Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et Al.

[Demeter]

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/044

Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et Al. -- A BuzzFlash Interview

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 12/05/2006 - 5:52pm. Interviews



The very process of getting those subpoenas out there, getting witnesses out there, getting this evidence that we already have in the public record, into a hearing format, is essential. The more we can illuminate the truth, the more people are going to understand ... we have to have these hearings in Congress. That is what I’m advocating.

-- Elizabeth de la Vega, author, United States v. George W. Bush et al.


* * *

It's important to know this about Elizabeth de la Vega. She is a former federal prosecutor, who was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis as well as a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Branch Chief in San Jose, California.

So, like Patrick Fitzgerald, her specialty has been prosecuting people who break the law.

In United States v. Bush et al., de la Vega lays out an actual indictment of the Bush Administration for crimes committed based on violation of U.S. law. She then proceeds to take the reader through a simulated presentation of the indictment to a grand jury.

In short, she brings Bush and his cohorts to the court of justice and makes them subject to the rule of law.

United States v. Bush et al. is not about impeachment, per se, because it is about a criminal indictment presented in a grand jury. The actual grand jury proceedings in the book are simulated, of course, but the facts that the indictment is based on are real.

Compelling reading for those who want to hold the Bush Administration accountable in a court of law.

IMPORTANT AND THOROUGH EXPLORATION OF BUSH CRIME AND POSSIBLE PROSECUTION--WELL WORTH THE READ.

[Chimichurri]

1. Wow. We need more people like her. Hopefully the dems won't

be verbally bullied out of investigating the lot of them.

[pat_k]

2. Impeachment is defensive. Prosecution follows.

The hypothetical prosecution is great, but Impeachment is a political, not a legal, process. Members of Congress are sworn to defend the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to defend against threats that come from within the halls of power.

Impeachment -- rescuing the Constitution -- is first is foremost. Prosecution must follow, but that is for the courts, not Congress.

Hey, Congress, draft Articles of Impeachment and present the case, NOW!

[pberq]

3. Kick & Nominated

[Gregorian]

4. This should be recommended.

I see several posts on De La Vega's book, with little in the way of replies.

She was on Democracy Now today, and on The Colbert Report last night. I was impressed with her clarity and accuracy in both interviews.

I think she lays the basic groundwork that we have already done on these forums. If for no other reason, it's refreshing to see the fruition of our labors on mainstream media.

And ultimately she makes what appears to be a rock solid case for impeachment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I think I'll have to read this.

I went to law school with Betsy de la Vega, though I didn't know her well at the time; later dealt with her briefly on a case when she was working as an assistant U.S. Attorney (about 1988, I think). I remember her as pretty smart, but I didn't know she was a liberal, too. Looks like a fascinating book.