Kucinich said ready to introduce articles of Impeachment against Cheney next week...

[Taco John]

Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney
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."

Sources tell the Sleuth that in light of the mass killings at Virginia Tech Monday, Kucinich's impeachment plans have been put on hold. There will be no action this week, they say.

Kucinich's office had no comment on the Congressman's "Dear Colleague" letter -- which apparently was drafted over the weekend, before the school massacre -- or on what the focus of articles of impeachment against Cheney would be.

But Kucinich shouldn't hold his breath on getting anywhere with his impeachment plan. "We'll see a Kucinich Administration before we'll see a Cheney impeachment," quipped one Democratic aide.


Here is the text of his letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the Sleuth:


April 17, 2007


Dear Colleague:

This week I intend to introduce Articles of Impeachment with respect to the conduct of Vice President Cheney. Please have your staff contact my office . . . if you would like to receive a confidential copy of the document prior to its introduction in the House.


Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/04/articles_of_impeachment_to_be.html

[ClevelandBronco]

Kucinich.

Hey, Taco, you're a Libertarian, right? What in the utter hell could you have in common with Dennis freaking Kucinich, beside your contempt for the elected administration?

FDR's common ground with Stalin against a shared target comes to mind. Please correct me if I'm misreading your position, but it looks like just another take on the old strategy, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I've never understood why you stubbornly insist on wasting your voice on this Libertarian isolationism from real electoral politics.

[Amnorix]

Even I will admit that stunning incompetence, gross stupidity, and horrendous mismanagement are, unfortunately, not impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Point me to a high crime and then we'll talk.

This is political gamesmanship. Nothing more.

I'm in horrible fear that Articles of Impeachment will be introduced in the House EVERY TIME the President is of the other party from a majority of the House members. :shake:

[StcChief]

Even I will admit that stunning incompetence, gross stupidity, and horrendous mismanagement are, unfortunately, not impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Point me to a high crime and then we'll talk.

This is political gamesmanship. Nothing more.

I'm in horrible fear that Articles of Impeachment will be introduced in the House EVERY TIME the President is of the other party from a majority of the House members. :shake:

It shows just have divided a nation some in congress want us to be.

Wonder why they can't do any important legislation. They have the majority.

[Chief Henry]

I hope like hell he does bring it to the floor.
Let the wacko's keep opening there mouth.

[Mr. Kotter]

Political grandstanding, at least for the moment.

The day may come, but at this point it's Kucinich that looks like a bigger fool than we already knew him to be.

...I'm in horrible fear that Articles of Impeachment will be introduced in the House EVERY TIME the President is of the other party from a majority of the House members.

We are there; if not every time...then most.

[pikesome]

I'm in horrible fear that Articles of Impeachment will be introduced in the House EVERY TIME the President is of the other party from a majority of the House members. :shake:

Every time something happens we go on and on about the President but it seems like Congress keeps getting more and more powerful and aggressive against the Executive branch. It seems like we're getting to a point where the Ex can't crap with Congressional approval followed by hearings into the mis-management of that bathroom trip then calls for impeachment because someone who didn't donate enough cash to Congressman Jerk-off's campaign might have benefited from that pile of dung.

[Taco John]

Hey, Taco, you're a Libertarian, right? What in the utter hell could you have in common with Dennis freaking Kucinich, beside your contempt for the elected administration?


Where are you getting the idea that I'm in line with Dennis Kucinich? Just because I post a newsworthy story about him introducing articles of impeachment doesn't mean that I'm with him on socialized medicine.

I'll take my allegiances issue by issue and keep my conscience. You can sell yours out in order to be mainstream if you want.

[ClevelandBronco]

Where are you getting the idea that I'm in line with Dennis Kucinich? Just because I post a newsworthy story about him introducing articles of impeachment doesn't mean that I'm with him on socialized medicine.

I'll take my allegiances issue by issue and keep my conscience. You can sell yours out in order to be mainstream if you want.

Looks like you're the one pandering to the mainstream. I'm in the minority when it comes to standing up for the man who won the election twice.

I played the game with the "conscience" of a Libertarian back in the early '90s. My experience in the party led me to understand that what Libertarians call "conscience," the rest of us call self indulgence.

Time to grow up and play in the big leagues.

EDIT: I guess I should say that I'm defending the team that was elected twice, rather that the man, since in this case it's the veep who is the target of attack.

[Garcia Bronco]

If they can get this guy...get him

[WilliamTheIrish]

I'm happy Kucinic is doing this. It'll keep the congress from passing more stifling legislation against the masses.

[Cochise]

I'm happy Kucinic is doing this. It'll keep the congress from passing more stifling legislation against the masses.

I like it too. Keep the Democrats distracted from whatever else they are scheming, and they will end up looking silly for the effort on this when it's all over.

After the last election cycle, what the public needs to drive them away from the Democratic party again is for Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, Pelosi, etc., all the whack jobs to get up in front of cameras and preach about de debbil this and that and waste everyone's time with farcical impeachment hearings. Just what the doctor ordered.

[ClevelandBronco]

It'll keep the congress from passing more stifling legislation against the masses.

I'll buy that. Keep 'em busy and out of my life.

Why the Democrats can't grasp the fact that they won't be running against this administration in 2008 is a mystery to me.

[SBK]

Moon bat Kucinich has got to be my favorite person in Washington DC.

He must come from the nuttiest district in the US.

[Taco John]

I played the game with the "conscience" of a Libertarian back in the early '90s. My experience in the party led me to understand that what Libertarians call "conscience," the rest of us call self indulgence.

Time to grow up and play in the big leagues.


I'm ok with self indulgence if it means I get to keep my self respect. There's no way I could have voted for either Kerry or Bush in the last election and felt like I was doing something good for my country. This election, it's a different story. I could be happy with just about every major candidate, save sHillary (and I don't particularly like Edwards).

[BucEyedPea]

Cleveland Bronco,
You do know that libertarians are in both parties, almost 50/50 or so I've read.

[ClevelandBronco]

Cleveland Bronco,
You do know that libertarians are in both parties, almost 50/50 or so I've read.

That's where they belong. In one of the two major parties.

Cap "L" Libertarians (the ones in the Libertarian Party) are wasting their time and their breath.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'm ok with self indulgence if it means I get to keep my self respect. There's no way I could have voted for either Kerry or Bush in the last election and felt like I was doing something good for my country. This election, it's a different story. I could be happy with just about every major candidate, save sHillary (and I don't particularly like Edwards).

Gotcha. I didn't realize it was a fling. I thought you were a member of the party.

[patteeu]

Gotcha. I didn't realize it was a fling. I thought you were a member of the party.

He used to hold himself out as a yardstick for Libertarianism. Now he supports Obama. He's evolving (as we all do).

[BucEyedPea]

That's where they belong. In one of the two major parties.

Cap "L" Libertarians (the ones in the Libertarian Party) are wasting their time and their breath.
I don't understand? In "one" of the "two" major parties? Just one? Not both?
I was saying they are distributed amoung both nearly equally.
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism too.

[Taco John]

He used to hold himself out as a yardstick for Libertarianism. Now he supports Obama. He's evolving (as we all do).



I've never held myself as the yardstick. I hold Libertarianism as the yard stick for my own personal views, and then vote my conscience from there.

If Ron Paul were a viable candidate, he'd be my number one choice in this upcoming election. Since he's not, Obama ranks as my number 2.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't understand? In "one" of the "two" major parties? Just one? Not both?
I was saying they are distributed amoung both nearly equally.
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism too.

In either of the two major parties.

[Taco John]

That's where they belong. In one of the two major parties.

Cap "L" Libertarians (the ones in the Libertarian Party) are wasting their time and their breath.



Thanks for the tip.

I'll continue to call it as I see it.

[ClevelandBronco]

Thanks for the tip.

I'll continue to call it as I see it.

Well done.

[CRONUS]

Even I will admit that stunning incompetence, gross stupidity, and horrendous mismanagement are, unfortunately, not impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Point me to a high crime and then we'll talk.

This is political gamesmanship. Nothing more.

I'm in horrible fear that Articles of Impeachment will be introduced in the House EVERY TIME the President is of the other party from a majority of the House members. :shake:
If my memory serves it says High Crimes and misdemeanors, but now you are going to make me go look.

[CRONUS]

If my memory serves it says High Crimes and misdemeanors, but now you are going to make me go look.

I was correct.

Article II, Section 4 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2039.html)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.

[pikesome]

I was correct.

Article II, Section 4 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2039.html)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.

Wasn't there a disagreement on what this really meant during the Clinton Impeachment? I'm pretty sure that the issue wasn't definitely settled.

[CRONUS]

Wasn't there a disagreement on what this really meant during the Clinton Impeachment? I'm pretty sure that the issue wasn't definitely settled.

Probably, I can see it as a really controversial issue.

[patteeu]

I've never held myself as the yardstick. I hold Libertarianism as the yard stick for my own personal views, and then vote my conscience from there.

If Ron Paul were a viable candidate, he'd be my number one choice in this upcoming election. Since he's not, Obama ranks as my number 2.

You're right. I was a little unfair with my phrasing. You've evolved though. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to support Obama. IMO

[Taco John]

You're right. I was a little unfair with my phrasing. You've evolved though. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to support Obama. IMO


I believe Obama has a winning strategy in Iraq, and I think that he'd be an effective president in terms of repairing our national character. He's not going to get me any closer to privatized social security, or privatized schooling, but then neither did a Republican trifecta, so what's the point? I can't count on the Republican party to advance any of my domestic goals, so all I have left is civil liberties. Since Republicans are currently ardent defenders of the folks who have been wiping their boots on the Constitution, I'm not sure where the appeal is supposed to be. Certainly not in their Iraq strategy, where I haven't heard anything worthwhile except "stay the course." Obama has outlined a plan for victory in Iraq.

Where's the appeal here? Is the best you can do is to call Obama names (liberal)? I don't care where he's at on the political spectrum if he is willing to fight to maintain our civil rights, and get us out of the quagmire with some national pride left after this disaster of a presidency.

[banyon]

That's where they belong. In one of the two major parties.

Cap "L" Libertarians (the ones in the Libertarian Party) are wasting their time and their breath.

Thankfully not everyone has had this view through our history or there wouldn't even be a Republican Party.

[Taco John]

For what it's worth, McCain was my number one choice in 2000, but the Straight Talk Express got swiftboated by the current Slanderer in Chief. Now McCain nothing but a hollow shell of his former self who will say anything in order to get elected.

a damn shame...

[mlyonsd]

Kucinich is a riot. Kudos to the dems for having the Conan O'Brien of the congress.

[Amnorix]

If my memory serves it says High Crimes and misdemeanors, but now you are going to make me go look.

Yes it does, but my understanding is that what the Founders meant by misdemeanors isn't what we mean by it. Currently, a misdemeanor is a really petty crime, in the common usage.

That isn't what's meant in the Constitution, so I just omit it as being a source of confusion.


The crimes of Treason and Bribery are fairly straightforward. But what are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The framers of the Constitution deliberately borrowed this phrase from English parliamentary law. It was first used in 1386 to impeach the King's Chancellor. Michael de le Pole, Earl of Suffolk. He broke a promise to parliament regarding improvements in the King's Estate and also failed to pay ransom money for the town of Ghent.
In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.[1] They stated:
'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'

[Taco John]

So rumor has it that Kucinich is introducing the articles of impeachment for Cheney Tuesday afternoon...

[CRONUS]

Yes it does, but my understanding is that what the Founders meant by misdemeanors isn't what we mean by it. Currently, a misdemeanor is a really petty crime, in the common usage.

That isn't what's meant in the Constitution, so I just omit it as being a source of confusion.


The crimes of Treason and Bribery are fairly straightforward. But what are "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"? The framers of the Constitution deliberately borrowed this phrase from English parliamentary law. It was first used in 1386 to impeach the King's Chancellor. Michael de le Pole, Earl of Suffolk. He broke a promise to parliament regarding improvements in the King's Estate and also failed to pay ransom money for the town of Ghent.
In the midst of Watergate, the Judiciary wrote a report on impeachment.[1] They stated:'Two points emerge from the 400 years of English parliamentary experience with the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." First the particular allegations of misconduct alleged damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament¹s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust. Second, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was confined to parliamentary impeachments; it had no roots in the ordinary criminal law, and the particular allegations of misconduct under that heading were not necessarily limited to common law or statutory derelictions or crimes.'


Sure sounds like Bush could be at least accused of several of those in bold, underlined text.

[ClevelandBronco]

So rumor has it that Kucinich is introducing the articles of impeachment for Cheney Tuesday afternoon...

Is Kucinich really capable of presenting articles of impeachment?

If he can manage it, I think it's just adorable.

His mom and the rest of those guys who knew her at the time are proud of what he's become.

[Boyceofsummer]

Nine U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq suicide attack By Ibon Villelabeitia and Dean Yates
1 hour, 22 minutes ago



A suicide car bomber killed nine U.S. soldiers and wounded 20 others at a military outpost north of Baghdad on Monday in one of the worst attacks on American ground forces since the invasion in 2003.

While frontal assaults by insurgents against heavily fortified U.S. bases in Iraq are rare, a two-month-old security plan that places troops in less protected garrisons in Baghdad and neighboring areas has exposed them to greater risk.

The bombing came as President George W. Bush faced fresh pressure from Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of nearly 150,000 troops. Congress will vote this week on a funding bill that sets March 31 as the goal for pulling out most troops.

A U.S. military statement said the attack took place near Baquba, capital of Diyala province, a religiously mixed area where U.S. commanders last month sent 1,000 extra troops to combat entrenched Sunni Arab insurgents and al Qaeda militants.

"We have seen a lot of recent attacks up in Diyala... that have been part of the fight for the province," said U.S. military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver.

It was the second brazen assault on such an outpost outside Baghdad in two months after a suicide truck bomber killed two soldiers and wounded 17 in February in what appeared to be a tactical shift by insurgents avoiding large U.S. firepower.

At least 86 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq this month, making April the deadliest since December, when 112 were killed.

At least 3,333 U.S. soldiers have been killed since the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.

The military said 15 of the wounded troops in Diyala returned to duty after medical treatment. One Iraqi civilian was also wounded.

DEADLY PROVINCE

Tens of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been deployed in Baghdad since February under the security crackdown that is seen as a last-ditch attempt to halt Iraq's slide into all-out sectarian civil war.

That has prompted insurgents to focus their attacks outside the capital in provinces where U.S. commanders say Sunni Arab insurgents and al Qaeda militants have regrouped.

On Tuesday, gunmen wearing uniforms of the Iraqi army raided a neighborhood in Baquba, killing six people, wounding 15 and burning several homes, police said. A suicide car bomber on Monday killed 10 Iraqi policemen during a gathering of senior police officials in Baquba, including the city's police chief.

In the previous worst ground attack against U.S. forces in Iraq, 10 U.S. Marines were killed near Falluja in a bombing on December 1, 2005.

Bush's plan to send 30,000 additional troops has reduced the number of sectarian murders in the capital, but there has been a surge in car bombings inside and outside Baghdad.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in his first news conference since arriving in Baghdad, said on Monday he had been in discussions with the Iraqi government and U.S. officials on how to "take apart" the car bomb cells which have defied the two- month-old security clampdown in the capital.

In other violence on Tuesday, two car bombs exploded in a parking lot in front of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, wounding four people, a day after two bombs exploded in the same area.

An Iraqi militant group, Ansar al-Sunna, claimed responsibility for Monday's attack in a statement posted on a Web site used by insurgents in Iraq.

U.S. officials accuse Iranians of fuelling Iraq's sectarian conflict by supplying weapons and training to Shi'ite militias.

On Monday, car bombs across Iraq killed at least 40 people, including three in the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Ramadi, that left 20 people dead.

(Additional reporting by Ross Colvin in Baghdad and Richard Cowan in Washington)



We continue to allow this administration to bungle through an idiotic war. We the people are responsible. After more than 4 years of denial we have become a people of enablers. And the beat goes on, yes the beat goes on...

[Ari Chi3fs]

'Impeachment rallies' scheduled across US for Saturday
Josh Catone
Published: Monday April 23, 2007
Print This Email This

People will call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney at over 100 actions planned across the country on Saturday, April 28.

The creative actions include rallies, banner drops on freeways, "guerrilla slide shows" on the sides of New York City buildings, skywriting, and "human murals" of people spelling out "IMPEACH!" with their bodies at Ocean Beach in San Francisco, Coney Island in New York, the foot of the Washington monument in Washington, D.C., and other locations.

"George Bush and Dick Cheney lied the nation into an illegal war of aggression, are spying on millions of innocent Americans, and have authorized the use of torture," said Jacob Park, the national coordinator of the April 28 impeachment actions. "The time has come for all Americans--particularly our representatives in Congress--to decide where they we stand. To turn a blind eye to lying, spying, and torture makes a mockery of our most basic values and the very notion of democracy."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) plans to introduce articles of impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

"Cheney spokeswoman Megan McGinn responded to Kucinich's announcement by saying that the vice president has served the nation honorably for almost 40 years," reports the Associated Press.

"The vice president is focused on the serious issues facing our nation," McGinn said.

On Friday, Vermont state senators passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of both the president and vice president for actions that have raised "serious questions of constitutionality."

[BigOlChiefsfan]

I wouldn't mess with Kucinich, for a goofy looking big eared milquetoast he has a way of dealing with his enemies list. I mean, have any of yez seen Grandfather Twilight since 2004? GfT didn't get out the forestland vote as promised and now I hear he sleeps with the fishes (instead of the bunnies and squirrels).

http://bhberger.com/deep_forest/

[Taco John]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lMZRqXBbZvw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

[Adept Havelock]

That's where they belong. In one of the two major parties.

:BS:

That must be why the fastest growing political affiliation is "independent". LMAO

I've never joined a party, and it's never kept me from voting my beliefs for any candidate, Rep, Dem or 3rd party...depending on the individual.

Heck, my state is fortunate enough to have open primaries, so I can have a say at every step in the political process.


As for Kucinich, it's just more grandstanding.

[BucEyedPea]

Adept, CB was responding to me on libertarians being in both parties roughly 50/50. That doesn't change the status of Independents.

[Adept Havelock]

Adept, CB was responding to me on libertarians being in both parties roughly 50/50. That doesn't change the status of Independents.


I saw that. My point was in response to his general disparaging of 3rd parties. My inference from that was that he believes one can only be politically "effective" by joining up with the Dems or Repubs.

If my inference was incorrect, well, it won't be the first time I've been wrong.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh! I see. Fair enough.