expect others here) have supported with our names.
