Cheney Impeachment: Courageous, But Not Surprising

For the first time since the Bush administration took office, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are calling for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Richard Cheney.

Their position, while courageous, is not surprising. What is surprising is that it took this long for members of Congress to invoke impeachment, and that even now, they do so against enormous political resistance and cyncial indifference from the media.

No serious student of the Constitution would question that sufficient grounds exist to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The Constitution provides that an Executive who puts himself above the law and abuses the powers of his office may be impeached, a point confirmed in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, for abuses such as illegal wiretapping.

There is little serious debate about whether Bush administration actions -- wiretapping without court approval (violating the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act), authorizing and facilitating mistreatment of detainees (violating US treaties and criminal laws), starting the Iraq war on a basis of lies, exaggerations and misstatements (an abuse of power) -- meet the constitutional standard.

So why hasn't a majority of Congress supported it? Twenty members co-sponsored Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney, but bucked their leadership to do so. Democratic leaders took impeachment "off the table," apparently fearing it could hurt their chances in 2008.

Does the leadership defend the administration, contend that its actions are unimpeachable, or argue they don't rise to the level of abuse for which Nixon was impeached? Remarkably, no. They publicly say there is no time, and that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work and divide the country.

These arguments are laughable compared to the imperative to uphold the constitution. And even on their own terms, they are specious. Let's take them one at a time:

Insufficient Time

In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February, 1974; the Committee finished voting on Articles of Impeachment on July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the Committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress could probably conduct them even faster than in 1974.

Distracting Congress

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee conducted the impeachment inquiry. It didn't deter the rest of the House and the entire Senate from getting their work done, even with a war on. Even the Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its trial of President Clinton.

Dividing the Country

Nixon's impeachment united the American people. The process was bi-partisan, demonstrating this wasn't just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence all gave the public a strong sense that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

Currently, this value is expressing itself in grass roots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment -- more state legislatures would have acted except for pressure not to from Democrats in Washington. Multiple polls show a majority of Americans supporting the impeachment of Cheney (a November 13 American Research Group poll says 70% of Americans believe Vice President Cheney abused his office), and slightly less then a majority supporting the impeachment of Bush.

The Democratic leadership tactic of stonewalling this widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to frustration, disaffection and shaken faith in our democracy. Only a sober, serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

When Nixon's impeachment process began, he had recently been re-elected with one of the largest landslides in history. No one made the calculation about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress. Public opinion simply forced Congress's hand after Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the House Judiciary conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress's approval soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. Regardless of outcome, they will help to curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administration: the Constitution means what it says -- no president or vice president is above the law.

Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment. She co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

Comments

[GnitenGoodLk]

NY is progressing an impeachment agenda. Many are working behind the scenes to advance it.

Never say never.

[jqcitizen]

Might as well forget what the Constitution says. It won't be interpreted by the Supreme Court, but instead by such legal experts as Harriet Meiers. The President thought she had done such a 'Wonderful' job that she was his personal choice to be on the Supreme Court.

I wonder who the Super Expert was that advised her and Josh Bolton to ignore a subpoena to appear before Congress? These two 'mental giants' will no doubt just laugh at contempt of Congress charges too.

Will Congress continue to look like fools? Probably.

[sarge]

Where is Cheney? If he were dead, how would we know?

[WhatAreYouGoofy]

We all know he is dead from the neck up!

[fact finder]

It will never happen.

[gcg737]

The lack of impeachment for high crimes and felonies (forget misdemeanors) is proof We the People only count when politicians need to get elected and there are insufficient Diebold machines in place to steal the election outright. Once they get elected, their criminal record, for the most part, is such that they can't exactly act on moral grounds without suffering immediate "pot calling kettle black" backlash.

Nancy Pelosi should face criminal charges for undermining the constitution and deciding -- without input from the American people -- that impeachment was off the table.

[JiminNC]

I believe the chicken little congress would be surprised at how many people want those goobers run out of office. What better way to tie their hands for a year than keep them dancing to our tune. Hard to start new wars when you are running for your life.

[WhatAreYouGoofy]

You mean you actually expect a difference between these complicit parties who obviously only care about themselves and none of the voters

[scooperss]

For dereliction of duty, all the dems complicit in not beginning impeachment proceedings need to be sent a message loud and clear this November. If you can't do your duty to protect the people and the Constitution from abuses of power, then we will protect ourselves by firing you.
And if we could we would take away your pensions too.

[RTIII]

Well, I've been saying these things for well over 5 years now... GREAT that these statements are being made _somewhere,_ but we need them spattered all over the New York Times and other "main stream media" outlets. Actually, that's the real problem; we must cure our broken MEDIA SYSTEM if we want our constitution protected...

[SamEllison]

The reason impeachment was taken off the table was because every indictment would have had its beginnings in the Clinton42 WH. It does shine a light on Bill's behavior of late. A Clinton44 WH would not allow the truth to be told.

[WhatAreYouGoofy]

So it's Bill Clinton's fault that GWB lied us into this war? Tapped our phones? Bankrupted our once great Country? No, sorry. No more Bush family members, no more Clintons, it's time for a real change and NOW!

[Sundialsvc4]

Pursuing the line of reasoning in my last post: I sincerely believe that Mme. Pelosi herself committed a criminal act by placing the matter of impeachment "off the table." She should therefore, herself, be Expelled.

Why?

First, she had no Constitutional authority whatever to place impeachment as a discretionary act, let alone to flatly state that it was "off the table" and to oppose the free entry of Articles of Impeachment at the discretion of any Member. She obstructed the clear intent of Section 4 in so doing.

Second, in so doing she also aided and abetted the continuation of obvious high crimes that she clearly "had probable cause to believe" might have been going on. By refusing to allow impeachment to move forward, she facilitated the continuance of high crimes for nearly two years more, and directly caused the death of thousands of soldiers who have perished during that time. She, and all of her colleagues who followed her directives, have also aided-and-abetted the War Crime of torture.

The list goes on: in short, the willful refusal of a law-enforcement official to pursue his or her lawful duties in a timely manner is, itself, a criminal act. Our country will continue to be ruthlessly savaged by lawlessness .. until .. it once again enforces its own laws against "any civil officer."

[Sundialsvc4]

Elizabeth, I am of the opinion that it is actually ILLEGAL for the Congress NOT TO engage in impeachment proceedings -- not only against the President and the Vice President, but also (and simultaneously) against "any civil officer" whom they have probable-cause to believe may have committed a crime.

Grand Juries around the country are very busy people, and here the corollary is exact: the House is the Grand Jury, and the Senate is the Tribunal. Even so, the question of criminal guilt or innocence remains to a criminal court (and is independent of the impeachment itself). The indictment handed-down by the House is enough for the Court.

The word in Section 4 is... "shall be." This is an imperative phrase, as it must be. It is not a discretionary act.

If the decision of whether or not to hand down an indictment were "a decision," either for the Congress or for a Grand Jury, we would have exactly what we DO have. If a judge refused to indict his cronies, he would thereby protect them from the threat of prosecution and we would rightfully say that there were two crooks in the courtroom... one in an orange jumpsuit, the other in a black robe.

This is a Law Enforcement duty, and as such it is a Duty. "Any civil officer" must clearly understand that if they break the law, they "shall be" impeached forthwith. No exceptions.

[guntotinganglion]

The blatant level of criminality since Bush stole his way into office, is truly stunning in it's audacity, and in it's endless tenacity. NOTHING slows down their march of blatant fraud, corruption, mayhem, torture and murder. Every single congressperson who has failed to speak up during this, or offer impeachment articles should be considered as accessories after the fact in a criminal investigation. But the deifying of the President prevents this. The cult like status of the Executive branch has worked wonders in elevating the President above ALL laws. Essentially, to most Americans, the President may as well be a god.

The way it stands right now, the President could walk out for a press conference, and pull out Saddam's handgun (which was reported to be in his possession in the District of Columbia, which I believe is a felony) and start shooting news people, and he'd get away with it! If he hit a FOX "news" person, there might be some groans, but that's all. Rush Limbaugh would defend him for murdering members of the "liberal media"...and Ann Coulter would congratulate him for his aim in taking out Helen Thomas with one shot to the head...after all, she's of Lebanese ancestry!! God only knows what the miscreant Sean Hannity would make of it. CNN would blandly comment on it, then move on to the latest on Britney Spears on-going melodrama.

This is obviously a ridiculous exaggeration, but in a very real sense, this is what he did to Iraq...he walked in and started shooting innocent people. He sent in the most industrialized war machine in history to eviscerate and rape an entire country that had ZERO to do with 9/11. And it was ALL based on lies. And no one has done anything to bring this criminal to justice. Only two words apply now...

Impeachment NOW

[Bushwillresign]

Remember the $billions lost in Iraq, cash? Are all of them going to leave next year with a $billion in cash in their pockets?

[Querent]

Maybe the accusation that they are complicit is part of the reason they will not impeach.

I think we should primary Pelosi. Unfortunately, it's too late until 2010. That will be her day of reckoning.

[ElkoJohn]

`
short memory too,
doesn't Nancy P. remember that the Repugs impeached Clinton for lying about getting oral sex from the WH intern?
The majority of Dems eat from the same trough as the Repugs. . .
MONEY MONEY MONEY
which makes the mainstream Dems look, smell & act like Repugs
& now D.Kucinich & R.Paul have to fight in the primaries to get their party's nomination.
so much for gov. of, by & for the people.
.

[Liberal2]

No, not a short memory, just an ability to think more rationally. Nixon was facing impeachment for actual felonies, Clinton was impeached for having a perpetual smile on his face while rethugs must settle for wide stances in airport Men's room.

[crank]

The do-nothing democrats are about seven years too late. Darth Cheney has less than a year in office and he is laughing all the way to his off-shore bank accounts, compliments of Halliburton and the war taxpayers. Impeach ? Give me a break.

[rixhex56]

I'm a Liberal (more accurately, a Radical), but I recently was surprised to learn that some of my Liberal friends are actually afraid of impeachment because, as they think, it might lead to a more favorable rating of the current adminstration. "What is their support for this position?", you ask. They point to the Clinton impeachment hearings and how Clinton's ratings rose during that time.

As this article points out, and as I pointed out to my friends, they were not looking far enough back in history to find a precedent that more accurately fits the current situation. I referenced Nixon's actual crimes versus Clintons little lie about a blow job, and the fact that impeachment hearings will necessarily bring other administration crimes into the public eye. I failed to convince my friends, though. All I can do is scratch my head on this one.

[DemandTruth]

Well, unfortunately your friends are probably right. But only half right. Look at what's happening with McCain and this NYT story about his lobbyist ties. The Right is defending him and rallying around him more than ever.

The public's opinion of the criminals in office probably would go up - but only because the Radical Right would again coalesce to defend them. And their staunchest supporters and defenders? The MEDIA! The MEDIA shapes public opinion on EVERYTHING now. They tell us to ignore the damning facts of hypocrisy, lobbyist ties, and possibly criminal behavior about McCain in the NYT, and suddenly everyone is declaring the story a "hit piece" and a "lie". They told us Bush was a man we wanted to have a beer with. And voila, suddenly he was! They marched us to war - they perpetuated and repeated without shame or verification - the thousand lies that led us into the worst disastrous mistake in our history. Even now, as the Republicans ignore and neglect and abuse our veterans and troops, the MEDIA keeps telling us the Right LOVES the troops and the left HATES the troops. They tell us the surge is working. And on and on.

No, the media tells us all what to believe, and if they tell us Bush is innocent and impeachment is a sham - America will believe them. Again.

[Desiderata]

the massive spying on all electronic communications surely snagged a lot of dirt on a lot of Congressional Representatives and United States Senators.

Should authentic impeachment efforts ever come to life, Bush will unlock closets full of skeletons.

This, surely, is the most likely reason few dare to challenge Bush and Cheney.

[Liberal2]

Ahhhhhh, yes! The good old J. Edgar Hoover self-preservation strategy.