Reagan lawyer: Impeach Cheney

June 28, 2007

As part of the Washington Post’s multi-part profile on Dick Cheney, Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, accused the Vice President of having made “monarchical claims” on power.

In an interesting Slate piece, Fein, a self-identified conservative, follows up on these concerns and explicitly calls for the impeachment of Dick Cheney.

In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president’s insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution.

The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney’s multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.

Fein presents quite an indictment, describing multiple “crimes,” including Cheney’s role in creating military commissions, initiating torture policies, authorizing legally-dubious “signing statements,” engineering the warrantless domestic surveillance program, and generally usurping the power of the presidency outside the standards of the 25th Amendment.

There’s nothing wrong with Fein’s argument, of course, but I’m not going to get my hopes up. Dems have a busy policy agenda, and this isn’t on it. What’s more, even if Dems went for Cheney impeachment, unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office, Cheney isn’t going anywhere.

That said, defunding Cheney’s office is another matter entirely. Here’s a statement from Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s (D-Ill.) office this morning:

As you know, the Vice President previously claimed he was exempt from an executive order governing classified materials because his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.” Yesterday, the Vice President changed his argument, saying he remained exempt from the order because he is a member of the executive branch.

While the excuses may have changed, the Vice President’s willingness to ignore the rules remains just as strong as ever. Democrats are prepared to hold the Vice President accountable and ensure that no one in our government is above the law.

Debate on Emanuel’s measure is scheduled to begin in about 20 minutes. Stay tuned.

After reading Fein’s list of what Cheney has managed to do, I think impeachment should be the least of the punishment Cheney should face.

  • History will judge Bush and Cheney harshly on the record so far.

    However, I am a firm believer that there should be a tangible form of discipline for the two of them for abrogating their constitutional responsibilities and seeking a tyrannical form of government and it is already provided for in the constitution — the big “I”.

  • house democrats! hey! are you listening here? even a conservative republican thinks you ought to be starting impeachment proceedings. let’s get a move-on!!

  • “What’s more, even if Dems went for Cheney impeachment, unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office, Cheney isn’t going anywhere.”

    So, the Dems shouldn’t even attempt to do all they can to uphold the Constitution, the rights and protections provided by that Constitution, and to protect the people of this Country?

    I have a feeling that if presented properly and clearly, especially when such votes (do the GOP senators support the rule of law, the constitution, the American people OR the maniacal and monarchical and downright scary Dick Cheney) will fall at a time that will remain fresh in the voters’ minds come November 2008, that there may be more than expected GOP Senators (and Representatives) who are willing to throw Cheney under the bus than risk further harm to their chances of success in the elections. Especially with a groweing number of true conservatives coming out to support such action. Only a bare majority is required in the House to impeach, so that should not be a problem. But even if 67 can’t be reached in the Senate, it may be an exercise in futility but one that can have beneficial consequences for the country as well as the Dems.

  • Well, at least not all conservatives are crazy – there are a few who think rationally.

    So now it starts – for the next 18 months everything we’ll learn about our government, will be cited from the United States v. George W Bush and the United States v. Richard B Cheney and the United States v. Alberto Gonzalez and the United States v. Condileeza Rice.

    Full circle – this American nightmare is going to end up where it began – in court.

  • I just want more true conservatives, like Fein, to stand up and voice their concerns.
    I wonder how Limbaugh, or Kristol, think of Feins’ opinions.
    They are probaly denouncing his conservatism as we speak.

  • “But even if 67 can’t be reached in the Senate, it may be an exercise in futility but one that can have beneficial consequences for the country as well as the Dems.”

    Then again, it very well may cause Dick’s early retirement to spend more time with family, as these bullies generally run away once the dog they’ve beaten for years decides to fight back.

  • Watch what happens if Democrats de-fund Cheney’s office – he’ll get “private financing” from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

  • This might as well be on the Democrats’ busy policy agenda, since Republicans aren’t going to let any of it even get to a vote let alone pass.

  • But even if 67 can’t be reached in the Senate, it may be an exercise in futility but one that can have beneficial consequences for the country as well as the Dems.

    Aren’t there cases you prosecute — the Birmingham church bombings, round I, e.g. — even though the chances for convictions are small, just because?

  • The problem for Dick is … he’s a dick and has never been anything but a dick. Unlike the pResidud, whom many people (left and right) suspect is several saucers short of a tea service, Cheney doesn’t even have the “Aw shucks I’m just catapultin’ the propoganda” charm (for lack of a better word) of Bush43.

    The other side of the aisle might gleefully gang up to get rid of D.C. as a way to save their careers. I doubt things would get any better because George is as an equally large dick, but the loss of one of his enablers might slow him down a bit. Or speed him along to that public freak out I’m still anticipating.

    Mwahaha.

    Heh.

  • “Aren’t there cases you prosecute — the Birmingham church bombings, round I, e.g. — even though the chances for convictions are small, just because?”

    Hell yes.

    “Watch what happens if Democrats de-fund Cheney’s office – he’ll get “private financing” from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.”

    The Halliburton-Lockheed Wing of the White House. Or the Office of Vice President presented by Kellog Brown and Root, and Staples.

  • Dems have a busy policy agenda, and this [impeaching Cheney] isn’t on it. — CB.

    Dems’ ‘bust policy agenda’ is rendered virtually nugatory by Rethug obstructionism. So why not iimpeach?

  • Of course, Fein’s only a ‘self-identified’ conservative.

    Real conservatives are Führertreu!

    Oh, and Sailing the Seas Depends on the Helmsman!

  • Dems have a busy policy agenda, and this isn’t on it. What’s more, even if Dems went for Cheney impeachment, unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office, Cheney isn’t going anywhere.

    Oh, well, I guess the Dems don’t give a damn if our Constitutional Republic is destroyed.

    They would probably drag their feet even if they had the 67 votes in the Senate.

    If impeachment proceedings were broadcast and dominated the national Corporate media (granted, no guarantee of that now either), I think that even apathetic, uninformed Americans would make the judgment that what “Dick” has been doing is wrong (even as mightily as the Corporate McMedia and ReThug/NeoCon apologists would cry “politics”).

    Therefore I believe that the Dems would have a mandate to impeach and the ReThugs scurrying under the bright lights might finally grow a conscience.

    But what the hell, freedom of speech and political dissent have always been over-rated. Life is so much simpler when you don’t have those freedoms.

  • from the standpoint of justice and fit punishment for unacceptable behavior,

    i have argued that:

    first, gonzales should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.

    then, cheney should be impeached (by the house), if not convicted (by the senate).

    but from the standpoint of opportunity for the national democratic party in 2008,

    having these guys stay in there offices is a godsend.

    they are the gift that keeps on giving to the democratic party by inciting further public contempt for the bush administration and the national republican party.

    may they long reign –

    until january, 2009.

  • It speaks volumes as to the Constitutional cojones of the Democratic Party caucuses in our nation’s legislature—when one of the Gipper’s lawyers can stand up and call for the very thing that Dems lack the courage to themselves pursue. Every member of those two caucuses—House and Senate both—should be hanging their heads in shame, and as Shakespeare once said: “Hold their manhoods cheap….”

  • Wouldn’t you just love to see Chenney on C-SPAN explaining all his misdeeds, that would be worth it if we only had 5 votes.

    And who knows, after he testifies we could arguably hit 67, who is going to defend him, seriously ?? Well besides Hatch & Inhofe.

    When a Reaganite says Impeach, who are we to argue ??

    Let’s face it, the WH & OVP is not going to give us anything unless we start wielding that big stick we inherited in November.

  • Dems have a busy policy agenda, and this isn’t on it.”

    That’s the whole point. Defending the constitution should not be a matter of practicality, a scheduled event or rejected because it’s “inconvenient”.
    The ’06 election was about 1) ending the Iraq occupation, and 2) restoring accountability to government and ending government corruption.
    Senate obstructionism by Republicans is blocking most legislation anyway. The public is making it clear by it’s strong support for impeachment so Congress needs to make room for it in their “busy” agenda.
    There is no downside to impeaching Cheney. It would stregthen the Democratic party by showing that they will stand up and fight for the Constitution and gain support from all of us who demand accountability for the abuses of the past 6yrs. The world would hold our nation in higher esteem because they would see that “we the people” do have a say in how our government is run and we don’t support corrupt officials, that our country still has some integrity left.
    ” If you build it , they will come” and the same applies here. The corruption and constitutional abuse is overwhelming and running rampant in this administration and it will come out with a special prosecutor in such manner that it will be impossible to avoid voting for impeachment or to indict Cheney. The man has just been too blatant in abusing his office.

    Another urgent effect would be keeping this administration from attacking Iran. It would stop this horrible vision I have of Congress being quoted saying, “We just didn’t think he’d do that, that he’d go that far.” Every day this man remains in office and not under investigation is a day filled with fear. Yes, I am afraid of my government and I became more afraid when in the midst of the most corrupt presidency in history the congress refuses to impeach because it’s inconvenient.

  • even if Dems went for Cheney impeachment, unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office, Cheney isn’t going anywhere.

    And getting rid of him is only part of the point. The other part is to at least try to defend the constitution. We’ve got a Reagan Republican saying impeach the criminal, and the Dem leadership still insisting that impeachment isn’t even “on the table”.

    Goddam fucking spineless creeps.

  • are 67 votes in the Senate to remove the VP from office […] — CB

    If you never even *aspire*, you’ll never *achieve*. I expect it’s a scary thing for a baby to stop crawling, get up and take the first step on two legs. And the first step will, as likely as not, end with a fall. So? We get up and try again. If we hadn’t, we’d still be crawling.

    I should think that the Constitution and the democratic (small “d”) ideals this country had been built on are worth taking a few falls for. And getting up and trying again.

    To extend the image further: the voters would “kiss the triers better”, and stop the tears of those early falls 🙂

  • Those 67 are theoretically the peoples representatives. And as the public, (who are ahead of Congress anyway), get behind the concept of a cleaner, fresher, brighter, new and improved world without Shooter’s foul mouthed mug trashing the place up, the “representatives” might well come around out of a sense of self preservation just as some of that same self serving awareness is surfacing regarding Iraq.

    Impeachment needs to be approached with a sense of joy and energetic enthusiasm. Gong hits 4 Dick. Beat that sucker and get him off the stage. Bruce Fein says he’s rotten. Oh no, let’s go!

  • Impeachment hearings would be on tv daily, not just on CSPAN, and the nightly news would lead with the days highlights. As the trials progress, more of the public would become more aware of the illegality and unconstitutionality of this administration and they’d be screaming for their congresscritters. There would be 67 Senators who had to vote for it, or they’d be out of jobs. These people all swore to protect and defend the constitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Impeachment hearings today, war crimes tribunals tomorrow!

    Contact your congresscritters and write editorials, they’ll be home this next week. Independance day, what better day to remind them that we have an Imperial leader who needs to be revolutionized against.

  • Wouldn’t it be better to wait until sometime next year (summer ’08) to start those proceedings? Doing it soon would only help the republicans. If, and that still is a big IF, Cheney was to be impeached (with 67 votes in the Senate) we’d end up with a somewhat ‘better’ Vice President Candidate. That would give the Republicans a chance to put someone in there having a ‘chance’ to beat a Democratic candidate in November ’08.

    Better not to push our luck. The longer Bush and Cheney are in office the more disgusted the American people will become. Is that playing politics? You bet ya… Beat the republicans at their own game. Let the Republicans bring up impreachment, if they want it so bad. I’m sure there will be several republicans who’d hope the Democrats bring it up…

    Waxman and company are doing a good job exposing all the malfeasance. History will judge them, which is worse than a token trial.

    • Comments are closed.