Madam Speaker: Impeachment Proceedings Against Cheney is No Longer a ChoicePaul Abrams - Huffington Post
<snip>
Dear Madam Speaker:
You have taken the reins of the House with skill and vigor. In just 10 weeks you have passed important legislation and struggled to cobble together a meaningful opposition to the Iraq War. Now, however, you have an obligation---to convene an investigation into impeaching Dick Cheney---that cannot be avoided without violating your own oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
I have been writing here for nearly 2 months that the uncontroverted evidence at the Libby Trial demonstrated that Dick Cheney provided aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States. (see here)
Today, Valerie Plame testified before the House Government Operations Committee. In addition to confirming her covert status (reconfirmed by the DCI in a written statement) at the time she was outed, she directly stated that her network, and her project that dealt with counterproliferation, was compromised.
Dick Cheney informed Libby of Plame's CIA employment, and started the process to discredit the Wilsons' revelation that Saddam Hussein had not tried to purchase uranium in Niger by falsely stating that Plame sent her husband on some boondoggle. (Imagine the Wilsons' pillow talk: Valerie: "Darling, I think you need a vacation from your retirement. Why don't you go away for a week?" Joe: "Well, may be you're right, I have been relaxing poorly." Valerie: "Why don't you go to the Riviera?" Joe: "Nah, that wouldn't be any fun. I think I'll go to Niger. My birthday's coming up, and I'm told they make a killer yellowcake".).
The Republic Party called Victoria Toensig, a former Intelligence Committee staffer, to rebut both Plame and the DCI, claiming she was not covert within the meaning of a particular statute. Ridiculous as that is, it really does not matter for Cheney's culpability. Plame testified that her outing, not the statute or legal definitions, compromised her operation and her network. The most benign term to describe her outing, which she used, was "recklessly". Since we know that Cheney was quite deliberate in mounting a campaign against the Wilsons, and was told of Plame's CIA status, we also know that the outing was more than reckless.
To make the argument as favorable as possible to Cheney, however, let us assume that his actions were "reckless" and no more. If a Vice-President of the United States is reckless with respect to US national security, and provides aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States, has he not violated his oath of office? Should anyone continue in the Office as Vice-President of the United States, a sacred trust, if he has treated national security recklessly?
<snip>
More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/madam-speaker-impeachmen_b_43723.htmlAnd if she needs some help...
<snip>
Resolved
That Richard B. Cheney, vice president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors; that the evidence hereinafter set out sustains six articles of impeachment justifying immediate removal from office; that said articles shall be adopted by the House of Representatives; and that the same shall be endorsed by the Senate, to wit:
ARTICLE I
In his conduct of the office of the vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, contrary to his oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws of this nation be upheld, has deliberately obstructed the nation’s intelligence-gathering capacity, in that:(1) During the several months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president endeavored to bypass the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as the nation’s principal filter of raw intelligence, directing subordinates within the agency to “stovepipe” raw intelligence directly to his office.
(2) As a result of this policy, the vice president became privy to unanalyzed, unverified data that should not have been available to him, including documents that seemed to indicate that Saddam Hussein may have attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger in February 1999.
(3) Relying on these documents, and ignoring the CIA’s assessment that they were most likely fabrications, the vice president proceeded to publicize the Niger documents and encouraged the president to refer to them in his 2003 State of the Union address, deliberately obstructing the role of the CIA and promoting known forgeries to bolster his case for war.
(4) At the same time, acting personally and through his subordinates, the vice president conspired with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to create a substitute intelligence agency within the Pentagon, known as the Office of Special Plans, with instructions to contradict unfavorable information emerging from the CIA.
(5) Under this mandate, the Office of Special Plans sought to undermine the authority legally vested in the CIA, cultivating intelligence sources known to be discredited and embarking on extralegal “missions” to Iraq without consulting the nation’s legitimate intelligence services.
(6) In these distortions of the nation’s intelligence-gathering process, the vice president, acting personally and through subordinates, has obstructed the democratic institutions of the nation and undermined the rule of law.
In all of this, Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as vice president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
<snip>
From:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402Anything else I can do to help Nancy, you just let me know.
:shrug:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
