Impeachment of the Bush-Cheney Presidency

[Sid Walker]

The Washington Post reports that Kucinich has made the first moves from within Congress...

Kucinich Introduces Impeachment Articles Against Cheney

CQ Transcripts Wire

Tuesday, April 24, 2007; 6:09 PM

REP. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, D-OHIO: Thank you very much for being here.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

These words from the Declaration of Independence are instructive at this moment. Because not only whenever any form of government, but whenever any government official becomes destructive of the founding purposes, that official or those officials must be held accountable.

Because I believe the vice president's conduct of office has been destructive to the founding purposes of our nation. Today, I have introduced House Resolution 333, Articles of Impeachment Relating to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. I do so in defense of the rights of the American people to have a government that is honest and peaceful.

It became obvious to me that this vice president, who was a driving force for taking the United States into a war against Iraq under false pretenses, is once again rattling the sabers of war against Iran with the same intent to drive America into another war, again based on false pretenses.

Let me cite from the articles of impeachment that were introduced this afternoon, Article I, that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

That despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

That 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 the Congress of the United States.

That in this the vice president subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members and the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs, which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States armed services, through an overextension and lack of training and lack of equipment; and the loss of United States credibility in the world affairs and decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

That with respect to Article II, that Richard Cheney manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida in order to justify the use of United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.

And that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida.

That preceding to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, a fact articulated in several official documents.

With respect to Article III, that in his conduct while vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done so with the United States's proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security interests of the United States.

That despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and despite the turmoil created by the United States's invasion of Iraq, the vice president has openly threatened aggression against Iran.

Furthermore, I point out in the articles that Article VI of the United States Constitution states, and I quote, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States."

The United States is signatory to the U.N. Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, and I quote, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."

The articles conclude by pointing out that the vice president's deception upon the citizens and the Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy so that the vice president recent belligerent actions toward Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States of America.

These articles of impeachment are not brought forth lightly. I've carefully weighed the options available to members of Congress and found this path the path that is the most important to take.

The justifications used to lead our nation to war have unquestionably been disproved. Brave soldiers and innocent civilians have lost their lives in a war the United States should never have initiated. The weight of the lies used to lead us into war has grown heavier with each death. Now is the time for Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring the troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter, and I will urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.

At this time, I'm happy to take any of your questions.

QUESTION: Congressman, at this point do you have any other -- any fellow members support this?

KUCINICH: At this very moment, the resolution is being transmitted to members of Congress. Because this resolution is so weighty in its import, it's going to be important for members of Congress to have sufficient time to study the articles. This is unlike any other type of legislation or resolution. This is not something that you can ask anyone to make a snap judgment on. It took me a while to come to this point. And I would expect that members of Congress, given the opportunity to review these articles, will be able to come to a conclusion consistent with their own concerns and the concerns of their constituents.

QUESTION: But at this point, you stand alone, at this point?

KUCINICH: At this point, I believe that I stand with millions of Americans who have expressed concern through their state legislatures, through petitions to Congress, through contact with their members of Congress, that something has to be done to reclaim our country's goodness, to reclaim a government which the American people want to be honest, want to be just.

And so I do not stand alone. I have multitudes of people backing this.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Chairman Conyers to look at this?

KUCINICH: I will discuss this with Chairman Conyers, now that this has been introduced, and I will ask for his consideration. And I will communicate this to all members of the House and ask them to give it the kind of thoughtful consideration that it deserves.

KUCINICH: I might point out that -- that when you read the annotations here, you will see that everything that has been said in these articles has been carefully documented. In fact, I would imagine that some of you have even reported some of the statements, although perhaps the statements have not been challenged in this way until now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: The question relates to why I'm bringing the articles of impeachment against Mr. Cheney, and not Mr. Bush. Is that it?

QUESTION: Why solely Mr. Cheney?

KUCINICH: Well, there's a practical reason here. And the practical reason is -- first of all, I want to say that each and every charge against Mr. Cheney relates to his conduct or misconduct in office.

Now, with respect to the president. I think that it's very important that we start with Mr. Cheney. Because if we were to start with the president and pursue articles of impeachment, Mr. Cheney would then become president.

It's significant and responsible to start in this way, because if the same charges would relate to the president as relate to the vice president, you would then have to go through the constitutional agony of impeaching two presidents consecutively.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: Well, actually -- I'll wait until that truck goes by here.

Let me tell you the difference. The difference today is that this vice president is actively encouraging aggression against Iran. It is urgent that Congress take steps to check the abuse of power. And that's what this impeachment resolution will do.

KUCINICH: There is no comparison whatsoever -- in any way, shape or manner -- between these articles of impeachment and the articles of impeachment which were presented to the House of Representatives in 1999.

In fact, these articles of impeachment are deeply researched, will stand up in a discussion in the House and in the Senate. And I believe that they are -- that they're imperative to bring forth right now because the threat of war against Iran is very real.

And this vice president cannot be permitted to continue to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter.

QUESTION: Congressman, you're running for president. Are you hoping to get the others (OFF-MIKE)?

KUCINICH: Each person has to -- each person will have to make his or her own decision.

This goes beyond partisan terms. This is being done to defend our constitutional system of government. This is being done so that all those of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can understand that this impeachment is one valid way in furtherance of the defense of our Constitution.

I don't see this as being distant from anyone, in any capacity in our government. Everyone must reflect on this.

Years from now, people will ask, "Why didn't the United States government respond when they saw this threat to our democracy? Why didn't people inside the government respond?" if this doesn't move forward.

And so this really isn't so much, I might add, about the vice president as it is about who we are as a people. What is it that we stand for? What kind of government do the people of the United States expect and deserve?

KUCINICH: It's not appropriate for the government to lie to people. It is wrong for government officials -- you know, the vice president, in this case -- to take this nation into war based on lies.

And so, again, this becomes a question of who we are as a people. And so this resolution 333, articles of impeachment against the vice president, will let future generations know that no one is above the law of this country and that Congresses have the specific responsibility to provide a check to administrative abuse of power. That's the way the framers set this government up.

QUESTION: Congressman, Speaker Pelosi has said on more than one occasion she's not interested in impeachment.

Have you had conversations with her on this, or some exchange, in your mind...

KUCINICH: No, I have not discussed this with Speaker Pelosi.

I want to stress that this is not a partisan action at all. I have not confided in anyone in the leadership of my party, because I take this action beyond partisanship, beyond party, as an obligation and commitment to my nation and my loyalty to America and my willingness to say, "Stop the lies. Stop the lying. Stop the dying that's occurring in Iraq over lies."

It's imperative that America stand for the truth. It said in the Bible, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Well, let then these articles of impeachment help set our nation free from the lies that have enveloped our governmental process, the lies that are trapping us still in a war in Iraq, the lies that could take us into a war against Iran.

This is about the truth.

QUESTION: Congressman, it's been said by some pundits that you're just introducing these articles to gain publicity for your presidential campaign.

What do you make of those allegations? And do you think this is going to help you out in your race for the presidency?

KUCINICH: These articles are about the conduct of the vice president of the United States, that he deceived the people of the United States to take this country into a war, that he continues to exhibit a pattern of conduct that could take this country into another war based on false pretenses. That's what this is about.

KUCINICH: And I believe that the people of this country are demanding that someone stand up and anyone has been free to do this. Anyone in the House of Representatives could take similar action if they so choose, or could take action against the vice president or the president.

QUESTION: Pelosi says it's not going anywhere.

(CROSSTALK)

KUCINICH: Have you talked to her today?

QUESTION: Yes, I did.

KUCINICH: Then I would say I have not talked to her. And as much as I admire the speaker, as much as I voted to support her, I feel that it's my obligation as a member of Congress to introduce these articles of impeachment. And I believe the American people will be the final arbiters as to whether or not these articles should go forward.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, when you say the vice president led us into war, wouldn't that be President Bush? Isn't Cheney working for Bush? (inaudible)

KUCINICH: Well, let's go into Article I. "Mr. Cheney: 'We know they have biological and chemical weapons.'" Said this in a press conference on March 17th, 2002. "We know they're pursuing nuclear weapons." He said this in a press briefing on March 19th, 2002. "He is pursuing, activity pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." He said this on "CNN Late Edition," March 24th. "We know he's got chemical and biological, and we know he's working on nuclear."

"Meet the Press," May 19th: "But we know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." "There is no doubt he's amassing them against our friends, against our allies and against us." August 26th, 2002.

On and on and on. "He has in fact activity and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." September 8th, 2002, "Meet the Press."

"He has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons." March 16th, "Meet the Press."

This vice president was a driving force in trying to create the circumstances to justify the United States's attack against Iran. And he not only deceived the people of the United States, and the Congress of the United States, he deceived the American media.

KUCINICH: And so these articles are tightly focused on the conduct of the vice president. And to the extent that they may reflect in some way on the conduct of the president of the United States, is another matter for another day.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KUCINICH: I think the record is very clear, that this vice president used his conduct of office to promote a war and Article I and Article II are very clear that he conducted himself in such a way as to use the power of his office to promote that war.

And so this relates to the vice president. And I think I answered the question earlier about why the vice president and not the president.

Anyone else? I want to thank you very much for being here.

QUESTION: Do you have anyone you would identify as a replacement? If Vice President Cheney were impeached, it would have to be voted on the House and the Senate for confirmation.

KUCINICH: That would be up to President Bush.

Thank you.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

The mass media is unlikely to support Kucinich.

However, his claims that there is massive popular support for impeachment may be accurate.

This list of actions indicates an impressive grass roots upswell:

Find an Impeachment Action Near You

[Sid Walker]

It's Impeachment Day! (No 1 in the series...)

Today, Saturday, April 28th, we launch Impeachment Summer with events in 43 states, and several foreign countries, with a fleet of seven airplanes, and with the support of millions of Americans. Find the nearest event and bring your friends:

Here's the map of today's demonstrations:

I'm shocked that neither CNN nor Fox appear to be covering the story.

Meanwhile, the Baptists pray for a miracle:

Despite the upswell for impeachment, there are still plenty of pessimists around. They represent a substantial market and as one would expect, the capitalist system caters for them as well.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

Ed Firmage, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Utah College of Law, sets out the historical background to the impeachment process - and the basic case for impeaching Bush and Cheney.

According to Firmage, execution is not on the agenda.

What a gentle society America is!

The time has come for an impeachment tutorial

04/28/2007

The impeachment clause in the U.S. Constitution is fashioned upon the English experience with impeachment used frequently as a rule-of-law community emerged in Britain.

There, the supremacy of Parliament, especially the House of Commons, was the result. As Parliament came to prevail over Tudor and Stuart monarchical power, Parliament used impeachment to lessen the power of the monarchy.

Since the king could do no wrong, Parliament picked off the Crown's leading supporters in government, impeaching and punishing the offenders; thus, over time, curtailing the power of the monarchy. In England, the Bill of Impeachment, with its articles of impeachment, originated in Commons and, passing Commons, proceeded to trial before the House of Lords, the law lords playing a significant role.

The constitutional language in our impeachment clause says the "President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."(Art. 2, sect. 4)

In the English experience, impeachment was a criminal process carrying criminal sanctions, often punished by execution. In the American experience, while the language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was taken from English law, the Constitution clearly removes all criminal punishment from the impeachment process. The only penalty is removal from office, with later criminal trial possible within the judicial process.

The Constitution clearly states: "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."(Art.1, sect. 2)

Impeachment of the president is a political process to preserve the constitutional government from political offense of the highest order. This process allows, under very restrictive circumstances, the Congress, the political branch, to remove the president by trial in the Senate, with the judicial branch represented by the chief justice presiding over the Senate.

The House, after voting on articles of impeachment, acts as prosecutor in the Senate. Members of the House Judiciary Committee normally fulfill this function.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" most usually involve gross abuse of çongressional powers by the president. James Iredell, later to become a justice of the Supreme ourt, in the North arolina ratifying convention cited as an example of an impeachable offense a president lying to the Congress in the conduct of foreign policy.

James Wilson, perhaps the greatest legal mind of the Constitutional Convention, said that impeachment was "confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments."

It was clear after the occurrance of 9/11 that President Bush had already planned an attack upon Iraq, even though Iraq had no role in the events of 9/11. This is planning, and later waging, a war of aggression and violates the United Nations Charter and the law created by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Waging aggressive war is a high crime and misdemeanor. The subjugation by this administration of rights guaranteed in the Constitution to our citizens in the Bill of Rights, also constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. The total mismanagement of the war in Iraq, together with the huge damage done to the U.S. military, also violates the presidential oath of office.

If we are ever to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world, if we are ever again to presume to take upon ourselves the mantle of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, we must remove the mediocrity who now holds the office of president, together with his vice president, Dick Cheney, the dark force who has masterminded much of our nightmare in the conduct of this illegal war of aggression and the maladministration of the executive office of president of the United States.

---

* ED FIRMAGE is the Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, emeritus, at the University of Utah College of Law. During the Nixon impeachment he wrote "The Law of Presidential Impeachment," 1973 Utah Law Review 681; and "Removal of the President: Resignation and the Procedural Law of Impeachment," 1974 Duke Law Journal 1023.

[John Geraghty]

http://help-cynthia-impeach.blogspot.com I set up this blog last November when Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment. It also fell upon deaf ears.

I will be throwing what weight I have behind Kucinich for his presidential bid. Kucinich regularly posts videos on youtube updating people on what is gonig on on capitol hill.

John

[Sid Walker]

http://help-cynthia-impeach.blogspot.com I set up this blog last November when Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment. It also fell upon deaf ears.

I will be throwing what weight I have behind Kucinich for his presidential bid. Kucinich regularly posts videos on youtube updating people on what is gonig on on capitol hill.

John

He certainly impresses me more than any of the other declared candidates.

[John Geraghty]

Kucinich is one of (maybe only) candidate not to accept corporate donations. Howard Dean did not accept them for a while until the race really got going and he needed to keep up with Kerry.

John

[Sid Walker]

Kucinich is one of (maybe only) candidate not to accept corporate donations. Howard Dean did not accept them for a while until the race really got going and he needed to keep up with Kerry.

John

I like what I hear about Mike Gravel, as well.

This from an optimistic fan: Meet the Next President of the United States of America

Short extract:

"What will make a difference in this campaign is not money, it's not celebrity,

it is a person who is prepared to tell the American people the truth," he said.

"The people are fed up and as president I will do a 180 and move this country in the opposite direction."

[uncontrollable cheers from the audience!]A native of Springfield, Mass., Gravel served two terms in the Senate, representing Alaska from 1969 to 1981 . He made his mark as a fierce Vietnam war critic who staged a one-man filibuster that led to the end of the military draft. He drafted legislation to end funding for the war and released the Pentagon Papers, which detailed government deception over Vietnam, at the end of June 1971.

The Nixon administration decided not to prosecute Gravel for having Beacon Press in Boston publish the papers, though the US Supreme Court ruled that Gravel could release them only inside the Capitol, based on the Constitution's speech and debate clause.

Gravel today is a fierce critic of the Iraq war and government secrecy.