Reply #26: A couple of thoughts ....

[H2O Man]

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.