We have heard, only two persons removed, that the #2. Congressional leader - that would be Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader in the US Congress - has said that the IMPEACHMENT of the president or vice president is completely off the agenda of House Democratic leaders BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES are afraid that the impeachment of the Vice President would lead to the impeachment of the president; and either the Democrats would have to face a sitting president in the 2008 election, or Speaker of the House NANCY PELOSI would become president as per the succession as detailed in the US Constitution; or more specifically the duly ratified 25th Amendment to that Constitution.
We heard the above in an audio clip from the Big Ed Schultz radio show (Jones radio network); Mr. Schultz telling his listeners that he had spoken personally to Rep. Hoyer earlier by phone, to arrive at the above conclusion, and we have no reason to doubt his personal account.
But Mr. Hoyer's comment was before we heard the first person testimony of Ms. Valerie Plame, the "COVERT OPERATIONS OFFICER," according to her own sworn testimony, "outed" by the Washington press after a concerted effort by the Vice President's office and senior White House staffers to "shop" Ms. Plame secret, classified identity to the DC press corps.
And Mr. Hoyer's "no impeachment" resolve was before the true import of the V.P. Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE convictions had fully permeated official Washington.
True, the national press/media is duly trying to DISCOUNT the importance of the Libby convictions and Plame testimony; our local paper, of substantial circulation, put the "Plame testifies before Congress" story in a tiny, 2-inch by 2-inch square in the bottom left corner of the front page, while the sinking of an old freighter to make an underwater reef took up the entire above-fold front page. The editor and publisher of that paper care not a whit about the MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars spent investigating and then prosecuting the illegal "leak"; they care not a whit that the president once vowed to "FIRE ANYONE FROM MY ADMINISTRATION WHO ILLEGALLY LEAKED SECRET CIA INFORMATION" - and then never requested an internal WH investigation into that leak!
IF the Democrats allow this White House to DESTROY covert operations, covert operations officers, overseas allies and "assets" (as foreigners who assist such covert operations, often at risk of their own lives, are clinically labelled) with premeditation and purpose, then our Democratic leaders stand for nothing... certainly not for the rule of law and not for the supremacy of our constitutional model of government.
Compared to this grave responsibility, who becomes president by default in late 2007 or early 2008 fades to irrelevance. Not to mention that the Bush-Cheney administratioin AVOIDING any such censure - even an impeachment that does not carry through in the senate - will give the Republican Party political "ammunition" for decades to come, that it was only the Democrats who undermined the war; and not the felonious behavior of the administration's leaders.
(story, bottom. Immediately below, Vermont towns draft short and succinct Articles of Impeachment.
===========================================
Opinion
Vermont Votes to Impeach Bush/Cheney
by John Nichols
Wed Mar 7, 7:36 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307/cm_thenation/1172344;_ylt=Ap4l.wIJTvGAHRaQgcB.ByMDW7oF
The Nation -- When Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican with reasonably close ties to President Bush, asked if there was any additional business to be considered at the town meeting he was running in Middlebury, Ellen McKay popped up and proposed the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The governor was not amused. As moderator of the annual meeting, he tried to suggest that the proposal to impeach -- along with another proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq -- could not be voted on.
But McKay, a program coordinator at Middlebury College, pressed her case. And it soon became evident that the crowd at the annual meeting shared her desire to hold the president to account.
So Douglas backed down.
"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," explained David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."
By an overwhelming voice vote, Middlebury called for impeachment.
So it has gone this week at town meetings across Vermont, most of which were held Tuesday.
Late Tuesday night, there were confirmed reports that 36 towns had backed impeachment resolutions, and the number was expected to rise.
In one town, Putney, the vote for impeachment was unanimous.
In addition to Governor Douglas's Middlebury, the town of Hartland, which is home to Congressman Peter Welch (news, bio, voting record), backed impeachment. So, too, did Jericho, the home of Gaye Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives.
Organizers of the grassroots drive to get town meetings to back impeachment resolutions hope that the overwhelming support the initiative has received will convince Welch to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. That's something the Democratic congressman is resisting, even though his predecessor, Bernie Sanders, signed on last year to a proposal by Michigan Congressman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) to set up a House committee to look into impeachment.
Vermont activists also want their legislature to approve articles of impeachment and forward them to Congress. But Symington, also a Democrat, has discouraged the initiative, despite the fact that more than 20 representatives have cosponsored an impeachment resolution.
"It's going to be hard for Peter Welch and Gaye Symington to say there's no sentiment for impeachment, now that their own towns have voted for it," says Dan DeWalt, a Newfane, Vermont, town selectman who started the impeachment initiative last year in his town, and who now plans to launch a campaign to pressure Welch and Symington to respect and reflect the will of the people.
It is going to be even harder for Governor Douglas, who just this month spent two nights at the Bush White House, to face his president.
After all, Douglas now lives in a town that is on record in support of Bush's impeachment and trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.
For the record, Middlebury says:
----------------------------------------------------
We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.
The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.
George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.
===========================================
Madam Speaker: Impeachment Proceedings Against Cheney is No Longer a Choice
March 17, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/madam-speaker-impeachmen_b_43723.html
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?
Madam Speaker, investigating Dick Cheney to determine if articles of impeachment should be brought is no longer a choice, it is your duty. Otherwise, reckless (or, more likely, deliberate) behavior compromising the national security of the United States will go unpunished. And, if Patrick Fitzgerald says it would be inappropriate for him to testify about the results of his investigation, remind him that he spent taxpayers' money, and that impeachment is not a criminal trial, but rather an action for removal for malfeasance of office.
As Sir Edmund Burke wrote, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."
