Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et A-NOW is the time to go after them

[revolutionnow45]

Elizabeth de la Vega has prepared the case, has written an entire book for us....

We need someone to take up this case now. Why doesn't Kucinch raise some funds to pursue this?

Look at the way they are rewriting history, Bush is some great hero to be credited with winning Iraq (Obama gets the blame for the spending)

Are we really going to let them get away with this?

If we do not expose the truth, Obama will continue to be blamed for the huge mess Bush created, will be out 2012 and we will get Jeb or someone equally awful.

Are we really going to watch this happen?




BuzzFlash: What is it that your indictment accuses Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. of violating?
Elizabeth de la Vega: There’s a provision which says that it’s against the law to conspire to defraud the United States. The statute itself doesn’t define what that means, but over the years -- actually more than a hundred years now -- we have what’s called case law that does elaborate on what that means, and does set forth the legal standard that would be given to the jury if they were trying to consider the case. What it means is using deceit of any kind to interfere with or obstruct a branch or agency of government. That’s what the subject is.

BuzzFlash: Is it fair to say that much of what you include in the indictment has to do with the deceptions that are on the record that the Bush Administration employed to lead America into the war with Iraq?...
Elizabeth de la Vega: Yes. If there were such an indictment, it would be the Department of Justice. It would have to be some special counsel, but yes.

BuzzFlash: In essence, are you saying that, based on a hundred years of case law in regards to the specific statute, one could theoretically have a Justice Department that could indict Bush and several of the people in his Administration?
Elizabeth de la Vega: I do want to clarify something here. The President can probably not be indicted, for Constitutional reasons, while he is the President. Given that, my purpose in writing this book is to explain to people that what we have here is, on the one hand, a very standard fraud, in that they used the same phone techniques and so forth that are used in other fraud cases. On the other hand, the scope and the consequences of it are much, much larger, and much more horrific. I have used this very rational format of a grand jury indictment to help people understand that we have evidence of a crime.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/044

[revolutionnow45]

1. Do we have any available lawyers on DU?

Let's do it ourselves!!

[former9thward]

2. Private individuals can't pursue criminal charges.

That is reserved for state and federal authority.

[revolutionnow45]

3. we can take it up at the state level?

A lawyer can write up the charges and we can demand the feds take up the case.


There must be something we can do...


learned helplessness has been all too successful...

[former9thward]

6. Certainly charges can be written up. And anyone is free to demand action .

But state and federal prosecutors are free to ignore those demands.

[Segami]

4. Would you happen to know if a private citizen ( through a lawyer ) can trigger

a motion to assemble a ' Federal Grand Jury ' for the purpose to examine, assess, lay or pursue any and all criminal charges against Bush, Cheney et al?

[revolutionnow45]

5. yes-there must be something

attention all DU lawyers....please help us out here...

[former9thward]

7. Calling a federal grand jury is completely up to the U.S. Attorney of that district.

[revolutionnow45]

8. sounds like a plan

How do we convince someone...who lives in a good district?

[Segami]

9. Is it solely at his or hers discretion or

can compelling NEW evidence produced by a private citizen or organization require that the U.S. Attorney pursue a preliminary criminal Grand Jury Investigation based on facts presented?

[revolutionnow45]

10. someone could pursue charges over the soldiers posing with dead bodies like they were hunting?

there's some new evidence that should expose the disgusting situation.

That must be illegal, and obviously it was systemic with 4,000 pictures!

[former9thward]

11. It is solely at their discretion.

The only person/s that can overrule are his/her bosses at the Department of Justice in DC.

[Segami]

12. Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[brooklynite]

15. The Birthers have been trying this tactic to go after President Obama...

...they get laughed out of every Courthouse they visit (usually with a police escort).

[revolutionnow45]

13. kick for more ideas

who lives in a liberal state with a good prosecutor who might take this up?

[BobbyBoring]

14. I have been trying, to no avail

To get a huge protest going starting at the Justice Department May 1st. A few hundred thousand shouting at Holder to bring justice to Bush, Cheney, Woo and others involved in Iraq. While he's at it, he can bring Jamie Diamon, LLoyd Blankfiend and the rest of the criminal banksters to justice. Those that have had their homes, pensions, and life savings stolen deserve justice.

Justice for all. Isn't that what it says in one of our founding documents people are so fond of these days!

[Sivart]

16. thinking it thru

I am curious.......if these charges were to actually get some legs, and people were convicted, what does that do to the current situation? I mean, we are still waging these exact same wars.....and Obama is the one doing it now.

I dont mean this to sound like I am anti-obama.....I am just genuinely curious.

[brooklynite]

17. You haven't got a prayer...

I know it's not going to be popular to say, but you have no change of indicting Bush and Cheney, much less convicting them.

First, consider the political reality. It's been two years since they left office. No US Attorney, State Attorney General or District Attorney, no matter how liberal, has made an effort to file charges.

Second, consider the issue of actual charges. Notwitstanding the allegation in the OP, lying, not under oath, is not a crime; politicians do it all the time (an impeachable offence, possibly) And even if it was, the burden would be to prove knowledge that the statements were false (as opposed to being mislead, or just being stupid). On the matter of torture, you would have to again prove knowledge of violation of some torture statute, as opposed to actions taken after receipt of legal advice saying it was okay. Can you go after the lawyers who gave the advice? Possibly (again, requiring proof that false advice was offered with contrary knowledge of the actual statutes), but that won't get you Bush or Cheney.

[revolutionnow45]

18. kick

:kick: