Cheney: I Would ‘Probably Not’ Testify Before Congress, Even If Subpoenaed

[kpete]

Cheney: I Would ‘Probably Not’ Testify Before Congress, Even If Subpoenaed

This morning on ABC, George Stephanopoulos asked Vice President Cheney if he would testify before Congress if he was subpoenaed. Cheney said “probably not in the sense at that vice president and president and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.”

Stephanopoulos noted that President Gerald Ford testified before Congress.

Transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve talked a lot about the consequences of the Democrats taking over congress in the last week. Nancy Pelosi said this: “we win, speaking of the democrat, we get subpoena power.” If you’re subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?

CHENEY: I have no idea that i’m going to be subpoenaed. Obviously, we’d sit down and look at it at the time. But probably not in the sense at that Vice President and President and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s your view of executive power? You’re not going to go up and testify.

CHENEY: I think that’s been the tradition. I can’t remember the last time a President did appear before the Congress. Or a Vice President.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Gerald Ford, I think.

CHENEY: That’s right. But not on a subpoena, he did it on his own.


VIDEO:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/05/cheney-testify/

[pooja]

1. He'd have to plead the 5th for everything they asked.

[StraightDope]

63. Well, since Bushco have gutted the rest of the Bill of Rights...

I don't see why Uncle Dick should be allowed to hide behind one of the provisions of a document that his sock-puppet likes to call a "goddamn piece of paper".

[elehhhhna]

89. Upside: waterboarding is now legal.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. OK then...IMPEACH his ass

:grr:

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Impeachment is too grand.

Measure him up for that orange ensemble.

[City Lights]

24. Exactly! Throw his sorry ass in jail. eom

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. and a nice pair of hand cuffs and leg irons!

:grr:

[cascadiance]

59. Like my Halloween costume a year ago...

Damn, speaking of spookiness... Just as I submitted this post, I got a call from "Dick Cheney" asking me to vote for Brian Bilbray here! Too bad criminal! No matter how hard you try, you're not going to stop us from kicking your ass out of the administration!

[in_cog_ni_to]

77. Oh that is so sweet! That's what I see in my dreams!

Cheney in hand cuffs...*sigh*...I can't wait.

It looks like that will be happening sooner rather than later.

GREAT COSTUME!:rofl:

[elehhhhna]

90. Hey, Dick! Hie thee to the Hague! See you there!

I'll be in blue.
You'll be in chains.

[GuvWurld]

46. This is why impeachment will never happen

These guys have refused to allow themselves to be held accountable in any way whatsoever, including to the rule of law. What makes it plausible that they would allow themselves to stand trial (senate hearing on impeachment is a trial) not just for the sake of their jobs but for their lives, which would be on the line under the original language of the 1996 War Crimes Act (recent changes notwithstanding)? Simply put, they won't stand for it. Further, how ridiculous are we to continue wanting to leave power in the hands of a so-called "opposition" government to take them down? The power has to be in the hands of the people. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!

[Jcrowley]

72. K & R

good stuff

[gristy]

78. How would they have a choice? Who whould stop it?

How would they not allow themselves to stand trial? By their persuasion and what army?

[GuvWurld]

82. Fair question...

...but not very imaginative. Do you really think there is any act still unthinkable to this regime? Are you really going to tell me that after all we've endured, it is inconceivable that this regime would use violence against its own citizens to create chaos and instability as a pretext for taking greater control through martial law (already facilitated by the recent change to the Insurrection Act, not to mention the elimination of Habeas Corpus)? I believe it is a mistake to assume they will ever cooperate or submit themselves to judgment and accountability. Check out this thread which lifts a quote from Monday's New York Times:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2587747

"...a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors." (emphasis added)

Please understand this, gristy (and everyone!), ALL BETS ARE OFF. Peaceful revolution is necessary, NOW!

[spanone]

3. Arrogant son of a bitch.

Cheney is power drunk. Out of his fucking mind.

[me b zola]

57. You've summed up cheney in a few short words.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[shanti]

74. yes, he's the worst, imo

arrogant, supercilious, hateful, evil and a goddam liar. he and his cohorts have been planning this for a looooong time, he knows exactly how far he can take this, and he will. and when it reaches the point of no return, he will be pardoned, and he'll have all that money to show for it.

the big dick makes me :puke:

[Lindacooks]

84. Yep. There it is, in black and white. Cheney places himself

above the law.

Any questions, repukes?

[EstimatedProphet]

4. Well, he can go to jail then, can't he?

If he refuses a subpoena, he should go to jail. Period. Just like you or I would have to.

[skooooo]

17. that's what I was going to say.......

Get the orange jumper ready for Dick!

[Pierzin]

30. Love that image in your signature!!!! That's just awesome!

[badgerpup]

56. Won't that get you in jail for contempt of court or something like that?

I mean, if they know your location, and can haul your ass in...
and if he doesn't dive into one of those 'secret bunkers in an unknown location'...

There's an image for ya...
The Vice-President of the United States of America...on the lam.
What IS this world coming to...:crazy:

[shanti]

76. "unknown location"???

shoot, he has one on his own property! check it out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2559617.stm

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Remember, "subpoena" means "under penalty"

n/t

[H2O Man]

6. I think we

be finding out how this works for the VP.

[tavalon]

33. I think that be a fine idea!

[originalpckelly]

7. Testifying and handing over documents are two different things...

The SCOTUS would have to decide the part about questioning him in person or on tape.

However, we know from Nixon's case that any documents or recording of any kind which he made himself would have to be turned over to Congress.

I personally think the VP is being deceptive and did intentionally dodge the issue.

[H2O Man]

15. That depends.

When the House is doing an investigation of impeachable issues, then the executive office must -- as in the example of the Nixon administration -- share almost everything they have. In other investigations, it is not so clear cut.

[tavalon]

34. Cheney being deceptive!

Never! Except every time he opens his mouth, I mean.

[blogslut]

8. Dear Dick

You are human. Face it.

[tavalon]

35. Dear blogslut

I disagree. I don't think we can find a shred of humanity in that creature.

[SoCalDem]

68. Dear Blogslut (from Dick)

Bite me !

[NOLADEM]

9. I can't wait for this showdown...I will need to stock up on popcorn and

nerf balls to throw at the tv.

(really great...try it if you have not...and a word of advice...you can still break a window, a lamp and emotionally valuable knickknacks with a nerf ball)

[cui bono]

49. Stock up on some poster board too...

we can't be idle spectators for this, we need to demand that the investigations not be thwarted.

People, we need to have demonstrations for this stuff!

[leesa]

10. Why is it that nodbody knows the rule of law when it comes to how

our government is supposed to function? There are people that spend their lives studying this shit and no one seems to know the law anymore!

Warrantless wiretapping...they admit to doing it. Legal or illegal. It should be an easy thing to answer.

[Maggie_May]

11. Well Cheney

than you are guilty of your crimes.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Then the new Democratic Congress should not accept invitation

to see dimwit in the White House.

I just as soon the Democrats go tell Bush in public to go phuckee hymnself. Tell him that Congress needs to do the business of Congress and get the nation back on track.

[niallmac]

13. Will he eventually accept an invitation to walk up the gallows steps

or will he have to be carried?

[Auntie Bush]

71. The coward will have to be sedated to stop his crying & kicking.

[INdemo]

14. Democrats win control,I'm betting Cheney resigns for health reasons

Why? Well the GOP thinking might be that it would give them an advantage going into the 2008 election.Make sense?

[Straight Shooter]

18. But then, per Cheney's rationale, he becomes subject to testifying.

What a pathetic excuse for a leader: do as I say, not as I do.

[INdemo]

19. well ya,thats true..he's stuck in the mud.

Kinda spoils the GOP's plans.

[jimshoes]

20. Or go for the

Ken Lay fake your death dodge and live out your life on your private island and stolen fortune.

[Mme. Defarge]

64. Do you think William Casey

might still be around somewhere?

[eppur_se_muova]

66. Paraguay is not an island. nt

[tblue37]

32. He doesn't care about the Republicans. He cares about himself.

He would not leave himself vulnerable that way.

[cui bono]

50. AHA! That's why Bush said Cheney's staying until 2009...

as an order for him not to resign. He needs him to hold his hand. "Don't leave me alone Dickeyboy! Please... don't go!"

[williesgirl]

16. these bastards think no one has any power over them - IMPEACH THEM BOTH - recommended

[nancyr]

22. Ditto!

[shance]

23. WHY would George even ASK SUCH AN LEADING QUESTION?

Why create an impression in American minds that Cheney or any of them have the CHOICE of skipping out on a subpoena??

Perhaps they are trying to paint an image that the elite criminals are above accountability.

It almost sounds as though that were an intentional question to create the impression that Cheney and the Bushes are above such accountability.

Shame on George Stephonapolus - however you spell it.

[cui bono]

52. EXACTLY what came to my mind immediately...

He totally made it sound like it's common knowledge that Cheney has the option to ignore a subpoena. Huh?

He also didn't question Bush last week when he said they were "never about stay the course". I don't watch Stephie regularly, but he is either scared of this admin or BushCo has given them strict rules regarding what he's allowed to say/question.

Disgusting.

[goodboy]

25. "Stop with this line of questioning or I'll shoot you in the face!" (nt)

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. "Constitutional officers" ha, ha, ha!

What Constitution would that be, Cheney? The one you've been wiping your ass with for the last six years?

[greenbriar]

27. my ass he would not defy WHO the hell DOES HE THINK HE IS

somone needs to take away his air of superiority that mother fucker thinks he is above all things and needs the truth beat out of him

[treestar]

28. "I am above the law" - he may as well have said that

evil anti-American bastard.

[sandrakae]

29. He didn't have to speak to the Sheriff when he shot his friend IN THE FACE.

Why is this bastard above the law?

[YankeyMCC]

36. Yeah that's what the founding fathers intended

absolute power by an executive...I mean its not like they disliked monarcy or anything. :sarcasm:

[MadHound]

37. Well then Dick, ol' buddy, ol' pal, you would be going to jail.

Sorry, Nixon thought that he was above the law, and got his ass handed to him. You try to pull this shit, and even your handpicked Supreme Court won't help you, you'll be going down.

[earth mom]

38. Exactly what a king or dictator would say...

except the U.S. is not a monarchy or a dictatorship...YET!

:grr:

[stop the bleeding]

39. Head is swirling

crazy that this subject is even being breached ---- are those drums I hear in the distance?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2560494&mesg_id=2565466

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2515812&mesg_id=2515812

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/pol/229297832.html

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=halliburton+david+smith+nigeria&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=bribe+bribery&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

[stop the bleeding]

40. **Snicker*** ‘Probably Not’ Testify Before Congress, Even If Subpoenaed -

But what about if you get indictments or subpoenas from the French?


What a MORAN


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2560494&mesg_id=2565466

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2515812&mesg_id=2515812


this link and story sums it up for anyone who cares

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:mSpyQ6vnXQ0J:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/+cheney,+bribe,+SEC&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[ThomWV]

41. If They Won't Show Up And Testify Then We Impeach The SOBs

[Lars39]

42. Impeach his ass.

It won't get any plainer that this that it needs to be done, and the sooner the better.

[LizW]

43. Oh, THIS is going to be GOOD!!!!

:popcorn:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

44. He is under the delusion that his life will stay the same

after the elections. Because he is such an untouchable super star. But I'm thinking they make handcuffs to fit people with overblown importance, as well.

[itsmesgd]

45. kick........hfs.........kick n/t

[Richard Steele]

47. I'll take "Things a Dictator Says" for 200, Alex. nm

[buddysmellgood]

48. He has other priorities

[Straight Shooter]

51. Do you think he'll be served with five subpoenas?

:7

[BlueEyedSon]

87. took the words right outa my mouth, or keyboard..... nt

[AngryOldDem]

53. Since when did we have royal, absolute power?

Impeach him for his flat-out arrogance alone.

Walking, talking proof of Lord Acton's observation.

[mitchum]

54. Arrogant piece of shit

[catmandu57]

55. I wonder if he has a kill switch installed?

Just like other despots who carried a cyanide cap embedded in a tooth, I wonder if deadeye has had a switch installed that would kill him dead in an instant.
I'd love to see U.S. marshalls drag his sorry ass into congress, it would be even better if he was in bracelets, but I'd take just being escorted in.

[Bad Penny]

58. Psychotic hubris

some people hate the nazi comparisons but truly, if the members of this administration were German in 1939 can you honestly say they wouldn't have been some of Hitler's immediate subordinates?

[bleever]

60. Cheney will be too busy obstructing justice to run the country.

If things continue to progress (and there's ample reason to think that the train is already at full speed, though still over the horizon), the coming constitutional crisis will dwarf Watergate.

[tritsofme]

61. It would lead to an interesting display of executive privilege

Which is always a murky constitutional issue.

We could definitely use to see some of these issues resolved by the Courts.

[Lindacooks]

62. So, Dickhead has just admitted that not only does he hate America

but he hates everything America stands for.

Jesus, these people aren't interested in democracy or the Constitution OR any principle this country was founded on. They're interested in being in power forever, and damn everybody else.

[eppur_se_muova]

65. You'll 'probably not' walk out of the courthouse a free man, then. nt

[Disturbed]

67. "a shred of humanity "

Speaking of Shred, was that photo of Shredder Trucks that I saw going to Cheney's house for real?

[MiniMe]

69. Gerald Ford? What about Clinton?? Didn't congress subpeona him??

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

70. As long as we can subpoena his records and then swear out criminal charges

Let the judicial authorities put him under oath at trial.

[Marie26]

73. "Constitutional officers"?

What the hell is he talking about? The people he thinks are above the Constitution? The scariest thing is, even if he's impeached, it doesn't sound like Cheney would leave!

[yurbud]

75. maybe they haven't appeared before because they haven't been as reckless,

dangerous, and corrupt as Cheney and his retarded sock puppet.

If those two aren't impeached and removed, then impeachment only exists in the Constitution as a partisan bludgeon, precisely the way it was used against Clinton.

[leveymg]

79. He didn't ignore an invitation to testify before Fitzgerald. Indict him.

e can plead the Fifth before Congress, but he can't refuse to testify before a Grand Jury.

[garybeck]

80. so have hearings without him, then indict him. n/t

[BlueStater]

81. Sounds good to me

Toss his old ass in prison where he belongs.

[buddysmellgood]

83. I would probably not tell the truth, even if I swore to tell the truth.

[FernBell]

85. He might as well have said, "I am not a crook."

[mikelewis]

86. Congress Does Have Subpoena Power over the President...

Mcgrain v. Daugherty

A landmark decision of the Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927), recognized the implicit power of either House of Congress to hold a witness in a congressional investigation in contempt for a refusal to honor its summons or to respond to its questions.

.....

Based upon tradition and statutes, the Court concluded that each house of Congress has auxiliary powers that are essential in order to effectuate its express powers, but neither house has unlimited "general" power to investigate private matters and force testimony. The Senate acted within its powers when it authorized a committee to investigate Daugherty. When the committee sought Daugherty's testimony, it was as a means to perform a legislative function since the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether the attorney general and the Department of Justice—subjects of congressional regulations and appropriations—were properly performing their duties. The Court deemed that Daugherty's seizure and detention were appropriate because of his wrongful refusal to appear and testify before a lawful congressional committee. It reversed the order of the district court that released Daugherty from custody.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgrain-v-daugherty

[Hosnon]

88. But Daugherty wasn't either the Pres or Veep...I'd like to look into this more...there are probably

good arguments on both sides.

[mikelewis]

91. The Brother of the AG was challenging the authority of Congress...

to enforce a Subpoena and questioned the validity of the contempt of court charge. The Supreme Court did not agree with his argument by stating that Congress did have such powers because without them, Congress would be legislating blindly.

"A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised."

Further on in the brief, the SCOTUS addresses the question of whether or not the original investigation into the AG was valid or not...

It is quite true that the resolution directing the investigation does not in terms avow that it is intended to be in aid of legislation; but it does show that the subject to be investigated was the administration of the Department of Justice-whether its functions were being properly discharged or were being neglected or misdirected, and particularly whether the Attorney General and his assistants were performing or neglecting their duties in respect of the institution and prosecution of proceedings to punish crimes and enforce appropriate remedies against the wrongdoers; specific instances of alleged neglect being recited. Plainly the subject was one on which legislation could be had and would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit. This becomes manifest when it is reflected that the functions of the Department of Justice, the powers and duties of the Attorney General, and the duties of his assistants are all subject to regulation by congressional legislation, and that the department is maintained and its activities are carried on under such appropriations as in the judgment of Congress are needed from year to year.

Clearly, the Office of the Vice President, is an office that falls under legislative oversight. The powers vested in the Vice President are subject to the legislative process and Congress could subpoena the Vice-President as long as the conditions were spelled out in such a way as to imply Congress was using that inherent Legislative power. In U.S. V Nixon, Nixon challenged the subpoena of his tapes on the grounds that the subpoena violated the Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS had this to say...

On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the courts. A President's acknowledged need for confidentiality in the communications of his office is general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case. Without access to specific facts a criminal prosecution may be totally frustrated. The President's broad interest in confidentiality of communications will not be vitiated by disclosure of a limited number of conversations preliminarily shown to have some bearing on the pending trials. We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interests in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

If Congress is seeking testimony from the Vice President's office to enable them to provide oversight and form an opinion on relevant legislation, they can and should issue that subpoena. Cheney can challenge that subpoena but I'd find it hard to believe even Gonzales could come up with some rational and legal way to circumvent these rulings. Cheney should be mindful that even Reagan testified during a trial surrounding the Iran-Contra Scandal and would be wise to follow Nixon's lead if he is subpoenaed. Failure to appear would create a very serious Constitutional Crisis and could be construed as a willful intent to disregard his Constitional obligations. The Vice President is a creation of the Constitution and is subject to the powers enumerated in that Document and those interpretations handed down through history. Though he has a right to challenge these interpretations, having the current SCOTUS over-rule the previous decisions would set a dangerous precedent that would basically negate over 200 years of established U.S. law. If this happens, we might as well throw the Constitution in the garbage and all previous SCOTUS rulings with it.

[Hosnon]

92. Nice...thanks for that. Couple of thoughts:

"Clearly, the Office of the Vice President, is an office that falls under legislative oversight. The powers vested in the Vice President are subject to the legislative process and Congress could subpoena the Vice-President as long as the conditions were spelled out in such a way as to imply Congress was using that inherent Legislative power."

I think the argument that Cheney would make would be that this statement is not correct. Based on separation of powers, there is a good chance that the Legislative branch can't mess around with the Executive branch (in some aspects).

There is a distinct difference, Constitutionally, between the President and Vice President on one hand and the entire executive administrative framework on the other. The President and Vice President exist independently of Congressional authority; the administrative state does not.

I haven't looked into the case authority regarding this but it seems that you are correct. The issue would turn on something like the general/specific question. The cited portion would also only seem to apply in the criminal context (may not be a narrowing element but could possible be).

Also, is there a difference between testimony and evidence (tapes)? Cheney may have his Constitutional authority supplemented by the Vth Amendment.