Raw says the VP has been indicted [faxed copy]. The prosecutor says [video] he has enough evidence to prosecute Cheney.

OP Ed calls on Conyers to impeach Cheney.

What You can do: Contact your state legislators to pass proclamations calling on the House to impeach Cheney, over the charges forwarded by the Texas grand jury.

An impeachment against Cheney would help restore America's moral standing. It is irrelevant what might happen in the Senate. Once impeached in the House, the Vice President can never be pardoned on those offenses. 

The new Senate and House members take their seats two weeks before Bush and Cheney leave office in January 2009. There are enough votes to impeach Cheney.

Jon Stewart joined the commentary.

I. We Must Pressure the House

Our obligation is to exhaust all lawful options to pressure the House to act. History will judge whether free people used all the power they had to hold their elected officials accountable. This pressure also applies to overseeing the Bush carryovers.

2. The States have a role in pressuring the House to impeach Cheney

There are options if Congress refuses to impeach. House Rule 603 grants the states the power to pass proclamations calling on the House to impeach the Vice President. The House Rule says that the House may begin impeachment after a grand jury has issued an indictment.

Our job is to oversee Congress and test whether the States do or do not put pressure on the House to impeach Cheney. Vermont's Senate passed a proclamation calling on the House to impeach. Other states have consider similar proclamations. 

3. Congress' has an obligation to act

It cannot be argued there is "no time" as the Constitution delegates to the Congress the responsibility to act on many fronts. It is not an "either or" prospect between impeachment or confronting the economic issues.

Congress' Paradox:

An impeachment on this short list of charges is easy. The hard part is doing something more complicated.

Congress' would have us believe it is "too difficult" to impeach Cheney; but they want us to believe they (a) are serious about reforms on (b) economic issues (c) during wartime. Congress cannot have it both ways.

The promise of reform must be met with actions to reform: Hold the leadership accountable.

Yet, Congress won't do what is easy, but would have us believe they need time to do the difficult. That defies reason. They haven not demonstrated they can do the simple. There's no reason to believe Congress can do something more difficult than an impeachment.

Pelosi has her victory in the House, Senate, and White House. There is no excuse for her not to open all the doors to impeaching Cheney. If Pelosi refuses, we should discuss removing her as Speaker.

4. Short list of charges is sufficient

This Texas Grand Jury indictment is a gift: It is simple, and the work has been completed. Recall the lessons of Saddam Hussein's trial. There were not lengthy investigations. The investigation focused narrowly on the easily-provable offenses: The gassing of the Iraqi Kurds.

5. The Senate

As with Nixon, the GOP-minority in the Senate is willing to break ranks. The Senate must be forced to confront this issue. Let the Senate explain its inaction.

The House must move this grand jury indictment to the Senate floor so the Senate can make a removal decision. Now, before the Vice President leaves office.

States Showing Way For House: Texas Court Preparing For Cheney Trial

The court [ Judge Manuel Banales ] has set an arraignment hearing for this Friday (tomorrow), and issued a summons for Cheney. The court said counsel can appear on behalf of Cheney. 

Because the prosecuting District Attorney did not have adequate notice and did not appear, the court refused to hear Cheney's defense motions to have the grand jury indictment thrown out. If there is a similar problem, the court plans to appoint a district attorney pro-tem if anyone thwarts the prosecutors from attending the Friday arraignment.

Jurors are being selected for trial.

The three page indictment alleges conflicts of interest, naming Cheney, Gonzalez, and the GEO Group. Gonzalez is accused of blocking investigations into prison abuses. Cheney allegedly had $85M financial interest (not a blind trust) in the prisons through the Vanguard Group. Cheney's signature is on the forms linking him to the Vanguard Group.

The surprise of this indictment stems from the prosecutors secretly working on "Operation Goliath" at home, kept secret for months from staff to avoid alerting political rivals, presumably the GOP.

Cheney's spokeswoman Megan Mitche refused to comment on the indictment.

House Not Obligated To Wait For Texas Trial Outcome

The House can use any reason it wants to start an impeachment.  The question -- whether the presiding judge has or hasn't signed the grand jury indictment -- is irrelevant, but an excuse to delay needed action.

Congress independently can call itself back into session before January 2009 to handle economic issues. It can do the same with impeachable offenses.
 

• It would be improper for the Congress to recognize a judicial decision on whether the Congress will or will not independently conduct business.
  
• The House Rules are permissive, but they are not exhaustive.  The House can use any reason to impeach; and is not bound by any precedent or rule. The House can rewrite the rules to say that an "unsigned grand jury indictment or anything else can prompt a House impeachment."
• It's up to the Senate to decide whether it will or will not remove the Vice President. The Senate and Judicial branch cannot dictate to the (independent) House (a) how to interpret its own rules; or (b) whether the House must or must not wait until the Judge signs the grand jury indictment.

Argument: House May Now Move On Grand Jury Indictment Regardless the Decision of Presiding Judge

A. Framers Intent of Impeachment

This situation is expressly one the Framers intended for the House to independently confront, without regard to the other branches. The Framers relied on the impeachment model from the British Empire: When the King refused to remove a bad agent, the Parliament used the impeachment to challenge that agent and remove him.

The purpose of the impeachment process is to deal with situations as this: Where the judicial and executive process are slow/unresponsive to resolve a matter the legislature knows must be confronted. 

B. Separate, Co-Equal Branches

The oath of office puts the Constitution as the Supreme Law above the loyalty the House members may have toward the Judicial branch.

The Framers intended the branches to clash; the separate branches cannot be bound to wait until another branch agrees to a confrontation. 

• Waiting would imply the House shows greater deference to (a) judicial and executive inaction than (b) their independent, legal obligation through the oath to timely defend the Constitution.
  
• Waiting would, in effect, communicate, "We in the House are subordinate to the Judicial branch." That defies the notion of "separate but equal". The Judicial branch is not the referee; nor can the House credibly argue that it "must" wait for the Judicial branch to agree with the House.
  
• Judicial inaction on a grand jury indictment is irrelevant to the House's unreviewable discretion to exercise the exclusive impeachment power of the House. Recall the President's argument on war powers: He claims (rightfully or wrongly) the Congress cannot make any rule affecting how the President exercises executive power. Similarly, the judiciary cannot make a rule affecting how the House exercises power unless the House agrees. There is no enforceable rule or law that says the House will only exercise impeachment power if the Judge says, "I agree."
  
• A reasonable Congressional response to the judicial action is to say, "The Judiciary has no power to dictate to the House -- via an 'unsigned grand jury indictment' -- whether the (indepedent) House exercises the impeachment power delegated solely to the House." An "unsigned grand jury indictment" would (wrongly) put the Judiciary in the position of dictating to the House that the impeachment power can only be asserted on the back of a grand jury indictment if the judiciary agrees. This outcome would defy the Constitution and allow the Judiciary to block an impeachment.
  

It defies the intent of the Framers for the House to only move on impeachment if the court, in effect, said it was "now OK" for the House to proceed on the grand jury indictment; or for the court to tell the House how the House should interpret House Rule 603.

C. House Rules Permit Action Regardless Judicial Decision

The House Rules do not distinguish whether the grand jury indictment is or isn't signed by a judge. The House could act on the grand jury's indictment, regardless whether the court does or doesn't agree.