http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/cheney-impeachment-coura
_b_88049.html
Elizabeth Holtzman
Cheney Impeachment: Courageous, But Not Surprising
Posted February 22, 2008
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 sup****ted it? Twenty members
co-sponsored
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution calling for the impeachment of Cheney,
but
bucked their leader****p to do so. Democratic leaders took impeachment
"off the
table," apparently fearing it could hurt their chances in 2008.
Does the leader****p 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 im****tant 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 sup****ting
impeachment
-- more state legislatures would have acted except for pressure not to
from
Democrats in Wa****ngton. Multiple polls show a majority of Americans
sup****ting 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 sup****ting the impeachment of Bush.
The Democratic leader****p 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jqcitizen (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of sarge)
Where is Cheney? If he were dead, how would we know?
fact finder (See profile | I'm a fan of fact finder)
It will never happen.
gcg737 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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.
scooperss (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of SamEllison)
The reason impeachment was taken off the table was because every
indictment
would have had its beginnings in the Clinton42 WH. It does ****ne a light
on
Bill's behavior of late. A Clinton44 WH would not allow the truth to be
told.
Sundialsvc4 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 re****ted 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
Querent (See profile | I'm a fan of 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.
Bushwillresign (See profile | I'm a fan of 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?
ElkoJohn (See profile | I'm a fan of ElkoJohn)
`
short memory too,
doesn't Nancy P. remember that the Repugs impeached Clinton for lying
about
getting oral *** 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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
air****t Men's room.
crank (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 sup****t 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 sup****ters 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of 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 (See profile | I'm a fan of Liberal2)
Ahhhhhh, yes! The good old J. Edgar Hoover self-preservation strategy.
WorkingClass (See profile | I'm a fan of WorkingClass)
The Democratic congress is complicit in the crimes of the Bush
Administration.
How any American can still be a Democrat or a Republican is beyond
reason.
DieboldHacker (See profile | I'm a fan of DieboldHacker)
Refusal to pursue impeachment against this obviously rogue
administration led
me to defect from the Dem Party. Go Greens. If Nader runs, as it appears
now,
I will vote for him.
Impeach now, or we get to have a Bush National Air****t in a town near you
soon!
ajclowder (See profile | I'm a fan of ajclowder)
Thank you Ms. Holtzman,
What can the citizenry do to convince Congress to take action?
RTIII (See profile | I'm a fan of RTIII)
Easy: Call EVERY ONE of your representatives in congress, especially your
congressperson. Write letters, too. Show up in person, if you can. Write
letters to the editor of every place you can think of. JOIN EVERY
PROTEST YOU
HEAR ABOUT. AND DON'T EVER STOP TRYING!
BTW, the mass media is complicit in Bush's crimes; tell them you think
so and
that they only way they can redeem themselves is to speak up for
impeachment
DAILY.
EVERY TIME NEW NEWS COMES OUT ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY; use it as a
new
excuse to do the whole damned thing over again...
I'm hoping in the next month to have my finances in order so I can get
out
there and protest daily in very visible public places... Press your
media to
find such people and re****t on them!
laocoon (See profile | I'm a fan of laocoon)
The excuse that we are out of time was also how this administration came
into
power. Run the clock out so there is no longer time to count the votes
as the
law required. Now there is no time to do what the law requires regarding
impeachment.
Clinton (See profile | I'm a fan of Clinton)
This is way overdue.
JustAnotherJoe (See profile | I'm a fan of JustAnotherJoe)
I don't know. The spineless Reps may have a point. Since there were more
crimes committed under Bush/Cheney, than under Nixon, there might really
enough time to try them all!
Snark over. Time to hold these clowns accountable is way past due.
seaape (See profile | I'm a fan of seaape)
I am terribly disappointed that Democrats will not protect and defend the
Constitution. I am particularly disillusioned with my rep, whom I
sup****ted,
and who has gone through all the lame excuses that Ms. Holtzman cites.
oldpotsmuggler (See profile | I'm a fan of oldpotsmuggler)
We only need to go back as far as the State of the Union Address in
January,
where it was publicly stated that little bu****e boy was going to instruct
agencies to disregard approved spending just because it came in "earmark"
format. To go on T.V. and openly state that he views himself to be above
the
law should have given rise to a monstrous public outcry, and did not
solely
because we've now lost the ability to be shocked by anything of that
nature
coming from this administration. Signing statements, etc. have basically
just
turned the public numb, an outcome that cries out for reversal.
But the most salutary consequence of impeachment proceedings, along with
ultimately getting rid of the whole crowd, would be to neutralize them
from
creating further harm.
Start to impeach. Drag them all up to the Capitol for non-stop hearings.
Make
them spend so much time with lawyers that nothing else is left to them.
Anything short of this shows such contempt for proper adherence to
constitutional principles that any legislator resisting the process will
have
to be targeted for removal.
Oh, and some place along the way lets stop procrastinating, hold The
Second
American Constitutional Convention, and create a system for removal from
office that puts the people firmly in control of office holders.
englishprof (See profile | I'm a fan of englishprof)
I find it revealing that Elizabeth Holtzman's arguments in favor of
impeachment have not, long ago, reached Op-Ed status in the NEW YORK
TIMES.
Nothing against THE NATION, which carried Ms. Holtzman's well-reasoned
argument and to which my wife and I subscribe, but it simply doesn't
have the
exposure of the NYT. The TIMES has become a self-im****tant,
sanctimonious, and
cowardly rag, edging closer and closer to the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. I have
yet to
hear a ringing apology for the editorial board's use of Judith Miller as
a
megaphone for the Bush administration's fraudulent case for the Iraq
invasion;
they are no more openly apologetic for their disservice to our country
than is
Senator Clinton. And once they eased Miller out the door, they stoop to
ill-substantiated insinuations and smear articles about both McCain and
Obama.
Which brings me back to Elizabeth Holtzman. Have our media and Congress
(including Pelosi and Reid) become so cowardly and corrupt that they
lack the
wherewithal to proceed?
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
|
