Kucinich Intends on Filing Articles Of Impeachment on Cheney

Kucinich Intends on Filing Articles Of Impeachment on Cheney

blog.washingtonpost.com

Looks like he's reached his boiling point.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war.


Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice president and "all civil Officers of the United States" for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is something that has been long overdue not only for Cheney but for the whole lot of them. Its too bad Wolfowitz couldnt be added to the list.




blog.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by ThePieMaN


This is something that has been long overdue not only for Cheney but for the whole lot of them. Its too bad Wolfowitz couldnt be added to the list.




blog.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Won't do a bit of good. You can't take a bunch of coincidences, inferences, and ideas to a court of law. You need hard evidence...and there's none to be found here.

It is hard to make a judgment without knowing what the articles of impeachment are. I think it will probably have something to do with Cheney receiving payments from Halliburton whose business has been booming due to the war in Iraq. The war is a clear conflict of interest and I’m sure there is plenty of proof to back it up.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by Hal9000]

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think it will probably have something to do with Cheney receiving payments from Halliburton whose business has been booming due to the war in Iraq. The war is a clear conflict of interest and I’m sure there is plenty of proof to back it up.

Doubtful.

My understanding is that he divested his interest prior to becoming VP and provided the documentation to prove it.

Originally posted by makeitso
Doubtful.

My understanding is that he divested his interest prior to becoming VP and provided the documentation to prove it.

But even in your source it shows he is still receiving deferred payments. The thing the article explains is that he earned the money prior to being VP, and that regardless of any government decision the payments won't change. So maybe it is legal, but it sure is skirting the law IMHO. Maybe Kucinich found something that hasn't been reported by the media yet.

Again it is hard to argue one way or the other if he should be impeached without knowing what the articles of impeachment are.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Maybe Kucinich found something that hasn't been reported by the media yet.

Again it is hard to argue one way or the other if he should be impeached without knowing what the articles of impeachment are.

Here is Kucinich's rationalization to push for impeachment. Posted on his website, in his own words.

This past week in the Congress of the United States, I noted that the administration has threatened aggressive war against Iran. This is a violation of the UN charter. Charters are treaties. Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States says that treaties are the law of our land, the supreme law of our land. It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation.

I began this week with a speech on the floor of the House, which warned the administration that its actions toward Iran already constitute a case to ask the question about impeachment.

So Halliburton payola, no. Sorry.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Won't do a bit of good. You can't take a bunch of coincidences, inferences, and ideas to a court of law. You need hard evidence...and there's none to be found here.

Um, not exactly true. There's plenty of proof of Bush and Cheney authorizing the outing of Valerie Plame (treason), and of Bush and Cheney getting us into the Iraq war by lying about there being WMD's in Iraq. We have emails and other documents showing this to be true. And then of course, there are all of the laws signed onto, that are blatantly unconstitutional. We also have proof that Bush stole both elections. (See Greg Palast and the black box voting website.)

You have to read the (few) investigative reporters to get the whole story, the MSM won't tell you these things.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Its too bad Wolfowitz couldnt be added to the list.

Sorry Pie,

There is nothing there to prosecute big bad Wolfowitz.

according this account in the Wall Street Journal, which is based of a review 109 pages of relevant documents, Wolfowitz did recuse himself from all personnel matters involving his girlfriend at the World Bank. However, "ethics" officials at the Bank decided that the woman, Shaha Riza, would have to leave her job there due to her relationship with Wolfowitz. The same officials instructed Wolfowitz to provide Riza, who was slated for a promotion at the World Bank, with a pay raise that would offset the damage to her career caused by her ouster. Wolfowitz complied. The Bank's ethics czar subsequently told Wolfowitz that his resolution of the matter was satisfactory.

The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract.

Originally posted by makeitso
Here is Kucinich's rationalization to push for impeachment. Posted on his website, in his own words.

Here he talks about the administration making threats against Iran and not specifically anything about Cheney. From the article in the OP it solely names Cheney and that is why I first thought of his dealings with Halliburton. You would think if this is his reason for impeachment, Bush et al would be included.

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Won't do a bit of good. You can't take a bunch of coincidences, inferences, and ideas to a court of law. You need hard evidence...and there's none to be found here.

Um, not exactly true. There's plenty of proof of Bush and Cheney authorizing the outing of Valerie Plame (treason),

Not enough to convict or impeach. Heck they could only get Scooter for lying, and they barely accomplished that, try as they might.

and of Bush and Cheney getting us into the Iraq war by lying about there being WMD's in Iraq. We have emails and other documents showing this to be true.

The entire congress approved of the war, and they all had plenty of intel thru their own investigations that there was WMD's in Iraq, so they voted OK. Are you telling me that dumb ignorant Bush was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire Democratic Senate/Congress? Not to mention that Pelosi and the rest all were chanting war cries over WMD in Iraq during the Clinton admin. You gonna impeach them too?

And then of course, there are all of the laws signed onto, that are blatantly unconstitutional.

You mean the ones that Congress passed? Those?

We also have proof that Bush stole both elections. (See Greg Palast and the black box voting website.)

Nothing that will hold up in court. If so, it would have been done years ago.

Rumors, and innuendo don't hold up in court.

Originally posted by Hal9000
You would think if this is his reason for impeachment, Bush et al would be included.

I agree.


Except somebody pointed out to me that if he successfully impeached Bush, Cheney would become president, and thats why he is trying to go after Cheney instead.


Pretty funny

makeitso - good point.

Bush, Cheney, Kunich - the same interests will still be holding the purse strings.
Besides, I'm not entirely convinced abandoning Iraq and the strategy in the middle East altogether is the right course of action.

Basically there is a depletion of resources and destruction of morale by the dismantling of democracy and due process in a nation that will still have an enemy no matter how nice they are to them. In the meantime - competing nations with more draconian totalitarianism are made rich by the economic policies reflected by the purse string persuasions. The enemy is given more time to beef up their military resources and cement alliances. While the real culprit has disappeared in the confusion created by becoming just like them.

Why isn't anyone going after the Patriot Act and the policies of torture. We may still have to fight after the bloated and hypocritical leadership is completely discredited, the army denuded, the morale devastated and we will still have to win.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Won't do a bit of good. You can't take a bunch of coincidences, inferences, and ideas to a court of law. You need hard evidence...and there's none to be found here.

Um, not exactly true. There's plenty of proof of Bush and Cheney authorizing the outing of Valerie Plame (treason),

Not enough to convict or impeach. Heck they could only get Scooter for lying, and they barely accomplished that, try as they might.

and of Bush and Cheney getting us into the Iraq war by lying about there being WMD's in Iraq. We have emails and other documents showing this to be true.

The entire congress approved of the war, and they all had plenty of intel thru their own investigations that there was WMD's in Iraq, so they voted OK. Are you telling me that dumb ignorant Bush was able to pull the wool over the eyes of the entire Democratic Senate/Congress? Not to mention that Pelosi and the rest all were chanting war cries over WMD in Iraq during the Clinton admin. You gonna impeach them too?

And then of course, there are all of the laws signed onto, that are blatantly unconstitutional.

You mean the ones that Congress passed? Those?

We also have proof that Bush stole both elections. (See Greg Palast and the black box voting website.)

Nothing that will hold up in court. If so, it would have been done years ago.

Rumors, and innuendo don't hold up in court.

Hmm, so are you saying that documents on paper don't hold up in court? And yes, Congress did pass all those things, but that was unconstitutional as well, it doesn't make it right.

If you would take the time to read the sources I told you about, you would know that there is far, far more than rumor and innuendo. They have written proof. The one at black box went to Ohio herself and checked things out. Read her account of it, she names names, etc.

Is there any possiblity that somehow this gunman at VT was a distraction to keep Kuchinich from moving forward on his plan?

Check out CNN website under breaking news, the gunman tried to mail out some documents.

Seems like Bush and company would love to engineer some event to put a kink in things....




[edit on 18-4-2007 by c3hamby]

Originally posted by makeitso
Sorry Pie,

There is nothing there to prosecute big bad Wolfowitz.

Well I wasn't really talking about the World Bank incident. Wolfowitz was one of the main proponents behind the Iraqi war. Notice how all these guys fell back into the shadows (well except for this idiot) as though they had nothing to do with it? Daniel Perle too.


Pie