Hate to tell you, Cheney doesn't give a fck about getting impeached.

[zonkers]

[porphyrian]

1. His opinion about it doesn't matter. - n/t

[pnwmom]

8. What would be accomplished, then, without conviction in the Senate?

For which we would need 67 votes. We're not even close.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. Not allowing the GOP to RUN from Cheney & Bush. . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Republicans & the Rabid Right are doing everything they can to DISSOCIATE from Cheney & Bush.

They would like Cheney to quietly disappear, perhaps following "doctor's orders".

The RW radio jocks are trying to paint Bush as, believe it or not, somewhat of a "lib-ral", who is "caving" on the war and immigration.

The last thing the GOP wants is to be forced to defend the most unpopular administration in recent times.

Impeachment, whether successful or not, is what America needs.

And it is the best anecdote to the current Republican attempt to dissociate from an administration that will fade into the background as they beat the new straw man (immigration).

[rocktivity]

19. DING DING DING! Charles T, you're our grand prize winner!

...Impeachment, whether successful or not...is the best (antidote) to the current Republican attempt to dissociate from (the Bush) administration...

There's really only one reason to impeach someone: Because he or she has done the impeachable. For Congress to shrug off the Bush monarchy on the grounds that they "don't have the votes" makes them derelict in their duty at least and accessories after the fact at most.

So what if the impeachment vote should fail? It's the correct course of action to take--that ought to be reason enough. Let the GOP filibuster, obstruct, and veto EVERYTHING the Dems attempt--and then let them attempt to make it their '08 campaign platform!

Impeachment is like love: 'Tis better to have tried it and lost than not to have tried it at all.

:headbang:
rocknation

[frogcycle]

21. DAMN!

Lightbulb pops.

I actually had not thought of that aspect - in a trial, somebody has to mount a defense. The senate is the jury, so they get to keep mum and listen, but the rep reps and or legal hirelings have to try to make a case that every thing he is accused of is no big deal.

With all of the reps trying to distance themselves, and, more importantly, their entire party, from these bastards, not bringing the charges lets them get away with pretending they weren't in it up to their eyeballs.

I've been thinking of it as "we need to make the case condemning them, and get it on the record" and arguments against that are that hearings accomplish much the same thing, and we would not have the votes to remove.

But a trial forces them to take an overt stand supporting them.

Or maybe not. The rep congressmen could just sit back with their arms folded, and then the senate vote party line. Might look pretty bad for them - they'd look like the OJ jury - but the congress does not have to vote, so it is only the repub senators forced into the headlights. I bet they'd get together and decide exactly which 33 had to take a bullet and vote against - by who is up for election, who is "safe," etc. So it would still be a total dog-and-pony show without meaning.

[Marr]

23. Exactly. People keep saying this, and people keep ignoring it.

Push. Always push. At the very least, you'll make them put their loyalties on display.

[calimary]

41. We have another winner!

Push. Always push.

When has there ever been a more fortuitous time than NOW??? The enemy is now on the ropes. Their "fearless" leader's number's are tanking. Their ideas are losing both momentum and followers. The results of their policies and their control and their "leadership" speak for themselves (OUCH!!!). They're already negotiating from a position of weakness. Events are going against them, too, much of the adverse consequences being of their own making. WHY SHOULDN'T WE BE PUSHING, ALWAYS PUSHING!!??!

No one even wanted to speak the word IMPEACHMENT just a scant few months ago, even. Now, it's popping up all over the place. In little pops, for sure, but it's on an upward track. Watch the trend over the weeks. Dennis Kucinich's "IMPEACH cheney" bill, HR333, is gaining sponsors. Now there are ten, I believe. The new arrivals have hung their concurrence on the latest assholishness from cheney - the crap about him being above and beyond everybody. There will be more shit coming out about him, especially as he's perceived to be weakening in influence and invincibility. More people will be emboldened to speak out, and pull another part of the veil aside. The trend, for the poor dear dick is downward, not back upward. And he was pretty low already, at least in public opinion. As he loses more allies, he loses more clout.

Remember that scene in, I think, the second "Jurassic Park" movie. There was a loutish character who was rather an antagonist among the rangers and rescuers in the jungle. At one point fairly late in the movie, he's off a little into the trees, in his usual surly mood. This spindly little dinosaur not much different in size than a chihuahua on its hind legs is suddenly following him. He's much bigger and broader and heavier and stronger and he pushes it out of the way, sneering. It scurries off, conceeding the match. He wanders on, and a few moments later it's back nipping at his heels again, but now it's got a friend with it. He shoos them off, too, annoyed. A few moments later, here come the little nuisances, but there aren't two. There are maybe half-a-dozen or more. Now he's feeling not exactly annoyed if a little unsettled. And he's now lost. It's more challenging now to fend off a small pack of these little assholes, so he breaks into a run. Then he trips over a big, exposed tree root. Falls over, hurts himself, and suddenly the little beasts are on him, joined by many more. MANY more. And that's the last we see of him, as the sound of desperate fighting, chomping, and agony fade out.

Just something to think about.

Howard Dean said the only way we lose is if we give up.

[coco77]

30. Exactly!

[TahitiNut]

39. Exactly! Tie the GOP Senators to Cheney & Bush and they can kiss their seats goodbye!

THIS is the very dynamic that the amateur soothsayers and pedantic prognosticators ignore. Impeachment is a 'good' in and of itself, regardless of the Senate vote. Yet the claim that "there are not 67 votes" is fear-mongering cowardice and capitulation without basis or ethical grounding. Every GOP (and Dem!) Senator that defends the indefensible corruption will be a pariah.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. 8 years in the white house was what the Repos got out of it, plus 6 years in control

of both houses.

If you consider that an accomplishment....

Plus the right of the Dems to subpoena "executive privilege" free, since criminal investigations aren't subject to the "executive privilege" claim.

I often wonder why any prosecutor brings a case against any criminal anywhere any time, when they don't know in advance how the jury will vote....

[pnwmom]

16. They got 8 years in the White House because of election fraud and Nader.

Not because of Clinton's impeachment. Clinton's popularity actually rose with his impeachment.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Election fraud????? I haven't heard Hillary say that. I thought

the DLC blamed the loss on values. You know, that Dems don't express their red state values loud and clear enough.

What has the Dem leadership done about vote fraud, besides helping pass the bush bill, HAVA?

Did they seat that Dem congress candidate from Florida? Did Hillary make any long speeches about getting rid of the unreliable machines?

As I recall, the Dems as a whole don't agree with you on the election fraud issue. At least if they do, they sure aren't saying. I think election fraud is off the table, and has been for a long time. Or do you have any links to Dem leadership (no, I don't mean Jimmy Carter) expressing concern about election fraud in 2000? Or in 2004?

No it was values, 24/7. Red state America just didn't like Bill getting a blow job in the oval office. Plus Dems look way too weak on defense, don't you know?

[pnwmom]

38. The fact is, whatever the DLC does, that election fraud has been proven

in Florida 2000 -- that tens of thousands of legitimate, registered Democratic voters had their votes tossed by the Republicans, and that Bush even then only "won" by about 500 votes.

Also, if just a tiny fraction of Nader's 75,000 voters had not succumbed to his big lie that Gore vs. Bush was "Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum," then we would not have had 8 years of Bush.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Impeachment Is NOT A Legal Trial...It's Political

You're dealing with the most tainted jury pool possible. Included is one Trent Lott who gladly voted to convict Clinton for lying in a deposition for a frivlolous civil suit, but he couldn't find a thing wrong with Nixon...voted against all impeachment counts as a member of the House Judiciary in '74. And he's considered a "moderate". There's one of your jurors. You need 16 more to convict. Good luck.

Yep, it's a rigged jury...you don't go into a jury trial having your jurors voted on by the electorate. You don't have the judge sit the jury by parties. This is anything BUT a real trial. It's a procedure and one that doesn't address any of the real crimes and criminals in this regime...just two figureheads.

I'm hoping we see civil suits...and cases abroad...take this regime apart...one crook at a time. And with trials not in front of politicans, but real juries.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. When the evidence is laid out concisely and fully, then the voters will

hold the jury accountable if the jury refuses to hold the accused accountable.

An impeachment would rivet the attention of the entire nation on the evidence presented.

If the Repos want to block conviction in the Senate, then they will have to pay the political costs for their actions. Actions which will be very well known to the electorate.

In Trents case, his actions didn't derail probable impeachment and Nixon resigned instead of having it go that far.

[KharmaTrain]

27. They Sure Will Hold The "Jurors" Accountable

But it wouldn't be until the next election...no sooner. Yes, another impeachment circus would "rivet" the country...and look who will be talking about it...Faux Noise, Tweety, Blitzer...and their usual suspects of right wing talking heads. Be assured they won't do us any favors.

There are many ways and reasons the GOOPers will pay for supporting this regime and an impeachment vote will not be at the top of the list...supporting the Iraq invasion will be. With his "popularity" ratings at record lows and going lower, candidates can't get far enough away from this regime...forcing them to vote on Iraq, health care, aid to veterans, education and other issues they stand on the wrong side of the nation will seal their fate for years to come. It's not that Democrats need to make a case here, it's the Repugnicans attempting to run as far away as they can. But still there are 17 who will not vote to convict...

I sat through all the 1974 Judiciary committee hearings...Peter Rodino chairing...and it was amazing to hear Lott and other at that time justify all the crimes of Nixon and, yes, they did try to derail the procedure. They just didn't have the votes. The House works on a simple majority...I don't see a problem with any Impeachment passing out of the House, but Lott's now in the Senate, which requires a 2/3rds vote for conviction.

We'll never know how the Nixon scenario would have played out as there wasn't even a vote on the House floor, yet a Senate trial...and the corporate media in 1974 is far different than the 24/7 spin machines we deal with today.

[Individualist]

28. Absolutely!

Impeachment proceedings are too important for the MSM to try and ignore. Also, once proceedings are started, facts will be too numerous for MSM to spin. Impeachment proceedings will make the public aware of facts they had known nothing about.

[Toots]

34. You fight for right even when vastly outnumbered if you are a decent person

Doing the right thing would be accomplished..

[porphyrian]

43. You can't count votes that haven't been cast, and that's what you're trying to do. - n/t

[conscious evolution]

44. we need 2/3 votes to convict

not 67 votes.
I can easily see pukes sitting out that vote after the crimes of this misadministration are revealed in impeachment and trial.It would be political suicide for them to be supporting these criminals.

[Vincardog]

2. How does he feel about doing serious prision time?

[zabet]

3. I don't care what Cheney thinks, IMPEACH the bastard!!!!! n/t

[Gold Metal Flake]

4. Let's test your theory.

To do anything less would be unAmerican.

[TwilightGardener]

5. At least, not once he gets the first strike against Iran successfuly launched.

Then, he's done. Impeach away--he won't mind.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Because he knows it is not going to happen, whether we want it or not

[brettdale]

7. There is no way Cheney will be impeach

The media wouldnt let it happen. But if a Dem gets a blowjob, thens thats news.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

12. Say he's impeached & convicted.

Who's to say he'll leave? They've said "fuck it all" to the rest of the Constitution, what's one more section?

[me b zola]

13. Hate to tell you, but I don't give a fuck about what cheney wants or gives a fuck about

I do know what the founders of this nation wanted. Cheney must be held accountable.

[Laurier]

14. I don't give a **** what cheney wants either, but

what is it that he can actually be impeached for?

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. Great. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. (n/t)

[lonestarnot]

20. Who would give a flying fuck about what the fuck Cheney gives a fuck about being impeached.

[H2O Man]

22. yawn

[zonkers]

24. Was not suggesting NO IMPECHMENT. Just pointing out that impeaching a man with no respect for his

country would not hurt him as much as somehow separating him from his money.

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Good

I really don't care what he thinks. I just want him GONE.

[librechik]

29. "Shooter"

I hate to think what Dick would do to avoid the frog march out of his office.

Hope he's not one of those types who have to take a lot of folks with them when they go.



:nuke:

[Solly Mack]

31. I wouldn't put it quite that way - he doesn't want to get impeached

but he's also not worried about it happening.

Cheney would resign first if he thought impeachment would actually pass.

Impeachment wouldn't hurt Cheney - in that he doesn't care. His cronies aren't going to abandon him or anything and he won't lose his stocks...he'll waltz off into the sunset a wealthy man and a still well connected one.

But impeachment of Cheney would leave Shrub vulnerable - and that is going to be prevented at all costs.

Shrub can deal with the mocking (weak, incompetent, puppet etc.) - that shit just washes right off him anyway...but what he wouldn't be able to just shrug off is the attacks that are sure to come from a Congress emboldened by a successful impeachment of his VP.

So better for the right is Cheney resigns and Shrub get another VP who will work with Poppy's cronies to have a less controversial remaining months in office.

What was set in motion won't change but a Shrub that seems more compliant and less cocky will give the right some breathing room - and they want breathing room at this point.

When the right faces a defeat they don't go all mournful and gloomy - they use the defeat to hide and save what they can. While everyone is cheering their "downfall" the right is busy covering up and preserving the truly big stuff. Slight of hand, if you will.

Cheney resigns. A safe looking VP is nominated - Bush looks beaten - the appearance of compromise breaks out - and the last remaining months are spent in damage control and reality shaping overdrive.

I'm just talking out my ass.

[catmandu57]

32. Like others I don't give a flying fuck about

what snarlin dicK doesn't give a flying fuck about, maybe he'd give a flying fuck if we took everything he and his worthless family has before we throw him under the goddamn prison for the rest of his short life. FUCK YOU dicK.

[TahitiNut]

33. Well, it's nice to have a spokesperson for Cheney who's intimate enough with him ...

... to let me know what he thinks and feels. :eyes: Silly me - I merely pay attention to how he behaves. I deludedly don't give a flying fuck about what he thinks or feels - assuming he can 'feel' anything.

:puke:

[Marrak]

35. The inmates are fleeing the assylum...

And Nurse Ratchet Cheney (A.K.A double-o heh...) & Inmate Numero Uno (A.K.A. Churchill Jr) have barricaded their office doors to outside intrusions...like 5 years ago. :crazy: :wow:
Also, they got the football on their side of the wall :nuke:

[Marrak]

36. Of course, a nuclear winter

may work out well for the persecuted "snowmobiler"...and Nurse Ratchet has bestowed overly generous favors upon them in the past...:hide:

[EFerrari]

37. Hate to tell you, I don't give a f#ck about what that sociopath thinks.

:)

[Disturbed]

40. In order to Impeach Cheney he evidence presented must be

iron clad, incontrovertible, provable. The House will not risk bringing forth an Impeachment otherwise. The Senators that vote against a guilty verdict will be seen as complicit in the Cheney crimes. At this time I have not seen iron clad, incontrovertible, provable crimes that Cheney has committed. He cannot be Impeached just because he is a War Mongering, Sociopathetic Asshole. I would love to see him Impeached and found guilty but the legal case has not been made yet.

If anyone has iron clad, incontrovertible, provable crimes that Cheney has committed, please post them on a separate thread and here.

[EFerrari]

42. Ah, but he can be impeached because he is a warmongering

sociopathic asshole. You don't need ironclad, incontrovertible, provable crimes, you need a spine. You need to believe in our Constitution more than in your political consultants.

And the Republics will run from him like ants from bug spray.

[conscious evolution]

45. Google David A Smith + nigerian bribery+e-mails

or search DU's archives or journals for CorpGovActivist and IdesOfOctober.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations

The SEC is conducting a formal investigation into whether improper payments were made to government officials in Nigeria through the use of agents or subcontractors in connection with the construction and subsequent expansion by TSKJ of a multibillion dollar natural gas liquefaction complex and related facilities at Bonny Island in Rivers State, Nigeria. The DOJ is also conducting a related criminal investigation. The SEC has also issued subpoenas seeking information, which we are furnishing, regarding current and former agents used in connection with multiple projects, including current and prior projects, over the past 20 years located both in and outside of Nigeria in which we...

The matters under investigation relating to the Bonny Island project cover an extended period of time (in some cases significantly before Halliburton’s 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries and continuing through the current time period). We have produced documents to the SEC and the DOJ both voluntarily and pursuant to company subpoenas from the files of numerous officers and employees, including many current and former executives, and we are making our employees available to the SEC and the DOJ for interviews. In addition, we understand that the SEC has issued a subpoena to A. Jack Stanley, who formerly served as a consultant and chairman of Kellogg Brown & Root LLC and to others, including certain of our current and former employees, former executive officers and at least one of our subcontractors. We further understand that the DOJ issued subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining information abroad, and we understand that other partners in TSKJ have provided information to the DOJ and the SEC with respect to the investigations, either voluntarily or under subpoenas.

These excerpts are from KBR's own SEC filings.Cheney is the former executive officer under investigation.