Yes.

Impeachment must, by law, begin in the House.

There is a bill there (HR 333; Kucinich D-OH) to impeach Cheney. It has 7 co-sponsors last time I checked.

Here are some more links to Cheney articles going around and which agree with your post Mr. Cannon:

Harpers

Fort Wayne

And finally, one about the tactics of the regime.

This is clearly the solution to the problem. I just wonder why the process isn't already underway. All the pessimistic talk I've heard about how damaging a long, drawn-out impeachment process would be to the country is nonsense. Issue the subpoenas and have him hauled before the House in irons if, no, when he refuses to comply. It could all be over in a month. Besides, that argument about how bad it would be for the country sounds exactly what I used to hear the pundits claiming in the run-up to Noxin's demise...

they burned down Simpson's house (the whitsle blower) and wrecked her car..

I'm speechless

atleast they weren't trying to kill her.

(somewhere a fat bald republican flicks his fingers together and says excellent!)

You are indeed correct that impeachment begins in the House, and that Kucinich has already sent up a bill.

But subpoenas can be issued by both House and Senate committees. Cheney can find his office wallpapered with subpoenas, and he will refuse to comply with at least some of them. That sets up grounds for impeachment beyond those set out by Kucinich. Grounds which directly parallel the Nixon impeachment.

In other words, this trick has worked before, so let's work it again --- in exactly the same way.

They are NOT going to impeach anybody short of being held at gunpoint, no matter how many new reasons we think up. Here's Tweetie talking to Twit about defunding the OVP. Watch Twit on the subject of impeachment. Tweetie is right about who's going to win. Short of masses of people dragging them by the ear, the 110th is selling us out to let the death of hundreds of thousands put them in position to be able to sell us out even more profitably later.

I say....send BUSH and CHENEY and all the crooked Repukes to the Moon!! Just let them colonize the moon. Make sure they can't leave. Keep the earth safe from the evil that is Bush/Cheney.

Good to see you here Joe, and I know Brad is thankful that you are pitching in.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

Cheny no longer has his excuse of Executive Priveledge because he claims he no longer is part of the Executive branch. Subpoena him until he quits!

...Cheney is the gift that keeps on giving.

...Why on earth would we want to remove this fat, dead, smelly albatross from around the neck of this failed presidency?

...To give Fred Thompson or Condi the legitimacy of holding the office of Vice President going into a presidential election year?

...No.

...Let him stay ensconced in a secure undisclosed location until January 21st 2009 and then send him hunting with George.

Just posted under the WaPo article:

Beware of Fred Thompson. He has already brought on Cheney's extremely hawkish and dangerous daughter, Elizabeth, as an advisor.

Liz is the perfect NeoCon spawn. She recently served her father’s will in the Bush administration as the “Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives”, heading the Iran-Syria Operations Group, and the Office of Iranian Affairs, working to build the case and skullduggery to fulfill Daddy’s maniacal scheme for more regime-change in the Middle East.

Elizabeth is married to Texas Governor Rick Perry's son, Philip Perry. Philip's stints in the Bush White House include Acting Associate Attorney General, General Counsel for the Office of Management and Budget, then Lobbyist for Lockheed Martin and General Electric, and back as General Counsel to the Department of Homeland Security. Perry’s defanging the EPA to protect the chemical and other industries is the priceless jewel in his legacy.

Fred Thompson is also said to have brought on board the recently suddenly-resigned Rove-selected Arkansas U.S. Attorney, Timothy Griffin, who bolted his Justice job on the same day investigative reporter Greg Palast showed Congressman John Conyers, Jr. Griffin’s 2004 caging list email – proof of the illegal RNC purge of tens of thousands of low-income and military voters, especially in African American neighborhoods, before the last Presidential election.

Judging from the company Thompson is keeping, it looks like he's ready to be the next presentable front man for slimy NeoCon murderers and thieves. Don't be fooled.

For Joe Cannon:

Great subpoena suggestion! I just forwarded it to Salt Lake City's own Mayor Rocky Anderson, who appeared yesterday on Democracy Now! and spoke last night in New York City last night for www.worldcantwait.net's Impeachment event.

Banging my pot and spreading the word. . .

It would be great if the NRDC or the Sierra Club would go back to the District Court and move to vacate the final judgment in NRDC v. Cheney, under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because the judgment was obtained by fraud. Cheney claimed executive privilege, maintained that claim through the litigation that went to the Supreme court, and now claims not to be part of the executive branch. Nothing in the government structure has changed between then and now.

I wouldn't necessarily expect the move to be successful, but in order to prevail, Cheney might have to admit on the record that the VP is part of the executive branch.

I plan to have more on Thompson eventually. The Watergate connection is of some interest to me, which may have something to do with my age. At any rate, I've had an instinctive mistrust for the man ever since I laid eyes on him in "Marie."

If Thompson were to take Cheney's place, I think he would not benefit politically. The Bush White House is hopelessly unpopular right now.

Another false hope, kids. Congress will not take on Cheney because impeaching him will have the same effect as impeaching Clinton. None whatsoever, except to take Dick's mind off of his next planned misdeed for a few minutes.
Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to convict Cheney, so he will stay in office until the end, and we will have wasted the time we should be using to find out just who told Giuliani WTC 7 was going to "fall" that horrible afternoon.

Not so fast....

Senator Ted Stevens is going down. He was one of the senators who would have protected him....and another senator is going down.

link

There are 60 votes in there to convict him.....enough people on both sides are fed up, that the 60 votes are there. Issue the subpoenas and bring him down as fast as possible by ammending House Resolution 333.......No one wants what he wants

StevensGoingDown

The Democrats WANT the administration to stay this awful, and the war to stay this awful, until November 2008. If they have the votes, they will do everything they can to lose them. Their whole game plan depends on looking like they want furiously to deliver but just don't have the votes. If we don't scare the living snot out of them, there is almost NO chance they will perform on their obligations.

Cheney has appeared, as has his staff, during the Plame-Wilson outting criminal case. Some of them just didn't tell the truth and are headed to the stir as a result (e.g. Libby).

The courts upheld Cheney's cover-up of who is driving US energy policy. The DC district and appellate courts, as well as the Supreme Court, are right wing now. It was much less so during Nixon.

So it is a risk to use subpoenas as the foundation of the impeachment action, plus it means waiting to see if Cheney violated a subpoena or not. The courts and only the courts must decide that issue.

But only the House can draft impeachment articles. And those articles are there NOW. Those articles do not need a court ruling.

Go for it now, don't wait for subpoena rulings in the courts, because that would take years to resolve.

Greg #12

Professor, the court thingy could take many years, as I pointed out in post #17. But we should do it anyway so long as it does not Tom DeLay the impeachment proceedings

We should do impeachment anyway NOW, but not wait on the courts to take a thousand yawns to eventually rule (DC District Court decision appealed to DC Appeals court which is appealed to the Supreme Court).

Joseph Cannon was probably wanting more substantial or touchy grounds than "high crimes and misdemeanors", but it is tactically unsound to wait for the courts on this one.

He advocates a technical mistake when he suggests going thru the subpoena process to bolster the impeachment process. The determination of whether a subpoena is valid (seeks protected matter?) is a court thingy, not the House.

January of 2009 is less than two years away, but a court resolution could take twice that, so the plan envisioned in post #4 it is not a good plan at this time and juncture IMO.

After all, "the DEMOCRATS" (according to 99's post #16 generalization) don't want this to be resolved before the '08 election.

The president, in vetoing the DEMOCRAT's bill to bring the troops home, was covering up for "the DEMOCRATS". He likes them so much he will do anything for them you know.

Joseph, therefore, in wanting to stall the impeachment with the subpoena angle, must be a democrat!

Cheney got sidetracked when he did not look deep enough into the dictionary to find out what vice, and therefore vice president really means.

He evidently stopped after reading the first definition of vice:

An evil, degrading, or immoral practice or habit.

A serious moral failing.

Wicked or evil conduct or habits; corruption.

A slight personal failing; a foible: the vice of untidiness.

A flaw or imperfection; a defect.

A jester or buffoon.

Sexual immorality, especially prostitution.

A slight personal failing; a foible: the vice of untidiness.

A flaw or imperfection; a defect.

A jester or buffoon.

A physical defect or weakness.

An undesirable habit, such as crib-biting, in a domestic animal.

(Dictionary). That explains some of his vice president behavior.

However, even if he went on to read other definitions of the word, does anyone think he could convince reasonable people (does not include anyone in the white what house) that a vice admiral is not a member of the Navy?

Dredd, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not at all sure what you are talking about. My intent was to follow to course set by the Nixon impeachment. A subpoena was issued by Jaworski in April, 1974. Nixon ignored it. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled against Nixon's claim of absolute executive privilege. On July 27, 1974, the House voted for the first article of impeachment.

That's not a whole lot of time --- although it seemed pretty long as it was happening. And look at all that was accomplished!

If we repeat the steps, a Supreme Court appeal might be avoided, since the matter has already been adjudicated.

So I think accusing me of "stalling" is ridiculous. The course I have outlined strikes me as pretty expeditious.

(Forgive the Keillorism.)

Start the process now and Dick is outta there by September.

Personally, I would love it if the House would act on Kucinich's resolution. I just don't think they will. And since the territory is very uncharted, I can see the Kucinich thing somehow ending up in court.

Not only that. Subpoenas are a court "thingie" only if issued by a court. That's what happened in the Nixon case: Jaworski was prosecuting Nixon's co-conspirators, and he subpoenaed the tapes as evidence. But Congress can act, at times, as a court acts. ('Tis the season for cross-currents between the three branches of gummint!) For example, Congress can compel you to give testimony under oath, and you can be charged with contempt of Congress.

So I see no reason --- none at all --- why a subpoena issued to Cheney by Congress, and ignored by him, cannot lead to articles of impeachment within a very short period of time. Like, a couple of weeks.

As for 99: This isn't the first time I've disagreed with her. First, I so not agree with her basic premise. Second, even if we grant her premise, I very much doubt that ending Cheney's reign would end the war. Third, Democratic chances in 2008 surely increase after a successful impeachment AND REMOVAL. 1976 provides a good precedent.

Joseph #20

I know that you have noticed things have changed since Nixon. His era was banana republic kindergarten.

This is the bushie era. The courts and the congress are not in banana republic kindergarten anymore.

The issuance of subpoenas will, I assume, generate some stonewalling. That means delay.

Then the committee that issued it will "be patient" and give several "final warnings".

Then a DC Federal District Court will or will not order the appearance before at committee or the production of documents.

Then there will be an appeal to the DC Federal Court of Appeals. They will take a year.

Then on to the supreme court. Another year.

The articles of impeachment are there now with 7 co-sponsors.

All that needs to be done is get it to the floor for a debate and a vote. Today. Not next year.

Joseph #20

I forgot to mention that you are not correct about the subpoenas.

I am in reference to enforcement.

Note that Monica was issued a subpoena and declined under the 5th amendment.

A court then ordered her to appear on pain of contempt. She then appeared.

The reason is that there is executive privilege. But the courts, not an interested party (congress or the VP) can decide the matter.

Impeach Cheney now.

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Excuuuuuuuse me! I meant Democratic Leadership.

And Democratic chances sure do go way up if they impeach these fucks, but they don't look at it that way.

THEY SAY IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER, EVEN MAKING FACES AT PEOPLE WHO SUGGEST IT. CLEAN OUT YOUR DAMN EARS. OPEN YOUR EYES.

Pardon me for yelling, but people are dying. Pay attention. They are not hiding it. They are speaking frankly about their tactics.

And that bill they sent the President didn't mandate withdrawal, and didn't even suggest withdrawal be started until ridiculously late, and he told them in completely believable terms that he was going to veto it. There was no reason on any front, beyond pure wishful thinking, that that bill would do ANY good beyond making some people think they wanted to end the war before they got their politcal gain out of it. If they'd meant business, he would not have gotten any more war money out of them. Period. You know it. Simple as that.

99-Some in the 'burbs won't see the obvious, they see want they want...too bad it's false hope.

THE SUBPOENAS ARE ISSUED!!!!!!!!!

I'm dancing with my beaten pots and pans --- didja' see, Miss Molly, didja' see!!!!???

As for Impeachment, it doesn't matter how much time it takes, it doesn't matter if they're fully impeached out of office(rare because the party frequently jumps ship on his own before the decision is made) ---

IT JUST MATTERS THAT AMERICANS TAKE BACK THE ACTUAL MEANING OF SUCH WORDS AS "RULE OF LAW", "DEMOCRACY", "CIVIL RIGHTS", "PATRIOTISM" AND EVEN "COMPASSION."

Besides, after Impeachment, there's still criminal courts. . .

Nothing would make me happier than for our congressfolk to vote on Kucinich's articles. They haven't done so. I don't think they will. Don't give up. Try again. I see absolutely NO reason why he cannot be impeached for resisting the wiretap subpoenas --- which is what we all know he will do.

I just don't think it would be hard to make the case that refusing a congressional subpoena constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. And I think the Republicans are so sick of the guy by now that they would not fight the matter overmuch.

So how would a court get into it? The subpoenas have been issued. Cheney WILL say no, because that is what Cheney does. Congress can impeach the next day. I just don't see how the matter goes to court.

The clock is ticking ... seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and yes, years are likely to pass before this subpoena litigation ends.

I expect them to comply at first enough to stall. They will say they gave everything (even tho they didn't), then stall some more.

Then they will stonewall the litigation with one objective only in mind ... run out the clock ... tick, tick, tick ...

Joseph #27

You mentioned:

So how would a court get into it? The subpoenas have been issued. Cheney WILL say no, because that is what Cheney does. Congress can impeach the next day. I just don't see how the matter goes to court.

So I went back over my posts. Sorry, I have not been really clear.

Yes of course, Congress can issue subpoenas, like courts. But the closer congress gets to the core of the executives at the white house, with subpoenas, the closer they get to executive privilege.

There is a valid executive privilege defense, and there is an invalid executive privilege defense.

But which one it is depends on the facts and the law determined by a court.

The congress can't just say it is right and thereby end the matter, and neither can the white house.

So an independent third party decides. That would at first be the Federal District Court in DC. Then the loser appeals to the DC Appellate court. Then the loser there appeals to the Supreme Court.

If everyone was trying to move it along fast it might take less than a year. But if one of the parties has high paid lawyers who specialize in slowing down litigation, it could take several years.

Plus, the courts have changed since Nixon. The republicans far outnumber democrats in the DC appellate court.

One appellate judge in the DC appellate court is being investigated for lying to congress.

It is a toss up in the other two courts it will wind its way thru.

The US government is a real mess right now, and the rest of the world is associating the american people with these criminals, and our reputation is in the gutter along with the rubbish in our government.

All,

Since we will be hearing a lot about executive privilege, here is a 2002 article by a law professor, discussing the issue in the context of congress suing Cheney over the energy meetings issue.

Congress, after the article was written, sued Cheney who claimed the privilege. Cheney won in the courts. Here is a link to the Supreme Court Decision.

I would note that executive privilege weakens in certain cases where criminal charges are a factor.

The degree of weakening depends on the facts and people involved in the criminal scenario.

The Supreme Court has today issued decisions that signal a decidedly clear move to the right.

This will certainly impact any executive privilege cases that go before it.

Remember that even before it moved to the right with the Alito appointment, Cheney won his battle in Cheney v DC Federal Court.

Things judicial do not look good from here on out on those type issues.

We debated, on this blog, Alito's impact and advocates of Alito, such as Doug E, have proven to be wrong and those of us who cautioned strongly against Alito are being proven to have had a better understanding of where things were headed.

Hi Dredd! What about this inherent contempt thing I was reading about over at Kos? It sounds like the congress can issue subpoenas, and then when they are ignored, order the Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms to go arrest the non-complier and bring him or her or them before the Senate for trial, and possibly imprison them, no courts involved at all. Any thoughts?

Czaragorn #32

Hi!

I posted that story here about a month or so ago on the day it came out. It begins under the section of the article entitled "If Congress Operated Like Gonzales".

It is an exercise in fantasy at this point of our nation's history because we have no bi-partisan political will to do american values.

The neoCon brazen will is paramount because the republicans have suffered some serious psychological damage, and they can't cast off the neoCon demons.

The nation is degenerating like it did before the civil war.

Even judges who were sane not long ago are shocking other nations by their orweillan statements:

A TOP-RANKING US judge has stunned a conference of Australian judges and barristers in Chicago by advocating secret trials for terrorists, more surveillance of Muslim populations across North America and an end to counter-terrorism efforts being "hog-tied" by the US constitution.

(The Australian). That judge was once said to have "liberal" views.

So now we know why Gonzales is there and we know why the camouflaged political hacks are in key US Attorney positions calling themselves US Attorneys.

They are there to promote and cover up political pornography ... the decay of the Department of Justice Just Us into the political whip of the republican fascists.

Now we know why Ted Kennedy was on the terrorism watch. Now we know why they have been so brazen.

They think they have all the bases covered.

And the neoCons are giggling behind closed doors ... because they also think they have the next elections "fixed" now.

And the anti electronic election machine folks think they have it "fixed" too ... as they argue amongst themselves in divided cacaphony ... but "fixed" does not mean the same thing to the dark lords as it does to the bickering activists.

All seems to have been Stalin "fixed".

So you're saying the royal guard won't let the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police into the Whose? House to do their job? That sounds like a whole 'nother sorta case...

Yep. Congress does have the power in the abstract, but not the will in current reality.

There is some growth in the number of congress folk who support impeachment of Cheney according to this article at Raw Story.

Obama is soft on impeachment at the moment.