Impeach Cheney

Cancel7

Banned
Isn't anybody shocked by this? This guy, number one, is running a shadow presidency. And number two, he has now announced he is beholden to no laws. And, for icing, he attempted to close down the agency who questioned his status as above the law.

He is the one who is undercutting Rice's efforts to handle Iran diplomatically, and to close GITMO.

It's time to Impeach Dick Cheney.

Executive order ignored since 2003
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post
Updated: 11:38 p.m. ET June 21, 2007
Vice President Cheney's office has refused to comply with an executive order governing the handling of classified information for the past four years and recently tried to abolish the office that sought to enforce those rules, according to documents released by a congressional committee yesterday.

Since 2003, the vice president's staff has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration charged with making sure the executive branch protects classified information. Cheney aides have not filed reports on their possession of classified data and at one point blocked an inspection of their office. After the Archives office pressed the matter, the documents say, Cheney's staff this year proposed eliminating it.

The dispute centers on a relatively obscure process but underscores a wider struggle waged in the past 6 1/2 years over Cheney's penchant for secrecy. Since becoming vice president, he has fought attempts to peer into the inner workings of his office, shielding an array of information such as the industry executives who advised his energy task force, details about his privately funded travel and Secret Service logs showing who visits his official residence.

The aggressive efforts to protect the operations of his staff have usually pitted Cheney against lawmakers, interest groups or media organizations, sometimes going all the way to the Supreme Court. But the fight about classified information regulation indicates that the vice president has resisted oversight even by other parts of the Bush administration. Cheney's office argued that it is exempt from the rules in this case because it is not strictly an executive agency.

‘Above the law’
"He's saying he's above the law," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which released a series of correspondence yesterday outlining the situation. "It just seems to me this is arrogant and shows bad judgment."

Cheney's office declined to discuss what it called internal matters. "We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," said spokeswoman Megan McGinn.

The Justice Department confirmed yesterday that it is looking into the issue. "This matter is currently under review in the department," said spokesman Erik Ablin, who declined to elaborate.

The standoff stems from an executive order establishing a uniform, government-wide system for safeguarding classified information. The order was first signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 and was updated and reissued by President Bush in 2003. Under the order, an "entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information" must report annually how much it is keeping secret.

Cheney's office filed annual reports in 2001 and 2002 describing its classification activities but stopped filing in 2003, according to internal administration letters released yesterday. Cheney's office made the case that it is not covered because the vice president under the Constitution also serves as president of the Senate and therefore has both legislative and executive duties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19360916/
 
Cheney declared his office is not part of the Executive brance, so apparently he is not the real VP and can just be arrested, no impeachemnt needed :)
 
Yep he can't have it both ways...Either he is part of the executive branch and subject to it's rules or he is not a government official.
 
Cheney declared his office is not part of the Executive brance, so apparently he is not the real VP and can just be arrested, no impeachemnt needed :)
I thought that comment was kinda far out too. What branch do you suppose he thinks he is in???
 
Last edited:
Dick is an authoritarian, and an enemy of the U.S. constitution, which he swore to uphold.

Oh, and Dick is a dick, too.
 
HEH HEH HEH.
I just foud out that he is equating himself as the president of the Senate, and thus is a member of congress.

and guess what---- The whitehouse agrees. I knew there was bad blood brewing between Bush and Chenney for the past few months, but ---???????
 
No we have a lame duck pres, and just lame vice.
Dems shouldn't waist time with these tools.
They should work on Hillary's first 100 day.
ie. get the fuck out of Iraq
2. improve access to medical care and college including Med School.
 
I just foud out that he is equating himself as the president of the Senate, and thus is a member of congress.

and guess what---- The whitehouse agrees. I knew there was bad blood brewing between Bush and Chenney for the past few months, but ---???????

Then he does not enjoy "executive privilege" which he has hidden behind in the past. If he has it both ways, then he is beyond, or above, any laws, and that is quite unAmerican.
 
Then he does not enjoy "executive privilege" which he has hidden behind in the past. If he has it both ways, then he is beyond, or above, any laws, and that is quite unAmerican.
I thought you supported, "Mr. No-Controlling-Legal-Authority" for President? If he was above the law and could "break" it accordingly and without fear of any reprisal why should Cheney be any different?
 
I thought you supported, "Mr. No-Controlling-Legal-Authority" for President? If he was above the law and could "break" it accordingly and without fear of any reprisal why should Cheney be any different?


I thought you supported, "Mr. No-Controlling-Legal-Authority" for President?


"No controlling legal authority" is a common legal phrase. It has nothing to do with being above, or beyond the control of the law. A "controlling legal authority" refers to any public body that is authorized with judicial or regulatory review.

When Gore said "my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law.", it didn't mean he was above the law. It meant that no judicial or legal review body had concluded that he had broken the law.


Maybe he did break the law. But, no controlling legal authority has ever concluded that.
 
I thought you supported, "Mr. No-Controlling-Legal-Authority" for President?


"No controlling legal authority" is a common legal phrase. It has nothing to do with being above, or beyond the control of the law. A "controlling legal authority" refers to any public body that is authorized with judicial or regulatory review.

When Gore said "my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law.", it didn't mean he was above the law. It meant that no judicial or legal review body had concluded that he had broken the law.


Maybe he did break the law. But, no controlling legal authority has ever concluded that.
thank you cypress, for explaining this, i was a little confused, but now "i'm found"! lol

care
 
I thought you supported, "Mr. No-Controlling-Legal-Authority" for President?


"No controlling legal authority" is a common legal phrase. It has nothing to do with being above, or beyond the control of the law. A "controlling legal authority" refers to any public body that is authorized with judicial or regulatory review.

When Gore said "my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law.", it didn't mean he was above the law. It meant that no judicial or legal review body had concluded that he had broken the law.


Maybe he did break the law. But, no controlling legal authority has ever concluded that.
And hence. Mr. Cheney's argument is much the same. A legal case stating that because of the two-hat unique position he falls under two shades of law.

In the one case any investigation got sidetracked by a massive blow job investigation, IMO to protect their own asses, in the other I'm sure there will be a nice check into the legality. In either case there is a controlling legal authority that can find even an action that is legal to be enough to hold a trial and impeach.

And believe me I know it is a legal phrase.
 
The VP's only function is a legislative one - being president of the senate. The rules of the senate basically strip him of any power even in that - he can't even debate. Still, the constitution says that he's part of the executive branch, perplexing as that decision may seem (as he has absolutely no part in any executing of the law). That's just what the law says.
 
Cheney and Bush don't give a crap about the constitution. They've been violating it for years.

I'd like to see our elected leaders get behind Henry Waxman and boot these criminals OUT OF OFFICE.

In his letter to Cheney, Waxman writes, “I question both the legality and the wisdom of your actions.” Specifically citing reports that Cheney personally instructed Scooter Libby to disclose classified national security information to former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Waxman says it would be “particularly irresponsible” to give an office “with your history of security breaches” an exemption.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/21/cheney-records
 
Back
Top