>
> Impeachment, hey? Moyers has finally gotten around
> to Ramsey Clark's
> view four years ago:
>
> ``WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com)The U.S. invasion of
> Iraq was the most
> serious act of aggression in the country's history
> and it was in
> clear violation of the most important provisions of
> international law,
> according to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
>
> The "crimes" committed by President George W. Bush
> and others in his
> administration warrant the severest response from an
> alarmed
> citizenry: impeachment, Mr. Clark told a luncheon
> audience at the
> National Press Club May 12.''
>
>
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_784.shtml
>
> Whatever Clark has done to discredit himself, he
> sure got that one
> right. And this was waay back 2003 when it might
> have helped.
>
> There are a couple of practical problems with
> impeachment. The first
> is what to charge. I think the democratic leadership
> in the house has
> to put together a general prosecution plan in
> several areas of crimes
> that prosecution lawyers agree on a good likelihood
> of pushing
> discovery in order to unearth concrete evidence.
>
> The other problem if you look at recent polling on
> Gonzales and the
> related Scooter Libby affair you will see only a
> third
> of the public followed these investigations, and
> about half were
> not convinced or thought there was no crime there.
>
> In other words, what I certainly see as a vast sea
> of criminal conduct
> and abuse of power, isn't a view shared by enough of
> the public to
> move the House to any action.
>
> The media and the public are not particularly
> interested in what seem
> to be mere legal technicalities. Basically most
> people just don't
> understand or know what government is, how it is
> supposed to work, and
> what is bad conduct amounting to criminal conduct in
> public
> office. They understand bribery. They understand
> lying. They
> understand hiding evidence or cover-ups. They
> understand stealing. But
> that is about all they understand as bad enough to
> get a public
> official out of office.
>
> So I would argue the best direction, the one with
> the most public
> appeal would be to develop a prosecution plan around
> the lies,
> cover-ups, abuses of power, and outright corruption
> (no bid
> contracts), going to war in Iraq, and continuing to
> this day. I would
> argue if the war is the public centerpiece, then the
> public will pay
> attention and might support enough of the Congress
> to get something
> started.
>
> Under this general plan centered on the war, you can
> open four
> separate lines of investigation to develop. The
> first centered on the
> White House itself. The next line following a
> variety of national
> defence agencies, NSC, CIA, FBI, HS---and whatever
> super secret groups
> the WH has created ad hoc. The remaining two lines
> should focus on DOJ
> and DOD, justice and defense. These were the cabinet
> level power lines
> that were established and coordinated together to
> fabricate The War on
> Terror and then get us into war on Iraq.
>
> Within these broad categories that follow the
> executive branch lines,
> I would establish a sub-focus around abuses of power
> that show
> violations of the separation of powers---deep and
> serious
> encroachments on both the legislative branch and
> judicial branch. The
> ad hoc establishment of secret surveillance, secret
> courts, secret
> prisons, secret police, then secret decrees or
> executive orders
> labeled secret to cover up these extraordinary
> abuses. Within this
> sub-category on DOJ, then we can get into the
> Gonzales contempt, WH
> aide contempt, and of course the former AG, Ashcroft
> who did exactly
> the same thing. And then there are the old
> Iran-Contra team that
> Cheney re-assembled with Elliot Abrams.
>
> At a complete guess, I would start nosing around
> Abrams, expecting to
> find all sorts of back channel goings on with Iraq,
> Israel, Saudi
> Arabia, Palestine, etc. with usual money for
> hostages, oil for guns,
> guns for hostages, hostages for oil, oil money for
> hostages with
> guns whatever. This guy is now Deputy Assistant to
> the President, and
> Deputy National Security Advisor:
>
> ``Elliott Abrams was appointed February 2, 2005, as
> Deputy Assistant to
> the President and Deputy National Security Advisor
> for Global
> Democracy Strategy. [1]
>
> In this capacity, Abrams will assist Stephen J.
> Hadley "in work on the
> promotion of democracy and human rights, and will
> provide oversight"
> to the National Security Council's directorate of
> Democracy, Human
> Rights, and International Organization Affairs and
> its directorate of
> Near East and North African Affairs. Abrams will
> work with Secretary
> of State Condoleezza Rice and Hadley, and "will
> maintain his
> involvement in Israeli/Palestinian affairs," the
> White House said.''
>
>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Elliott_Abrams
>
> We (I) want these motherfuckers broken down, and we
> (I) want their
> entire concept of executive governance, which has
> been a tyranny, to
> go down with them, hard.
>
> Of course I don't know the slightest thing about
> prosecuting and
> developing areas of discovery. There are enough
> lawyers on this list
> to figure out how to develop a good prosecution
> plan. So, let's hear
> it. I am embarrassing myself out here.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>