This past week, the White House and Vice President Cheney were subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee for documents relating to President Bush's warrentless wiretapping program (AP Article). The White House gave no indication it would comply with these subpoenas (CNN article), and the following day (Thursday), Bush refused previously issued subpoenas concerning the firing of the US Attorneys, claiming executive privilege (Yahoo! News article, Washington Post article).
This refusal prompted responces from Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman John Conyers. Leahy called the actions of the Bush Administration "Nixonian stonewalling" (the entire statement), and Conyers stated that the President showed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government." (the statement). (Conyers also stated that "obstruction of justice and misleading Congress" are amongest "charges alledged in this investigation.")
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously stated that impeachment is "off the table." Her opinion has not changed despite a devestating indictment of Cheney by Bruce Fein (former Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration (read article with a few of his statements here), John Dean's (former Nixon White House counsel) call for action, and Dennis Kucinich's introduction of H. Res. 333, a resolution to impeach Cheney. In fact, during a bloggers conference call with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, when asked "whether or not the Constitution is worth it," (here refering to impeaching Alberto Gonzales) she responded "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." (full article here, with audio of conference)
Is Speaker Palosi right? Is the act of impeachment only "worth it" if it succeeds? Should Cheney, Bush, and/or Gonzales be impeached? Have their actions called for it? What do you think?
It's important to remember that impeachment is not removal from office, but the formal accusation of wrongdoing.
Personally, I feel that impeachment is called for and should be seriously considered by Congress.
This refusal prompted responces from Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman John Conyers. Leahy called the actions of the Bush Administration "Nixonian stonewalling" (the entire statement), and Conyers stated that the President showed "an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government." (the statement). (Conyers also stated that "obstruction of justice and misleading Congress" are amongest "charges alledged in this investigation.")
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has previously stated that impeachment is "off the table." Her opinion has not changed despite a devestating indictment of Cheney by Bruce Fein (former Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration (read article with a few of his statements here), John Dean's (former Nixon White House counsel) call for action, and Dennis Kucinich's introduction of H. Res. 333, a resolution to impeach Cheney. In fact, during a bloggers conference call with Speaker Pelosi yesterday, when asked "whether or not the Constitution is worth it," (here refering to impeaching Alberto Gonzales) she responded "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed." (full article here, with audio of conference)
Is Speaker Palosi right? Is the act of impeachment only "worth it" if it succeeds? Should Cheney, Bush, and/or Gonzales be impeached? Have their actions called for it? What do you think?
It's important to remember that impeachment is not removal from office, but the formal accusation of wrongdoing.
Personally, I feel that impeachment is called for and should be seriously considered by Congress.