[lbo-talk] Moyers: Surprisingly interesting impeachment discussion

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 14 16:01:59 PDT 2007


I'm not a lawyer either, CW, but I think you might have too many crimes here to make an effective prosecution, or to keep the public's interest. Something tells me the Dems will never make the case for lying us into war (the only case worth making, IMHO), since that makes them look stupid. BobW --- cgrimes at rawbw.COM wrote:


>
> 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
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list