Former Federal Prosecutor Publishes Indictment of George Bush

[Jcrowley]

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

~~~ Thomas Paine, "The Crisis", December 23, 1776



Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth Vega has written a book containing a draft indictment of the so-called president and other top administration officials for conspiracy to defraud the American people on the issue of whether or not we needed to invade Iraq. The book also includes a fictional grand jury proceeding based on that indictment.

More details from Matthew Cardinale of Atlanta Progressive News:
De la Vega argues the American people are too narrowly concerned about whether Bush Administration officials lied or not, when in fact, lying is just one type of fraud.

"A scheme to defraud is any plan or course of action that’s intended to deceive another through false pretenses, representations, or promises," she writes on page 54.
...
The word conspiracy does not legally mean people in trench coats were whispering in a dark alley. It simply means a concerted effort; and the White House stated publicly in the weeks prior to the 2002 Congressional Authorization to go to war, that they were openly engaged in a concerted public relations strategy.
At only 241 small pages, this book sounds like a great gift idea! Please read the whole article.

http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/02/former-federal-prosecutor-publishes.html

Bush Indictment Drafted by Former Federal Prosecutor

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (February 23, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA – Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor, has written a new best-selling book, US v. Bush, which includes a federal indictment against President George W. Bush and other top administration officials for conspiracy to defraud US Congress and the American people over the need to invade Iraq. It also includes a fictional grand jury proceeding based on the completely factual drafted indictment.

The book, published by Seven Stories Press, is 241 pages, but the pages are smaller than typical pages. For such a cute little book and quick read, it’s one of the most important books on the apparent criminality of the Bush Administration to date.

"I wrote the book because I wanted people to know this is a very serious crime," De la Vega told Atlanta Progressive News in an interview. "I completely agree there are grounds for impeachment," she added.

<snip>

"A scheme to defraud is any plan or course of action that’s intended to deceive another through false pretenses, representations, or promises," she writes on page 54.

In addition to outright lies are: false pretenses, false representations, half truths, deliberate concealment of important information, misleading information, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth.

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0129.html

[Selatius]

1. Bush-Cheney can't be prosecuted unless they've been stripped of sovereign immunity.

Impeach them. Remove them from power. Once that is done, then they can be tried as private citizens accused of crimes.

Put them on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[Jcrowley]

6. Some excellent articles by the author

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=142875

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32550

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=159661

[napi21]

2. Hmmm. I might have to buy this one!

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-George-Bush-al/dp/1583227563

$10.17 at Amazon and free shipping if you spend $25.00.

[Ian David]

3. Amazon is evil. Buy from Powells or Barnes & Noble, or Overstock.com n/t

[napi21]

4. Why do you say Amazon is evil? n/t

[Ian David]

5. They're major repuke donors to campaigns that are pro-censorship.

They donate to the worst of the worst of the Repuke party.

Amazon.com is EVIL!

[napi21]

8. Are you sure? Check this link.

http://www.buyblue.org/node/3848

I'm a VERY GOOD customer of Amazon, and I would bevery upset ifI found what you said to be true. It appears Buyblue dosen't agree with you.

[Ian David]

10. It was BuyBlue.org that did an expose on Amazon a couple years ago.

I'll go do some googling.

[Ian David]

11. Drill-down into the articles posted about Amazon

Amazon.com Misled Investors During the Internet Boom
March 12, 2005 - Online retailer Amazon.com agreed to pay $27.5 million to settle a securities lawsuit that claimed it misled investors during the Internet boom. That lawsuit charged that Amazon continued to tout the network even as it was losing millions of dollars. It also failed to disclose that a large portion of the revenue recognized under the agreements came in the form of stock, not cash. In August 2000, Amazon began clarifying which revenue it received in cash or stock from the partnerships and the losses related to them.

Amazon Customers Stripped of Right to Civil Justice System through use of Binding Mandatory Arbtration
Amazon's webpages contain a clause requiring disputes to be settled by (private) binding arbitration. Mandatory binding arbitration prevents customers from suing the company if they have a dispute. A broad coalition of consumer groups oppose the use of Binding Mandatory Arbitrtation agreements. (See http://www.givemebackmyrights.com/) Private mediation is often more costly for the consumer, and used by companies to hide unfavorable proceedings from public courtrooms.


A union of their own
InfoWorld 3/12/01 .. .Amazon.com has also kept relatively quiet about internal reactions to the unionization activity and to the customer service center closing. The e-tailer has tried to keep workers from talking about the events. Earlier this year, terminated workers were effectively put under a gag order by Amazon.com -- departing workers who said anything negative in public about the company would have to settle for a smaller severance package. But in early February Amazon.com backed off from this position. "I can now talk freely to the press without jeopardizing my severance," Wandler says.

US: Amazon.com Fights Union Activity
by Steven Greenhouse, New York Times November 29th, 2000 Amazon.com has come out swinging in its fight to stop a new unionization drive, telling employees that unions are a greedy, for-profit business and advising managers on ways to detect when a group of workers is trying to back a union. A section on Amazon's internal Web site gives supervisors anti-union material to pass on to employees, saying that unions mean strife and possible strikes and that while unions are certain to charge expensive dues, they cannot guarantee improved wages or benefits. The Web site advises managers on warning signs that a union is trying to organize. Among the signs that Amazon notes are "hushed conversations when you approach which have not occurred before," and "small group huddles breaking up in silence on the approach of the supervisor."

Amazon.com and its customer service employees are entering the jungle of labor tension.
Dec. 11, 2000 An attempt Friday by some of the Seattle-based company's customer service workers to organize their fellow employees has led to conflicting accounts about whether the company violated labor laws. A lawyer for the employees charged in a letter to Amazon on Friday that it illegally quashed an attempt to hand out union literature. But the company says that organizers left of their own accord.

Amazon Loses Some Allure
"Here's a way to turn a happy customer into an unhappy customer in a hurry: sign them up for a magazine subscription they don't want, and then make them opt out to keep from automatically getting billed for it. One reader was upset to discover recently that's what Amazon was doing to him."

http://www.buyblue.org/node/66/view/summary

[Selatius]

14. The New Economy my ass. It's the same corporate thuggery no matter the business model.

Meet your new boss, same as the old boss.

[napi21]

15. I realize Amazon did some things in the past that were WRONG!

It appears they have changedthough. Most of the items you referenced are pretty old. As far as I can tell, the newest one is 2 years old and some are 7. Backin the early 2000's Amazon was a fairly new business and struggling to stay alive. I know many financial types predicted their demise several times. They survived, and it appears they are playing the political game right down the middle...at least in 2006. I'm willing to give them a chance. I've gotten a LOT ofgood deals from them, and although they aren't totally blue, they're a hell of a lot better than WM! I NEVER set foot in THAT place!

[Garbo 2004]

13. Overstock.com? It was exclusive online seller of "Fahrenhype 9/11," an attack on Moore and his

film. I remember their TV ads. They claimed it had nothing to do with their CEO's Republican connections. IIRC they also had TV ads flogging one of Coulter's books. Bet there was lots of overstock on that one.

Their chairman/CEO Patrick Byrne owns almost 40% of the company. He's a major political donor, gives to both parties like many businessmen but tilts Republican. His Repub and anti/Dem contributions are interesting. For example, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635209449,00.html . His Fed campaign donation record: http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=UT&last=Byrne&first=Patrick

[Ian David]

16. Yes, but the Overstock.com lady in the commercials is really, REALLY hot. n/t

[tritsofme]

7. Its generally accepted that a sitting POTUS is not liable to criminal indictment

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

[Jcrowley]

9. On that point

Do I expect someone to promptly indict the President and his aides? No. I am aware of the political impediments and constitutional issues relating to the indictment of a sitting president. Do those impediments make this merely an empty exercise? Absolutely not.

I believe this presentation adds a singular perspective to the debate about the President's use of prewar intelligence: that of an experienced federal prosecutor. Certainly, scholars and experts such as Barbara Olshansky, David Lindorff, Michael Ratner, John Dean, and Elizabeth Holtzman have written brilliantly about the legal grounds for impeachment that arise from the President's misrepresentations about the grounds for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. But for most Americans, the debate about White House officials' responsibility for false preinvasion statements remains fixed on, and polarized around, the wrong question: Did the President and his team lie about the grounds for war? For many, the suggestion that the President lied is heresy, more shocking than a Baptist minister announcing during vespers that he's a cross-dresser. For many others -- indeed, now the majority of Americans -- that the President lied to get his war is a given, although no less shocking.

So my goals are threefold. First, I want to explain that under the law that governs charges of conspiracy to defraud, the legal question is not whether the President lied. The question is not whether the President subjectively believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The legal question that must be answered is far more comprehensive: Did the President and his team defraud the country? After swearing to uphold the law of the land, did our highest government officials employ the universal techniques of fraudsters -- deliberate concealment, misrepresentations, false pretenses, half-truths -- to deceive Congress and the American people?

My second goal is to supplement the scholarly analyses already written, by moving beyond exposition, beyond theory, to the inside of the courtroom, or more precisely, the grand jury room. By presenting the President's conspiracy to defraud just as a prosecutor would present any fraud conspiracy, I hope to enable readers to consider the case in an uncharged atmosphere, applying criminal law to the evidence that they believe has been proved to the standard of probable cause, just as grand jurors would in any other case.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=142875

[Bobbie Jo]

12. Kick that....it's on my reading list.

Which seems to be growing by the day. I don't think I've ever seen a time when there was so much published - damning - information available on a sitting president. :shrug: