2 of 7
2
The Possibility of Prosecution
Posted: 31 January 2009 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

The House Judiciary committee has agreed to a request from Karl Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to postpone the deadline by which Rove must respond to a subpoena issued by the committee.
Here’s the letter sent by the committee, agreeing to Luskin’s request and setting a new date of February 23 for Rove’s testimony.

Source

Question:  Why is BO taking this before a court and what is a court going to decide? 

Why doesn’t BO just say NO retro executive privilege?  Does he have the right to make such a claim or does a court have to make that decision.

And why doesn’t Conyers pursue"inherent” contempt of court on Rove which would give Conyers the power to drag Rove’s ass in front of Congress and arrest him for not showing up?

[ Edited: 31 January 2009 02:31 PM by Andrew]
 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15
lindajean - 31 January 2009 06:40 PM

Question:  Why is BO taking this before a court and what is a court going to decide?

(Andrew):  Obama’s not taking anything to court.  Yet.  He has to decide whether or not he will enforce Dubya’s claim of executive privilege as regards the testimony of Carl Rove.  If he does, Rove won’t have to testify and Dubya (at least) is happy.  If he declines to enforce Dubya’s claim of executive privilege, Dubya will sue to have the courts decide if his (Dubya’s) privilege extends into future administrations.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 06:40 PM

Why doesn’t BO just say NO retro executive privilege?

(Andrew):  He may.  Stay tuned.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 06:40 PM

Does he have the right to make such a claim or does a court have to make that decision.

(Andrew):  The courts will make that decision.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 06:40 PM

And why doesn’t Conyers pursue"inherent” contempt of court on Rove which would give Conyers the power to drag Rove’s ass in front of Congress and arrest him for not showing up?

(Andrew):  Good question…and one that the progressive bloggers have been asking since Rove, Miers et al refused to honor the original subpoenas back in ‘07.

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

(Andrew):  Obama’s not taking anything to court.  Yet.  He has to decide whether or not he will enforce Dubya’s claim of executive privilege as regards the testimony of Carl Rove.

BHO has to decide if he will enforce W executive privilege?  What is there to decide?  He knows that if he says it is retroactive then Rove and virtually all of the White House will be free and clear from any   current and forthcoming investigations.  Period.  That kind of makes his “no one is above the law”  rhetoric sound ridiculous.  And is this the “change” we are waiting for?  This seems like a no-brainer.  Why would BHO even have to hesitate—-all he has to do is say “NO” to retroactive!

Andrew
If he does, Rove won’t have to testify and Dubya (at least) is happy.  If he declines to enforce Dubya’s claim of executive privilege, Dubya will sue to have the courts decide if his (Dubya’s) privilege extends into future administrations.

The courts should decide.  But it’s not just the investigation into attorney firings that is at stake.  The way I see it, if the retro is effective then Bush can say any subpoena for any investigation infringes on his executive privilege. And there goes the neighborhood as the saying suggests…....

“lindajean” Why doesn’t BO just say NO retro executive privilege?

(Andrew):  He may.  Stay tuned.


So what is the deal with BHO preparing a brief for the current court case involving Miers and Bolton, which is coming up later in Feb?  Is that case going to determine if executive privilege is retro or is that a different issue?

“lindajean” Does he have the right to make such a claim or does a court have to make that decision.

(Andrew):  The courts will make that decision.

Then why is Rove taking it to BHO for his decision?  If a court has to decide, then why go to BHO?  Is it because Rove and W want BHO to say “No” then they can pursue it in court?

“lindajean”
And why doesn’t Conyers pursue"inherent” contempt of court on Rove which would give Conyers the power to drag Rove’s ass in front of Congress and arrest him for not showing up?

(Andrew):  Good question…and one that the progressive bloggers have been asking since Rove, Miers et al refused to honor the original subpoenas back in ‘07.

There has to be a reason. Rachel needs to find out.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15
lindajean - 31 January 2009 08:34 PM

BHO has to decide if he will enforce W executive privilege?  What is there to decide?  He knows that if he says it is retroactive then Rove and virtually all of the White House will be free and clear from any   current and forthcoming investigations.  Period.  That kind of makes his “no one is above the law”  rhetoric sound ridiculous.  And is this the “change” we are waiting for?  This seems like a no-brainer.  Why would BHO even have to hesitate—-all he has to do is say “NO” to retroactive!

(Andrew):  He may be thinking ahead eight years.  Or
He may not want an investigation of BushCo to hijack his agenda and spoil his “post-partisan” outreach.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 08:34 PM

The way I see it, if the retro is effective then Bush can say any subpoena for any investigation infringes on his executive privilege.

(Andrew):  Yep.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 08:34 PM

So what is the deal with BHO preparing a brief for the current court case involving Miers and Bolton, which is coming up later in Feb?  Is that case going to determine if executive privilege is retro or is that a different issue?

(Andrew):  Same issue, I think…different defendants.

lindajean - 31 January 2009 08:34 PM

Is it because Rove and W want BHO to say “No” then they can pursue it in court?

(Andrew):  I think they want him to say “yes” and make it all go away.

Here’s a good read on inherent contempt.

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

(Andrew):  He may be thinking ahead eight years.  Or
He may not want an investigation of BushCo to hijack his agenda and spoil his “post-partisan” outreach.

It’s hard to know what BHO is thinking, but it is a given this (decision) will tell (me) what he is made of.


(Andrew):  I think they want him to say “yes” and make it all go away.

Either I am in fierce denial or Bush is.  I cannot conceive he would say “yes”.  If he does say “yes” that is the end of me and BHO. My support for him will fly out the window. (I’ll just pay the 50 bucks and eat some crow.) smile

Andrew

Here’s a good read on inherent contempt.

Ahhh…The good old days.  When Congress understood their own power and used it.

From the article:

..and yet he (Waxman)  was apparently unaware of a procedure commonly used by Congress through most of this nation’s history that would actually compel people to show up and answer questions and produce documents.
my bold

(and)

...If impeachment is off the table, inherent contempt is in the past, contempt citations are delayed until moot, subpoenas are laughed at, FOIA requests are tossed in the trash, and other appeals to the executive branch to please allow itself to be overseen are simply ignored, then I must agree with Senator Walsh that we are witnessing the very death of the House and Senate. The capacity to hold someone in contempt, on its own, in September, would be a sign of life in what otherwise appears a motionless corpse.

IOW, after 1934, Congress lost its balls and dignity. And they have never been the same since.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 February 2009 02:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15

Change we can believe in:

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

(...)

The European Parliament condemned renditions as “an illegal instrument used by the United States.”

And this is a puzzler:

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. “Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance,” Malinowski said.

Why not just bring them here for “a public hearing in an official court”?

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2009 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15

Here’s a switch.

Karl Rove will cooperate with a federal criminal inquiry underway into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and has already spoken to investigators in a separate, internal DOJ investigation into the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, his attorney said in an interview.

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2009 03:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15

We’re a sorry bunch.

The Obama administration will not prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations that critics say crossed the line into torture, CIA Director-nominee Leon Panetta said Friday.

So, lessee…if you’re not going to prosecute them, then you can’t very well offer them immunity from prosecution and compel their testimony.  And without their testimony, what are the chances that information will ever come to light implicating anyone higher up the chain?

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2009 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2008-01-04

Some 140 federal and State Attorneys could prosecute Bush for Murder

By Sherwood Ross

Global Research, July 17, 2008

President Bush “beyond all reasonable doubt” is responsible for all the murders of American troops killed in Iraq and could be prosecuted by any of 140 Federal and State legal authorities, famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi says.

Bugliosi said the president is guilty of “the most serious crime ever committed in American history…knowingly and deliberately taking this country to war in Iraq under false pretenses,” killing 4,000 GIs, seriously wounding 30,000 more, and killing 100,000 Iraqis in the process.

While a federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, or any of the 93 U.S. attorneys throughout the country “would be the easiest procedure,” Bugliosi says, any of the 50 State attorneys-general also “could bring a murder charge against Bush for any soldiers from that state…who lost their lives fighting Bush’s war.”

Writing in “The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder”(Vanguard Press), Bugliosi says Bush’s lies to the public constituted “overt acts” and their broadcast nationally via the media are a basis for prosecution in every state.  Charges could include murder as well as conspiracy to commit murder, the veteran prosecutor said.

In his career in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder trials without a single loss, according to a biographical sketch in the book. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson murder case, became the basis of his classic, “Helter Skelter,” said to be “the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history.”

“Bush and his gang of criminals were constantly telling Americans that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country, but they kept the truth from the American people that their CIA was telling them the exact opposite, that Hussein and Iraq were not an imminent threat to this country,” Bugliosi writes.

In his speech of October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Bush said “The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gasses and atomic weapons…” even though a CIA report dated October 1 gave Bush notice that “the CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat to this nation,” Bugliosi pointed out.

As Bush did not act in self-defense, he did so with “a criminal state of mind,” with “criminal intent,” Bugliosi says, thus, “every killing of an American soldier that took place during Bush’s war was an ‘unlawful killing’ and murder.”

Bugliosi explains that a person is guilty of a crime under the theory of aiding and abetting if he instigates an act that leads to a crime. Bush’s invasion brought into existence the Iraqi opposition and his action caused Iraqis to kill American soldiers…” Besides, unless Bush intended to have a war without casualties, “which is nonsensical on its face,” Bugliosi says, “he did, in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed.”

“In my opinion,” Bugliosi continues, “there certainly is more than enough evidence against Bush to justify bringing him to trial and letting an American jury decide whether or not he is guilty of murder, and if so, what the appropriate punishment should be.”  Based on the evidence the author spreads out over 344 pages, he feels convinced “a competent prosecutor could convict Bush of murder.”

Bugliosi points out that he convicted Charles Manson of the seven Tate-La Bianca murders even though Manson did not participate in any of the killings, nor was he present at the time.  He was able to secure Manson’s conviction, he noted, because of the “vicarious liability rule of conspiracy, which provides that each member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for all crimes committed by his coconspirators or innocent agents of the conspirators to further the object of the conspiracy.”

Among the Iraq war conspirators Bugliosi identified are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Bugliosi said he knew less about former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s culpability but that a prosecutor could make that determination by obtaining documents and grand jury testimony from key people. The same procedure could also be followed in the case of former White House advisor Karl Rove, the attorney wrote.

Bugliosi charged Bush “is a grotesque anomaly and aberration. No president has ever done what he did and it is not likely this nation will see a president do what Bush did for centuries to come, if ever. At least we know that in the previous three centuries there was no one like this monstrous individual.”

“I would be more than happy, if requested,” Bugliosi continued, “to consult with any prosecutor who decides to prosecute Bush in the preparation of additional cross-examination questions for him to face on the witness stand.”                             

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based publicist and columnist. He formerly reported for the Chicago Daily News and several wire services and has contributed to national magazines. Reach him at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9604

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2009 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15

Gallup

While Americans appear to support some kind of investigation into these matters, no more than 41% favor criminal probes.

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2009 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20

From the American Freedom Campaign:

The subject line of this email isn’t an admission of weakness.  Rather, it is a cry of frustration.  We have grown sick and tired of the Bush administration getting away with murder - figuratively, if not literally.  And we are done watching Congress spin its wheels merely talking about it.

The latest outrage?  Earlier this week, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called for the establishment of a “Truth Commission” to look into various unconstitutional actions by the Bush administration.  As Leahy described the commission, “such a process could involve subpoena powers and even the authority to obtain immunity from prosecutions for anything accept perjury in order to get to the full truth.”

We don’t want the “truth.”  We want a full criminal investigation led by the Department of Justice, with prosecutions where it is found that the laws of the United States have been violated.  If you agree, click on the following link to send an E-mail to the Department of Justice:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26685

Why should we waste our time looking for “the truth” when the man who produced the legal memo setting the stage for torture under President Bush, John Yoo, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Bush—on three separate occasions!—authorized waterboarding, an interrogation technique universally recognized as torture?  That is the truth.  Now let’s start the prosecution process.

Why should we waste our time looking for “the truth” when we have known for years that the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was conducted outside of the legal boundaries established by the FISA laws?  That is the truth.  Now let’s start the prosecution process.

We know Bush administration officials defied congressional subpoenas.  Attorney General Michael Mukasey may have even violated the law by directing the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia to ignore a statute providing that he “shall” bring a contempt citation issued by Congress to a grand jury.  We don’t need to go through the charade of watching Karl Rove defy congressional subpoenas again.

We don’t need the truth.  We need the Justice Department to do its job and launch a criminal investigation.  Please use the following link to ask Attorney General Eric Holder when he will start this process:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26685

Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family.  In the alternative, you can use the “Tell-A-Friend” option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.

Thank you so much for taking action.

Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

 

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2009 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Andrew - 12 February 2009 03:29 PM

Gallup

While Americans appear to support some kind of investigation into these matters, no more than 41% favor criminal probes.

71% support some kind of investigation.  That’s a step in the right direction.  And the 41% who favor a criminal investigation are the majority—the largest number in the poll.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1172-Birmingham-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2009m2d13-71-of-Americans-want-to-see-Bush-administration-investigated

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2009 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2922
Joined  2006-06-15
lindajean - 13 February 2009 08:42 PM

...71% support some kind of investigation.  That’s a step in the right direction.

(Andrew):  I agree.  Now…will that 71% be happy with something toothless—like the proposed Conyers commission that you malign?  Or Leahy’s Senate version?  Stay tuned*.

*My guess is “yes”.

 Signature 

“Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance.”—Kurt Vonnegut

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2009 05:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19

I saw a program recently on PBS about the NSA and the wiretapping. I was convinced before, but I’m more convinced now, that a few years ago my phone conversations were being tapped when I started hearing strange sounds on the line. I can’t say I was being paranoid because I had received calls from Afghanistan from a friend and I was regularly speaking with my ex-girlfriend who was in law school in Foggy-Bottom, DC. That three-way communication network would have automatically popped up as recordable and reviewable. Hell, just the Afghanistan calls would have singled me out. Analysts in the program reported being appalled after a while of listening in on so many private conversations.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2009 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
goodgraydrab - 13 February 2009 10:56 PM

I saw a program recently on PBS about the NSA and the wiretapping. I was convinced before, but I’m more convinced now, that a few years ago my phone conversations were being tapped when I started hearing strange sounds on the line. I can’t say I was being paranoid because I had received calls from Afghanistan from a friend and I was regularly speaking with my ex-girlfriend who was in law school in Foggy-Bottom, DC.

I’ve had my phone tapped several times;  one time in connection with a 21 defendant death penalty case, another time in connection with something too weird to even mention here;  you get either a mechanical sound or an echo.

I’m sure my phones been tapped by the feds several times because I had a client in Iran and a very good friend in Pakistan;  those kind of taps you don’t know about, because they are done through the central switch.  It’s just the do-it-yourself jobs at a local switch that make sounds or cause echoes.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed