Could This be Dick Cheney's Final Act?

Congressman Robert Wexler says he hopes the House Judiciary Committee will hold a sober investigation and let the facts determine the outcome.

(SALEM, Ore.) - New legislators are jumping on the bandwagon to toss Vice President Dick Cheney from the nation's lame duck Presidential administration. The move has received substantial resistance from Democrats, with some cautioning that removing anyone from office could come back in the form of new grief, but that may be changing.

Representative Robert Wexler sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, calling for the removal of Cheney through impeachment proceedings. Now new members of Congress added their names to the letter to Chairman Conyers. Congressman Wexler is one legislator urging support for Cheney Impeachment Hearings.

Wexler says Americans are dealing with an administration "that has run roughshod over our constitution, that operates with no limits on executive branch authority and one that has repeatedly flouted the investigations and oversight the 110th Congress has tried to provide over the past year."

In his letter to Conyers, he says impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney are the best way to move forward.

"Impeachment hearings will allow for the exact kind of oversight that you and the Democratic leadership have provided regarding the actions of the Administration but without the opportunity for the Bush Administration to ignore lawful requests for information, refuse subpoenas and effectively limit its own oversight."

Wexler says impeachment hearings can provide the opportunity to cut through the executive privilege defenses and force this Administration to answer a Congress it has clearly chosen to ignore. He suggest in the letter, that Conyers would agree that as Members of Congress, they can not allow legitimate oversight to be thwarted or such a dangerous precedent to stand.

Wexler said, "The charges against the Vice President relate to the core actions of this Administration, its unlawful behavior and its abuse of power. We are concerned with alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice President, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."

Wexler says he hopes the House Judiciary Committee will hold a sober investigation and let the facts determine the outcome.

"We sincerely believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step given what we have seen of this Administration. Chairman Conyers, we are respectfully asking you join us and concerned citizens around the country in supporting impeachment hearings."

The following members of Congress have joined as signatories to my letter to Chairman Conyers in support of Cheney Impeachment Hearings:

(*= member of the Judiciary Committee)
Baldwin, Tammy, WI, 2nd *
Capuano, Michael E., MA, 8th
Clarke, Yvette D., NY, 11th
Clay, Wm. Lacy, MO, 1st
Cohen, Steve, TN, 9th *
Farr, Sam, CA, 17th
Grijalva, Raúl M., AZ, 7th
Gutierrez, Luis V., IL, 4th *
Kucinich, Dennis J., OH, 10th
Lee, Barbara, CA, 9th
Moore, Gwen, WI, 4th
Moran, James P., VA, 8th
Thompson, Mike, CA, 1st
Towns, Edolphus, NY, 10th
Woolsey, Lynn, CA, 6th
Wexler, Robert, FL, 19th *
Wynn, Albert Russell, MD, 4th

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jefferson February 14, 2008 12:22 pm (Pacific time)

We probably better have those hearing soon, that is if we want to investigate the NY Times in this matter, for as per the latest (see below), they just may cease to exist! Newsroom Cuts at the 'New York Times' New York Times executive editor Bill Keller announced, at one of the paper's regular staff talk-backs, plans for another wave of job cuts, including, according to three sources, the elimination of 100 newsroom positions. That's about 7 percent of the newsroom. Keller will hold three separate meetings today to break the news to the staff.

Jefferson February 13, 2008 6:07 pm (Pacific time)

I'm on board! Let the hearings begin! Certainly that would be far better for the American public than the alternative...which is nothing more than rumor mongering. I am always amazed that when those who start the rumor machine and present all their theories/hypotheses, then how come no one in power pays them any attention? Other than Henry Waxman and his preening machine. Could it be that they know just what crackpot theories are really all about and don't want to waste the people's time? For example that 9/11 was an inside job, etc. ? Again, I am all for comprehensive hearings, bring it on, and let's be sure to include the New York Times as part of that public hearing, okay?

Henry Clay Ruark February 13, 2008 4:51 pm (Pacific time)

What...NO Op Ed from you ? Surprise, surprise... No answers ever, just more perverted political palaver always seeking to kill off any possible positive contribution by honest, open dialog sharing solid experience. Re Op Ed, hang tight and may even include Chomsky-take, too...

Jefferson February 13, 2008 10:45 am (Pacific time)

Frankly I would like to see hearings take place if for one thing is to point out the Clinton's Administrations incompetence and the senate democrats hypocrisy. Since the dems are now in control, this will not happen. As far as the dems in the house, well it's "election-cyle posturing. That's all it is. The public ecord is there for all to see...maybe one poster can get Chomsky to go on record re: this matter? LOL

Henry Ruark February 12, 2008 6:33 pm (Pacific time)

To all: On re-reading Jeff's labored explanation here, it is obvious effort to cast doubt on where lying information re Iraq came from. That's irrelevant since it is entirely documented that Bush cabal had plans to attack Iraq prior to election, and the entire history and media record now indicates firm belief this is the reality involved. To so write here is to distort and pervert the historic record simply for offputting political purpose, with intent to throw doubt on growing feeling in Congress that realities now demand real effort for impeachment. OpEd invitation stands, but do not hold breath awaiting acceptance !! IF any real facts available to him one would expect he would welcome hearings since that would surely expose the shortcomings of impeachment movement rapidly, publicly, and on the record.

3000 klled on 911 February 12, 2008 3:00 pm (Pacific time)

TIME TO DEAL WITH THIS ZIONIST STOOGE TRAITOR FOR ALL HES DONE . WE HAVE WAITED YRS FOR THIS DATE WITH JUSTICE TO COME. SEE LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDIT FREE ON YOU TUBE AND INFOWARS.COM ALSO GOOGLE -ZIONIST CRIMES-

Henry Ruark February 12, 2008 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Per usual approach, major facts and names and events are overlooked, "forgotten" or even flat denied in distorted summary of realities here. One name - Chalabi- says much; details demand more space and attention than possible here. SO, again, suggest we each do Op Ed, without knowledge of the other's approach. Editor can run together or not as he chooses...but readers get full story from TWO viewpoints, surely democratic-dialog at its best. Are you ON, friend Jeff ? Or still afraid to ID-self and face realities, demanded here, of responsibility and full accountability for ANY stuff said-and-written, with full documentation open to "see with own eyes" for ANYone prior to use of own brain to evaluate what came from those sources. That's the professional approach, and you surely have claimed to be at that level, via many comments and claims for experience, training, and affiliation with responsible organizations, agencies and groups. OR were those just easy fantasy, now challenged directly ?? SO --do we GO or NOT ?? "Retaliation" is no problem, obviously and truly; and if you are in fact prevented by your affiliations, then we surely deserve to know why that prevents you from this open challenge here and now. WHO they ? WHY afraid ? OPEN channel readership deserves to know whom you now serve. IF you "cannot reveal" then you have no rights here without explanation, can be done confidentially to Editor if so demanded, for his decision which we trust fully.

Jefferson February 12, 2008 1:36 pm (Pacific time)

Prior to Bush 2 being elected there is a clear congressional/public record of the majority of democratic senator's opining that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. After we were attacked on 911, and during the resolution after resolution process by the United Nations, these same democratic senators continued to say what they did during the Clinton Administration, Saddam presented a clear and present threat to our security. Many of the people who provided the Iraqi intelligence that preceeded our invasion were put into their positions by the Clinton Administration, and Sandy Berger (convicted criminal) played a big role in that intelligence gathering. The facts in this matter would end up showing that the congressional democrats played a significant role in our invasion of Iraq, and that's why they would never pursue a comprehensive investigation nor an impeachment proceeding, ergo "election-cycle posturing" as per my 10:59am post. An investigation of Rep. Conyer's should be undertaken as per complaints made by some of his staff members re: using them for private duties while on public payroll. I am sure Pelosi is about to give the go ahead. LOL

Henry Ruark February 12, 2008 1:32 pm (Pacific time)

To all: This slighting reference to the importance of the impeachment action is typical of much attack-mode work now being done vs any open-channel operation by the continuing activities of the rightwing noise machine. These new activities are carried out often by paid shills. For solid background on why and where this multi-billion dollar 40-year attack-mode plan came from, see HARPER'S Sept. 2000 article by then-Editor Lewis Lapham: "Tentacles of Rage" running on pp.11-41, detailing the cabal of multibillionaires and Far Right leaders assembled to "attack the entire concept of liberalism via lush continued expenditures" to propagandize statements across the national media system. This is wellknown fact "in the media", not so familiar to others, which is why I detail the reference here and now.

Henry Ruark February 12, 2008 1:22 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For easy, rapid check on the true seriousness of this Cheney impeachment movement, just check Wikipedia for "Cheney Impeachment". You will discover some intriguing background, and at least 53 separate documenting statements spread across the media and reference sources, as well as the text of more than twenty Congressional co-signer members quotations re their reasons for signing on to the current action. "Election-cycle posturing" is NOT why responsible members of Congress sign on to place themselves publicly in favor of impeachment, one of the strongest actions Congress can ever take.

Henry Ruark February 12, 2008 11:43 am (Pacific time)

Au contraire, friend Jeff !! First, no stronger case can possibly exist than that for impeachment of both Cheney and Bush. The historic record is surely unimpeachable (no pun, just precise statement) with no parallel even close to comparison in number of counts and seriousness of offenses. The entire record traces clearly to the previous Bush I administration, with many of the same perpetrators involved in the current Presidential debacle then, setting the stage for policies clearly carried still further now. Congress owes the nation a clear examination in public hearings, as set forth in excruciating detail by our Founders for precisely such a situation as now exists. To call this current state and stage of deterioration, sure to lead to either fascism or feudalism, by the silly cover-up you apply of "election-cycle posturing" is simply to seek too-easy escape from an unprecedented disaster threatening the foundations of our basic American principle: "Government OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People" under intense attack, begun in the Reagan era and still continuing, by those who have seized control of the old and once-respected GOP. Impeachment is demanded, to clear the national record and provide proper fate, for those who continue sabotage of our once-strong democracy for their own malign political purposes. Let's get on with the job of demanded clean-up clearly historically now demanded, if ANY next-election is to begin to restore the people's faith and return us to proper government by that principle.

Jefferson February 12, 2008 10:59 am (Pacific time)

Election-cycle posturing!

[Return to Top]