Impeachment hearings in House Judiciary = NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

[troubleinwinter]

In 1973 (Watergate impeachment hearings), the House Judiciary Committee found that executive privilege does not extend to an impeachment inquiry, and in fact cited refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by Congress in the course of an impeachment inquiry in its Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon.

Article III charged that President Nixon, by failing, without lawful cause or excuse and in willfull disobedience of the subpoenas of the House, to produce papers and things that the Committee had subpoenaed in the course of its impeachment inquiry, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the constitutional power of impeachment vested in the House.

If Cheney should refuse to abide by a subpoena by the comittee on the matter of impeachment inquiry, THAT IN ITSELF would be an impeachable offense.

How 'bout them apples?!

[aquart]

1. What hearings?

[troubleinwinter]

6. Iffffffffffffff there are hearings, there will be NO Executive Privilege and noncompliance =

an impeachable offense.

Does it make you maybe want to redouble your efforts (if you've made any) to demand hearings???

[Rabo Karabekian]

2. I'll Believe It When I See It

The Democrats will find some way to screw it up. They never fail in this regard.

[troubleinwinter]

14. Welome to DU. Have you sent letters to the Judiciary Committee yet?

[Rabo Karabekian]

18. Judiciary Committee

Thanks, no I haven't how do I go about doing that?

[troubleinwinter]

21. Start here:

phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

[Rabo Karabekian]

23. Email Sent

I sent him an email, he said he'd forward it on to my representative. Although it did say he'd take it under consideration. My representative isn't the most liberal, I don't think he'll be pushing for impeachment; it's possible he'd vote yes if it got to that though.

[Maraya1969]

35. Who said he would forward it to your representative?

[Rabo Karabekian]

37. A Robot Did

Well, it was an automated response, lol.

[helderheid]

3. yes yes yes! But what will they do when backed into a corner?

[truedelphi]

9. I wonder that too - apparently they have two choices when backed

Into a tight corner - bomb Iran or start eating ImPeachmints!

Nothing else will do the trick!

[Kazak]

36. False flag?

Count on it!

[Bitwit1234]

4. And pardons can not be extended for impeachment.

[troubleinwinter]

8. That is correct

... as the penalty is removal from office.

There could then be prosecusions for crimes in criminal court, and the chimp could pardon those, as he did Libby, and as Ford pardoned Nixon, even though Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

[VP505]

11. I don't think

* would get a chance to do that because by the time impeachment is over and a criminal trial starts * would be either close to or out of office.

[fooj]

5. Thanks for posting this, T...

I'll be back to post a few comments after my errands. KandR!

[lonestarnot]

29. K and R!

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Unfortunately

that isn't for the House Judiciary committee to decide.

And even Republicans supported the claim of Executive Privilege during the Clinton impeachment.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE2DC163DF930A25751C1A96E958260

[troubleinwinter]

16. Read the OP again.

The Watergate House Judiciary added an additional article of impeachment for this very thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

17. sure, they can impeach over it!

that's a no brainer.

They can impeach for anything. But executive privilege doesn't just disappear because the House Judiciary Committee says so.

[creeksneakers2]

28. Executive privilege would be at its weakest though

Impeachment is considered to be a judicial power of Congress. That makes the subpoenas of Congress at least as powerful of those of the courts, who have already been granted supremacy over executive privilege claims.

Impeachment also satisfies other balancing requirements for overcoming executive privilege.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Of course it doesn't

Do you automatically grant immunity to a criminal before a court?

Or exclude important evidence that the prosecution might use because the defense doesn't like it?

Of course not.

[robinlynne]

12. That's what I have been saying for months! It is not whehe we win or lose with

impeachment. We win! We get the documents, finally. We can get testimony on the record, finally!

[troubleinwinter]

13. Well, they can still refuse to abide by impeachment hearing subpoenas,

but it's just another impeachable offense, as executive privilege does NOT apply.

The Judicial Committee just added yet another Article of Impeachment against Nixon for this.

[robinlynne]

15. Given the facts, how can the dlcers be against impeachment? It is insane.

[troubleinwinter]

19. Don't ask me what goes through DLCers' minds!!

If you haven't read this... an interesting article at After Downing Street by Dave Lindorff.

The Democratic strategy for the 2008 election has been to do nothing overly confrontational, to pass no significant legislation, to collect lots of money from corporate interests, and to hope that the Republican Party, saddled with an unpopular administration and an unpopular war, will implode.

The strategy, however, is proving to be a disaster, as public support for the Democratic do-nothing Congress has fallen even below the president’s record low numbers. Just running against Republicans, Bush/Cheney, and the continuing war risks seeing Democrats go down to defeat in ’08.

It is awareness of this looming electoral disaster that underlies the growing restiveness among rank-and-file Democrats in the House, all of whom have to face the voters in less than a year’s time.
......

As recently as a month ago, it didn’t look like impeachment was in the cards,

Now it’s starting to look like we Cheney’s going to be put in the dock.

It may not be long before we start to see bills of impeachment filed against President Bush too.

More: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28531

[robinlynne]

22. great. about time they heard us.

[mmonk]

24. I don't know what the DLC people stand for

but it's not American nor constitutional tradition. Neoliberalism and neoConservatism are interlinked more than we've imagined I think so they will side on the side of criminality I suppose for their ideologies.

[Crabby Appleton]

20. Not true. In the case United States V. Nixon (1974)

SCOTUS recognized the likely validity (i.e. court deference) to a claim of executive privilege for Article II presidential powers (specifically military and diplomatic "secrets") as opposed to a claim of absolute executive privilege asserted by Nixon especially as related to non-military, non-diplomatic issues involved in Watergate related matters. Considering most of the clamor for impeachment involves issues of Article II powers involving military, diplomatic, national security, etc; Executive privilege could be successfully asserted in those matters.

[Dora]

25. Ah, but the military/diplomatic/nat'l security matters were all based on lies...

... and they've been demonstrably proven to be lies, so what claim to Executive Privilege does a falsehood have?

[H2O Man]

26. A couple of thoughts ....

I've read through the OP, and many of the responses. I have a few thoughts that may be of interest.

First, let's start a general review of "high crimes and misdemeanors." It means an official can be impeached for two general things: criminal offenses and abuses of power of their office. In the process of impeachment, which is a form of civil trial, the House serves as a kind of grand jury. They impeach, which is similar to handing down an indictment. Then the case is tried in the Senate, with the top judge in the nation hearing the proceedings.

Now, back to the House. In the Nixon era, which is the example we should study the closest, the Speaker referred resolutions for impeachment to the Judiciary Committee, which then reviewed the potential grounds for impeachment.

Regarding the business about investigations: this tends to be something that conservative democrats say are necessary before any serious discussions of impeachment goes forward. This is central to the bump-on-a-log, stick-in-the-mud mentality. Folks, the investigations that were needed are complete. The evidence is in. For example, Waxman has over 2,000 documents. They don;t need to issue a single further subpoena for a single additional document for any investigation.

Now, let's consider the possibility of impeaching Cheney. This could be based upon the violations of federal law listed in retired federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's book (also see John Nichols' book), and on the abuse of power from the Plame scandal. As Patrick Fitzgerald noted in his summation in the Libby case, there is a cloud over the Vice President.

That cloud was not enough for a criminal charge, but is enough for impeachment for abuse of power of his office. The documents made public in the Libby pre-trial and trial show that Cheney was involved in the effort to leak classified NIE material to a reporter, and leak Ms. Plame's identity, to punish Joseph Wilson. The second article being considered for impeaching Nixon was based on abuses of power specific to punishing political opponents.

Now, the House would want access to the FBI/grand jury information specific to Cheney, but not made public in the Libby trial. For example, what he told Mr. Fitzgerald in their June '04 discussion. The DoJ refuses to release this to the House. In the context of a impeachment, the House would ask a federal judge to release it, and, based upon case law, the judge would order the DoJ to turn it over.

The White House could not claim any privilege: they already provided the information to a grand jury investigation. If they attempted to refuse, we need only look at what advisors told Nixon when he considered refusing to tuen over the tapes, per a court order -- he faced not only civil/impeachment charges, but also contempt of court and obstruction of justice charges. A court can, as we know from Judith Miller, enforce their orders.

The process would involve a little more conflict than described in this brief response, of course. But it's not that complicated. The only question is if elected officials in Washington are willing to ignore the evidence of criminal behavior and abuses of power, and turn their backs on the oath of office they took. That's really the only serious question.

[fooj]

27. And IMO...

that amounts to treason. They have the ammunition. They have the evidence. The US Constitution has provided them with the tools necessary. Anything else is willful compliance and is unacceptable. This nation is in peril. It is their DUTY to follow the RULE OF LAW. Period. Thanks for your valuable insight, H20 Man. Much appreciated. :hi:

[troubleinwinter]

30. "the investigations that were needed are complete. The evidence is in. For example, Waxman has

over 2,000 documents. They don't need to issue a single further subpoena for a single additional document for any investigation."

This puts the lie to Wasserman Schultz's claim that "it would take 14 months to impeach".

[Mnemosyne]

31. And whom would be considered the

top judge of the nation? Please tell me it wouldn't be Roberts.

tia H2O Man!

I really appreciate your knowledge in these matters.

[BR_Parkway]

32. Impeachment = NO Presidential pardon - its the only Constitutionally

restricted power of the President's ability to pardon someone.

Wonder how that would apply to Cheney's staff - especially one's already convicted.....

[Dr Fate]

33. Too bad. Facts wont stop DLC/centrist traitors from protecting their president.

Feel free to post more facts, but just know that facts wont stop the DLC & blue dog traitors from protecting their President.

[onenote]

34. it was the weakest of the three articles adopted against Nixon

Articles 1 and 2 were adopted by votes of 27-11 and 28-10 respectively (with 6 repubs supporting each). However, the third articles, which dealt with executive privilege, just squeaked by on a vote of 21-17. If it hadn't been for the two repubs that voted for it, that resolution would've ended up with a 19-19 vote and not gone forward.

If cheney ignored a subpoena issued by Judiciary as part of an impeachment inquiry (and I am referring here to a formal impeachment inquiry authorized by a vote of the full House, not merely a hearing in Judiciary on DK's resolution), an article based on that action might squeeze by if the Democrats hold together, but it would be a close call. Its really an "add-on" charge, and its almost unimaginable that it alone would end up garnering enough support to move impeacahment forward.