Thread: How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... _may_b.htm

July 2, 2007

How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush

By Len Hart

The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.

It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is "plenty" to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.

But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are "the people" to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries

In the year 2005, a growing majority of Americans were not only opposing the disastrous war against Iraq, they were opposing Bush on almost every issue from illegal government wiretapping to this government's planned theft of Social Security. It was in that year that a majority of Americans said that they supported the impeachment of George W. Bush. Even fewer support Dick Cheney. Others oppose impeachment and removing Bush simply because it would leave something even worse in his stead: Dick Cheney.

As I write this, Newsweek asks How Low Can He Go?
President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency-making him the least popular president since Nixon-in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.

June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush's approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
It's been some two years and nothing has been done. The situation is increasingly dangerous and demands a real investigation followed by impeachment, trial, and removal from office. Depending upon the specific charges, a criminal trial of Bush/Cheney's should begin immediately. Following that trial, Bush should be turned over to the International Tribunal at the Hague to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.

How frustrating it must be for thousands of bloggers, activists, journalists and writers to raise the issue of war crimes and high treason knowing that the odds of anything being done by officialdom are slim to none. Too often I am asked: you may be right but what the hell can we do about it? Too often I am left advising people to educate and agitate. At a time when not only the White House but Congress itself seems complicit in the ongoing war crime in Iraq, my answers are inadequate. Indeed, what can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.

On the other hand, a grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation and the power of the subpoena to back it up. For example, Michael Moore wants the images made by hundreds of cameras trained on the Pentagon released. It would clear up the question: what did strike the Pentagon. Only a guilty government would not want you to know. It occurs to me that a Grand Jury could simply demand those items. Failure to comply is a crime.

Of course, Bushies will cite "national security" as did Nixon in Watergate. Bush prefers brinkmanship and, thus far, the Democrats have always backed down. But a Grand Jury is not the Congress. It does not have to stand for re-election. Would Bush really prefer to stonewall knowing that the issue would go straight to the Supreme Court? Would Bush risk a purely legal decision on the merits of the case?

In most instances, grand juries investigate issues brought to them by a prosecutor. In those cases, charges are returned in an indictment. Some states allow grand juries to act on their own. In those cases, charges are returned in what is called a "presentment". A presentment has the same legal effect and weight as an indictment, that is, both initiate a criminal case.

I want to know why a Federal Grand Jury was not convened to investigate 911 in the first place. Never mind! I know why! Bushco had a cover story to peddle. A real investigation would have only muddied the water. It would have delayed the onset of a war that Bush was hellbent and desperate to wage on behalf of his sponsors. Getting Bush out of the Oval Office is a matter of very real urgency.
There are remedies. The people waited patiently for a Democratic majority. Having got one, we are constantly disappointed. There must be millions, like me, who are sick to death of waiting for justice, millions like me who feel disenfranchised and abandoned by this "government of the people". The people simply must not wait for Congress to begin a real investigation.

Unless every judge in every state, in every county, in every town or city is crooked or, in other ways, bought and paid for by Bush's crooked gang, there may be a way to convene a Grand Jury that will fully investigate the events of 911 and bring charges against administration officials who may have facilitated or helped plan it. Simply, the people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury.

The time has come to brush up on some basics, in this case, the Grand Jury system. Here is a great link: Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. What is often called a "runaway" Grand Jury could be useful right now. As pointed out in the article, Federal grand juries have already played central roles in the investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa.

Grand juries are typically summoned by a court when an attorney general or a district attorney's motion is granted by the chief judge to empanel the body. But a court may also summons a grand jury upon its own motion and grand jurors are summoned from the same pool as trial jurors.
Abortion-Rights Opponents File Petition For Grand Jury To Investigate Death Of Woman Who Received Abortion At Kansas ClinicAbortion-rights opponents on Friday submitted a petition with 7,754 local signatures to a Sedgwick County, Kan., court to convene a grand jury to investigate the death of a woman who died three days after undergoing an abortion at the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, Kan., the AP/Wichita Eagle reports (Hegeman, AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/7). Kansas law allows a grand jury to be formed within 60 days of a petition filed with a state district court if the petition has at least 100 more signatures than 2% of the number of people in the county who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.
The point being --the people may petition a court to convene a grand jury. Here's an excerpt from just such a petition:
"We, the undersigned qualified electors of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, petition the Court to immediately call a Grand Jury to convene in Oklahoma County for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation into all aspects of the operations of the Police Department of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition to investigate into the offices, affairs, and conduct of the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition, to investigate into any and all other matters called to the attention of the Grand Jury."
-STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. BOB HARRIS, PETITIONER, v. HONORABLE CARMON C. HARRIS, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, RESPONDENT.
From the same case:
14 We cannot determine as a matter of law that the petition for grand jury is a witch hunt based upon speculation or conjecture by the circulators and signers of the petition, nor can we carte blanche impugn their motive. This is the function of the grand jury. While the grand jury may, after investigation, return indictments, ouster proceedings, or otherwise make critical written reports as to the condition and operation of these offices, they may on the other hand submit a complimentary report on those officials and their offices. In any event, the discretion and authority lies with the grand jury as an inquisitorial body.
Grand Juries typically meet in secret and there have been instances in which "runaway grand juries" abused their power and authority. But it was a runaway grand jury in the 1930s that investigated widespread mob corruption in New York and returned a number of bona fide indictments against mafia bosses. Recently, a grand jury in California almost closed down a county when it indicted almost every member of the government.
UPI/Zogby Poll: Majority give Bush Negative Ratings on Keeping U.S. Safe from TerrorismBut half of Americans believe Bush Administration has allowed security measures to trump personal freedoms

More than half of Americans give President Bush 55% negative ratings on his performance in keeping the United States safe from terrorism and give the Department of Homeland Security a similar negative rating (56%) on its efforts. Nearly half of Americans (49%) believe the Bush administration has tipped the balance between personal security and personal freedom too far towards security, depriving the American people of too many freedoms, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

Slightly more than half (53%) said they are against the government having the ability to temporarily suspend federal privacy laws to enable agencies to better share counter-terrorism information, including the personal data of American citizens. Americans are divided over the Terrorism Surveillance Program. Half said they have a favorable view of the TSP under which the National Security Agency can monitor the international telephone and email communications of American citizens without a warrant if the communication includes and individual suspected of having ties to a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda. But nearly as many (45%) said they have a unfavorable view of the program. More than half (55%) said the TSP is a necessary and legal tool to protect Americans against terrorist activity, while 42% disagree.

The interactive survey of 5,932 adults nationwide was conducted from April 13-16, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.3 percentage points.

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes.

He could win us back in a heartbeat. All he'd have to do is stop the war profiteering, secure the borders and send all the illegals home and enforce the law against big business. It'd take a big man to do all of that, but he could win back the American people. La Raza and the illegals would be hanging him in effigy, but he'd have the backing of his people.

PRESIDENT BUSH, PLEASE HEED THE VOICE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAVE YOUR PARTY AND YOUR OWN DIGNITY AS YOU LEAVE OFFICE. YOU HAVE TIME TO REGAIN THE PEOPLE'S SUPPORT. BEGIN TODAY. TURN AWAY FROM BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS, NAU GOALS, AND THINK ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO LEAD. YOU HAVE TIME TO ENSURE THAT THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT WIN IN 2008.

Well I'm in !!

Don't be fooled, Boosh doesn't care about dignity, or any other positive moral character traite. He cares about pushing daddy's one world government agenda. Nothing else matters to him.

So here is the person to do it for us.
I don't know about any of you, but I for one ain't asking Bush's permission to oust him and his cronies.
I'm pretty sure right here on Alipac we can get AT LEAST 100 signatures.


Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... an_we_.htm


July 3, 2007

Grand Jury: "Can We Indict Bush & Cheney?"

By Len Hart

The answer is: Yes! A recently expired grand jury raised the question. It might have indicted but for a few details. Think of it. Bushman and Dickster might have been looking at hard jail time, impeachment, the possibility of war crimes trials.

My recent article --How the People May Bring Criminal Charges Against Bush --urged citizens to petition a judge to empanel a grand jury. My article pointed out that the people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel would have the power of the subpoena and the indictment. The legal standard for bringing an indictment against Bush or Cheney is "probable cause".

Since writing the article and while researching existing literature, I learned that the issue of of indictments against Bush and/or Cheney had, indeed, come up in the proceedings of at least one sitting grand jury.
Praise from a Member of a Recently Expired Grand Jury R. S. Nelson (SF Bay Area)Shortly after this book [ United States V. George W. Bush et al. ] became available, but before I became aware of it, I asked the federal prosecutor (or "AUSA" for Assistant US Attorney) we were working with at the time whether we could indict Bush & Cheney. As I expected, the question was not answered. Another member of the federal Grand Jury sharply and quickly asked me "Who would write the indictment?" Ms. de la Vega points out in the first paragraph of her Introduction that writing an indictment of Bush & Cheney is not a smart move for an AUSA to make if they wish to remain employed.

Had I known of retired AUSA de la Vega's book, I might have pushed for our Grand Jury to issue our own indictment without the help of the staff of the local US Attorney's office! There just might have been 11 other jurors besides myself who would have voted in favor of such an action... While Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez would be unlikely to allow prosecution of his fellow Republicans, the issuance of an indictment by a sitting federal Grand Jury would probably garner some interesting news coverage!

...

On some days the start of the Grand Jury session needed to be postponed until a quorum appeared. It was during these interludes of waiting with the AUSA present that questions like "Can we indict Bush & Cheney" could be entertained.

I have long believed that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld are criminals. Elizabeth de la Vega provides the evidence and legal framework clearly meeting the "Probable Cause" standard to indict these people. They appear to have committed serious crimes against the people of the USA, and should be held to account.
That this route is considered is symptomatic of a state of official lawlessness in Washington and disdain for the rule of law throughout the Bush administration. What can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush?

Here's what can be done: the people can petition a judge to convene a grand jury charged with considering a panoply of criminal charges against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell.

There is an appalling lack of general understanding about grand juries. An early objection was simply the creation of a "legitimate authority". A judge IS a legitimate authority. A grand jury appointed by a judge IS a legitimate authority. There are only about three ways in which grand juries are convened. A petition to a judge is one of them. The people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury and judges have always had that authority. A grand jury itself has sweeping authority. Some grand juries have been called "run away grand juries". In my previous article, I mentioned that one such panel investigated organized crime in New York and returned numerous indictments against alleged crime bosses. Make no mistake about it. A bona fide grand jury, duly appointed by a judge, could investigate and return indictments against all the crooks inside Bush's corrrupt crime syndicate of an administration.

It was facetiously objected that "..it is a wonderful idea ...of delivering all of our nuclear war fighting elite up to a Grand Jury." Well, we gave that power to Bush!!! I fail to see how a grand jury, if consisted of straw suckin' simpletons, could do any worse!

A grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation. It would have the power of the subpoena to back it up. I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries. As for the question of who shall write the indictment, I appeal to readers of this forum. There must surely be someone of the caliber of author Elizabeth De La Vega who could assist a grand jury in the drafting of a comprehensive indictment against Bush and Cheney.

If Alberto Gonzales should try to restrain the scope of such an investigation, my advice would be to investigate Gonzales for possible obstruction of justice. Clearly, Gonzales' primary responsibility has been that of an "enabler" tasked with making legal, after the fact, many crimes that have surely been committed by both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Should anyone doubt that such an indictment could be returned, I recommend de la Vega's book.
Elizabeth De La Vega builds a legal case that President Bush and top members of his administration engaged in a conspiracy to "deceive the American public and Congress into supporting the war." Drawing on her experience as a federal prosecutor, as well as the work of scholars and legal experts, she brings a well-honed legal perspective to the issue. She presents her argument in transcript form as a hypothetical weeklong presentation to a grand jury, including extensive testimony from three fictional investigative agents. Despite her somewhat specialized approach, the author clearly defines the legal terms and issues and avoids jargon.
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with twenty years of experience. If anyone could draft an indictment, she can and has done so in her book. Clearly, the defendants --George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell --have committed the crime of taking this nation to war upon a fraud, a pack of malicious lies. The indictment will most certainly charge the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The facts of Ms de la Vegas' case are indisputable, the case is real. George W. Bush et al perpetrated a cynical, callous fraud upon the people of the US that resulted in the deaths of some 2,500 American soldiers, over 650,000 Iraqis. The cost of the "war" has surpassed $450 billion dollars as of this writing.

Our founders foresaw problems with a rogue executive and provided the mechanism of impeachment to address the issue. Unfortunately, the Congress seems content to muddle through to the end of this "President's" term. I consider that option to be disastrous. The Constitutional process is already weakened, perhaps beyond the political will to repair it and the people are increasingly demoralized an ongoing war crime in Iraq, beyond description in terms of its human toll and unimaginable in terms its fiscal effects now and in the future. Bluntly, Bush is a rogue "President" of doubtful legitimacy who has shown disdain for the very principle that is summarized in three words: "rule of law". Various statements attributed to him having to do with the Constitution are credible because they are in character. Bush is, in fact, on network video tape declaring "...this would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...just as long as I'm the dictator." I didn't think it funny.

Let's get on with it. Petition a judge. Empanel a Grand Jury. There is probable cause NOW to bring indictments against both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Should Gonzales not allow it, he had best have sound legal reasons for his position. Else, indict him for obstruction of justice!

Resources:
United States V. George W. Bush et al. (Paperback)by Elizabeth De La Vega
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War
Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans--Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild




Authors Website: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

Authors Bio: Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy

So what do I do?

William, Diane, V..............anyone? We need someone to make up a legitimate petition to Impeach Bush and Company.......it needs to be posted where everyone can see it and sign it.
I am sure with all the people on here that are discouraged with the shape of our country today and all knowing who is behind it, we can get at least the 100 signatures we need.
What do you say folks?
Are we Americans or cowards?
This IS OUR COUNTRY.............not the crooks trying to steal it from us.