Kucinich files bill of impeachment against Cheney

[tik 🪀✨]

Forgive me if there's already a topic about this in another forum, I could not find any.

Atlantic Free Press
Friday, 04 May 2007
By Dave Linderoff
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1498/32/

Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), started things off by filing a three-article bill of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. Initially largely ignored by the mainstream media, and even ridiculed by some leading Democrats in Congress, that bill, HR 333, today garnered two co-sponsors, Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL).

The two co-sponsors signing on to the bill (both veteran members of Congress, and one, Schakowsky, a chief deputy whip and member of the Democratic Congressional leadership team), give it a much stronger chance of being taken seriously in the House Judiciary Committee headed by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), and follow a week of intense impeachment activities across the country.

A week ago, dozens of impeachment activists gathered on the steps of the main entrance to the Cannon House Office Building in a group press conference calling on Congress to back Kucinich’s impeachment bill, and to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

That same week, delegates to the annual convention of the California Democratic Party, the largest state chapter of the Democratic Party, overwhelmingly passed a detailed resolution calling for the impeachment of the president and vice president. The resolution received the highest vote total of all the resolutions offered at that convention, and was a powerful message to California’s top Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents a district in San Francisco, that her own party wants action on impeachment, not a political dodge.

A few days later, on Saturday, April 28, impeachment groups across the nation held demonstrations, many of which featured protesters assembling to form giant letters spelling out the word “Impeach.” While the mainstream media largely ignored those protests, the message was not lost on House Democrats. The following day, Rep. John Murtha, a leader of the Democrats’ campaign to end the Iraq War, speaking on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” declared that impeachment was one of the tools Congress has to influence the president. Lest his statement be misconstrued as a slip of the tongue, Murtha, who is known to be a close political ally of Pelosi, repeated the statement on NPR the following day, this time saying pointedly that impeachment was “on the table” in Congress.

His choice of words was particularly significant, since Pelosi has been insisting for almost a year that under a Democratic Congress, impeachment of the president would be “off the table.”

It remains to be seen whether more members of the House will sign on to Kucinich’s bill, or whether other representatives will add new bills of impeachment of their own against the vice president. Kucinich’s bill is narrow in scope, only citing three impeachable offenses: lying about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, lying about an alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and illegally threatening war against Iran, a country that poses no imminent threat to the U.S. Certainly there are plenty of other grounds for impeaching Cheney, ranging from conspiracy to commit kidnapping and illegal torture of prisoner of war detainees and war profiteering to lying to Congress and orchestrating the theft of national elections.

Thirty-nine members of the House in the last Congress were co-sponsors of a bill submitted in late 2005 by Rep. Conyers that called for an investigation into impeachable crimes by the president and vice president, and impeachment activists are now lobbying those members--nearly all of whom were returned to office last November--to join as co-sponsors of HR 333. Both Reps. Clay and Shakowsky had been co-sponsors of the earlier Conyers bill, signing on in January 2006.

With frustration with President Bush’s insistence on endless war in Iraq, and with grassroots pressure for impeachment building, it is going to be harder and harder for the mainstream media to keep ignoring the impeachment story. It is also going to be harder and harder for Democratic Party leaders to deter their more progressive members in the House from filing impeachment bills.

You can read the articles here: http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int2.pdf

Do you think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Kucinich's presidential campaign? Are the charges without warrant or do you agree with them? Is this a worthwhile effort or will it backfire?

While I think impeaching Cheney might be a noble notion, from a political standpoint it seems like an empty act. I'm guessing Kucinich believes in what he is doing, but of course he wants to benefit politically. I'm very curious as to where it will go from here, seeing it debated on the floor would be quite the sideshow. Legally I doubt this will hold well. It's also very narrow in scope, as there are a myriad of other charges that could be brought against Cheney, as the article states.

[J. J.]

That Ferngi is a joke.

[Padfoot]

Although I would support impeachment these are definitely treacherous grounds for Democrats to be walking.  I'm not sure that disapproval ratings translate well into support for impeachment.

[Joe Republic]

these are definitely treacherous grounds for Democrats to be walking.

You're certainly correct about the treachery part. [/StatesRights]



(All in good humor, Jeff. )

[Joe Biden 2020]

Though the impeachment bill is DOA, he has a reason for going after Cheney first.

Let's say hypothetically it did succeed.  If he were to go after Bush first and removes him, Cheney would then be President.  If he goes after Cheney and removes him, then goes after Bush and removes him, then we would be talking President Nancy Pelosi.

I'm sure you all knew his logic of going after Cheney first rather than Bush.

Remember, Impeachment is not Removal.  Its just the first step toward removal.

The Democrats won't even give any thought to impeachment, though. They don't want to hurt their chances 18 months from now.  Plus, we need to decide what to do about Iraq itself, not about the person(s) who perpetrated Iraq.  They know Bush will be out of office in just 20 months, so why waste their time trying to impeach him when it would only save a few months if successful.  Iraq is or should be the focus, not President Bush.

[MODU]

Yet another waste of the publics time.

[2952-0-0]

As opposed to bills to rename the Congress Cafeteria food to Freedom Fries or constitutional amendments to outlaw flag burning and gay marriage, which are urgent and pressing concerns.

[CultureKing]

Yet another waste of the publics time.

I'll agree to that, by the time the precedings would be underway it would most likely be 2008... Even if I think there are impeachable grounds it would just hurt the dems to much and be too big of a waste of time.

[Dr. Cynic]

As opposed to bills to rename the Congress Cafeteria food to Freedom Fries or constitutional amendments to outlaw flag burning and gay marriage, which are urgent and pressing concerns.

Who says it's not all a waste?

[MODU]

As opposed to bills to rename the Congress Cafeteria food to Freedom Fries or constitutional amendments to outlaw flag burning and gay marriage, which are urgent and pressing concerns.

Who says it's not all a waste?

Freedom fries was a waste.  The other two were not (at least flag burning).

[Dr. Cynic]

As opposed to bills to rename the Congress Cafeteria food to Freedom Fries or constitutional amendments to outlaw flag burning and gay marriage, which are urgent and pressing concerns.

Who says it's not all a waste?

Freedom fries was a waste.  The other two were not (at least flag burning).

I think outlawing gay marraige is a waste, and the flag burning law is also frivolous, because it violates first amendment rights.

All four of the current examples on the table are wastes of time and legislation.

[Padfoot]

As opposed to bills to rename the Congress Cafeteria food to Freedom Fries or constitutional amendments to outlaw flag burning and gay marriage, which are urgent and pressing concerns.

Who says it's not all a waste?

Freedom fries was a waste.  The other two were not (at least flag burning).

Any law which you know has no chance of passing is a waste regardless of whether or not you believe the law should be passed.  Thus both were a waste of time since everyone knew they wouldn't be passed.  It isn't the job of Congress to make political statements.

[MODU]

Any law which you know has no chance of passing is a waste regardless of whether or not you believe the law should be passed.  Thus both were a waste of time since everyone knew they wouldn't be passed.  It isn't the job of Congress to make political statements.

Considering that it only failed by one vote in the Senate and 3 in the House, while being requested by all 50 states, it has more chances to pass than any other amendment.  However, since we have multiple threads on this topic, we won't continue the debate here.

[Ebowed]

HOW MANY ELECTROAL VOTES DOES DENNIS KUCINICH HAVE LOL

[minionofmidas]

Though the impeachment bill is DOA, he has a reason for going after Cheney first.

Let's say hypothetically it did succeed.  If he were to go after Bush first and removes him, Cheney would then be President.

And would immediately have all Democrats shot.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Though the impeachment bill is DOA, he has a reason for going after Cheney first.

Let's say hypothetically it did succeed.  If he were to go after Bush first and removes him, Cheney would then be President.

And would immediately have all Democrats shot.

He would be the shooter

[MODU]

Though the impeachment bill is DOA, he has a reason for going after Cheney first.

Let's say hypothetically it did succeed.  If he were to go after Bush first and removes him, Cheney would then be President.

And would immediately have all Democrats shot.

He would be the shooter

hahaha . . . he has good aim.