possibility of impeachment proceedings against Cheney or Bush?

Question

The news reports recently that Capitol Hill people want to bring impeachment proceeding against Cheney first because if Bush is impeached that would leave Cheney to become president.

Answer 1

Even though you do not want to believe it. This is seriously bein considered.
Even Texas wants to impeach Bush.
I am pretty sure articles of indictment have already been written up against Cheney.
You can actually read up on this or you can just continue to babble and point fingers.

Answer 2

Yes, this is true. Cheney must be impeached or when Bush is impeached, Cheney will rule. An even bigger impeachment movement has been going for a very long time trying to get Congress to listen to the people and Impeach Bush. Many petitions have been sent to Representatives, resolutions are slowly being passed in cities and states and letters to Senators and other members. All for the impeachment of George W. Bush. A smaller amount is on Cheney right now, but he must go first. There is a nation wide impeachment movement going on today, April 28th.

Answer 3

To comment on rio's comment above about the secracy of Bush with the 911 commission, you have to assume there is information that is not in the best interest of the people to know.

I am speaking from a point of view of actually being in the world trade center on 911 and standing outside of it when the second plane hit. I can assure you I was more of sound mind and body than most and I can assure you I saw the faces of the people in the plane when it entered that building.

If you were in charge of the country and saw what was happening and had to make a split decision to take down flight 93 in saving millions of more lives, would you have done it? I would say yes. And as for me in my position in life, a career person, a family member and good friend and citizen I am glad I am not in that position to have to make that decision and am even happier that it is not in my best interest to "really" know that answer.

Also, if I was the president of the USA and knew the terriorist cell that was responsible, would I go after the low level people or would I try to get the more important "leader" as going after iraq. (I look at it like getting sued, do people sue the employees or do they try to go after the business they work for).

Bush did the right thing and I am sure there were a few loops he had to take to get there and that is why I believe bush asked to have those preceedings closed.

Rio-if you believe so strongly about this, than maybe you should be more involved with matters that affect millions of peoples lives and try to have to explain the reasons behind it. I'm sure you will come across some grey areas for the good of the people along your travels.

Answer 4

Impeaching Those Freaks would come None To Soon !! How about This coming Monday April 30th ?? I will start Icing down the Champagne !! There are MANY REASONS to start these Procedeings.... 1.Vote Tampering in 2000 "Steals" the Non-Election 2. On Sept. 11th Bush knows Full Well that WTC 1 & 2 have Been Attacked and are on Fire, and The Nazi Fascist http://www.georgewalkerbush.net Stooge(Placed in Office by The ILLUMINATI) JUST FRIGGIN SITS THERE ! It is SO OBVIOUS that The BushCrimeSyndicate was a Major Player in the Attacks, so let's Start out with this SMALL Infraction, known as CRIMES of HIGH TREASON !!! 3..in 2003 Libby, Cheney, Rove etc. Manipulated, Distorted, Manufactured, and Altered Intelligence Reports about Non Existant Iraqi WMD. Then Rove etc. has MonkeyPuppet Rehearse These LIES, to use in the 2003 State of The Union Address. !! This is ABSURD.!. ALL LIES told to Congress, The American People, as The Whole Rest of the WORLD Looked On !! 4, Bushe Brings into High Govt. Positions including his IMMEDIATE STAFF, Complete FOOLS like Cheney, Herr Von RumsfeldenNazi, Reptillian-Eyed and LIAR, Condom Rice.. Then We have the Israeli Connection, who OWN All of Us.. They Controll The MEDIA, The BANKING, The OIL, The Drug Industry legal and ILLegal(since INVADING Afghanastan in '03 OPIUM Exports UP 400, or was that 4000%) The Illegal TAKEOVER of The U.S.A. Government(Bushe Appointed) Include The Following SCUMBAGS !! Paul Wolfowitz - Richard Perle - the Director of the 911 Commission COVER UP, Mr Phillip "Slimebag" Zelikow - The PNAC - The NewWorldOrder - Wurmser - Pipes - Elliot Abrams - The Fleisher Bros.- Douglas Feith - William "Queen Bee" Kristol - Richard Haass - ALL THESE Sewer Rats are Zionist/Israeli/Jews WHAT The HELL are They Doing in MY, OUR COUNTRY ?? !! ?? THEY or Bushe don't OWN this Country.. Will 80,000,000 Somebodys PLEASE Tell these FOOLS that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OWN THIS COUNTRY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Answer 5

I think it depends on how the administration acts regarding the war's escalation and the Gonzales situation. If the war continues to go bad with only more troops being slaughtered and no new gains, then perhaps they will vote to impeach. Also, if the Gonzales hearings identify that Bush and/or Cheney were improperly trying to influence prosecutors to prosecute Democrats when they had no supporting evidence, I think impeachment is a very real possibility.

Right now, there are 3 grounds for impeachment being supported: 1) cherry picking evidence to give to Congress and misleading it about WMDs (i.e. lying to Congress, a Felony); 2) Fabricating a story that Al Qaeda and Hussein had a working relationship and, hence, invasion was necessary (i.e. lying to Congress again, still a felony); and, 3) violating treaties signed with the UN by openly threatening signatories with deadly force (another felony). There are three felonies that have already been identified by Congressmen.

Answer 6

They did not lie to congress, a lie is the purposeful attempt at deceit; wmd came from reliable intel from our allies plus Saddam claimed to have had them. Try entering an airport these days and claim to have a gun. Your second paragraph answers itself "unreasonable", if a warrant was issued, reason was found. If you can't think for yourself, maybe it's time to turn off the radio especially if you choose not to get a real education. Andrew Johnson was impeached May 26, 1868 and later aquited. Bill Clinton was impeached December 19, 1998; no witnesses were called, he was later aquited February 12, 1999. Apparently the U.S. Senate does not want the U.S. presidential image soiled with an actual impeachment.

Answer 7

Well, as for the high crimes and misdemeanors argument--the Republicans lost any authority to make it with a straight face when they went after Clinton. And don't worry, I know I'll get jeered for that one, and plenty of thumbs down, because that's the level of maturity that people stoop to when confronted with a point of view other than their own. Get your silly revenge, it'll make you feel better, I don't care, and anyone else with a brain reading this will know perfectly well why it happened. Now to the answer. I think that impeachment would be viable IF A) there was more time to undertake the investigation and B) they were able to convince several Republican Congressmen and women to do it. They don't have 2/3 right now, and although a serious investigation could probably find convincing evidence to sway several, seeing as this is one of the most corrupt and immoral administrations we've had in awhile (oops, did it again, more thumbs down for me), there simply isn't the time to do so. The investigations would not yet be complete by the time Bush and Cheney are finally out of office. On top of this, it would not be wise, because the Democrats are going to need to continue addressing as wide a variety of issues as possible over the next year and a half in order to keep the centrists in their camp. Come election day, the question is going to be "Did the Democrats, upon achieving a majority in Congress, actually use this authority to improve conditions in our country?" Those who think yes will vote D, those who think no, and those who boo my response will vote R. If investigations and impeachment hearings take up this time, people will be just as frustrated with the Dems as with the Repubs, and they will be seen as petty and vengeful, seeking retaliation for the impeachment of Clinton. Besides, Pelosi has already said that House Democrats will not seek impeachment, although she would need to say that, seeing as she is next in line :) I have to say, though, that I agree with the theory...I would rather have Cheney out, too, if I had to pick one. Bush is definitely the lesser of the two evils...interpret that however you wish, as you will anyway :)

retired military wife, yes I know that Clinton was impeached for perjury, yes I'm over it and yes, perjury is under the heading of "high crime." What I don't believe, nor will I ever, is that the extent of his perjury warranted anywhere near the fuss that it did, whereas I believe that several of the things done by the current administration do warrant that kind of fuss. It's only an unfortunate loophole if they've managed to avoid the high crimes label. To quote Eddie Izzard (approximately, it's been awhile) "You recognized that there are different levels of murder, surely there should be different levels of perjury. Perjury one is when you say there's no Holocaust, when 6 1/2 million people died, and perjury...nine is when you say you shag someone and you didn't." It was so pointless, and so irrelevant, and tied up our country's government and resources that could have been better spent elsewhere. I'm sure if we launched that kind of investigation into any president, we could find something he's lied about. The funny thing is how many things they tried to find, and all they could get him on was denying he'd received a ********...

Dontcha just love how "liberal" is thrown around like an insult...you can't insult me for something I proclaim proudly, dearest :) Would you be offended if I called you a conservative?

Answer 8

Great plan of attack! Get the worst out first.

We all know what happened after 9/11. Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission on the events that day, but he agreed to meet with them on one condition: the meeting had to be behind closed doors and Cheney had to be presnt.

Why all the secrecy? What was there to hide? It's obvious that Cheney is one of Bush's handlers.

Answer 9

I think there are sufficient ground to impeach, try and remove BOTH of them. One bright side to this is how a few more Republican legislators are under investigation following the prosecution of others tied to Jack Abramoff, ( sp? ). If they are removed from office and replaced by Democrats, that further strengthens the Democratic majority. Its nice seeing these people removed from their committee assignments.- but I digress. I would not rule out impeachment.
Most Americans are unhappy with Bush and Cheney has a 9% approval rating. It could happen and with the new pattern of Congressional oversight a lot more of Bush's lies and crimes are going to come to light - not just the violations of Constitutional law.

Answer 10

Chelle, it's absolutely amazing that you don't believe perjury is a felony (high crime.) That's an impeachable offense. Clinton screwed up. He was impeached. Get over it.

Answer 11

First of all I would first like to know what you would impeach them for? You need some sort of charge for impeachment. I have read impeachment proceedings against Bush but no charges to back it up. Where are yours? Bush nor Cheney has broken any laws for impeachment proceedings to even commence.