rense.com

Bush Obstructs Justice
By Ted Lang
Exclusive to Rense.com
3-24-7

"This country has nothing to fear from the crooked man who fails. We put him in jail. It is the crooked man who succeeds who is a threat to this country."  -- President Theodore Roosevelt
 
It would be accurate to put in the past tense the crimes that the Bush criminal regime has committed, but our present administration's crimes continue to mushroom and multiply by the minute.
 
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has succinctly itemized an astonishing laundry list of Bush crimes in his piece, "Are We Experiencing The Last Days of Constitutional Rule?" Roberts offers: "The administration's offenses against US law, the US Constitution, civil liberties, human rights, and the Geneva Conventions, its lies to Congress and the American people, its vote-rigging scandals, its sweetheart no-bid contracts to favored firms, its political firing of Republican US Attorneys, its practice of kidnapping and torturing people in foreign hellholes, and its persecution of whistleblowers are altogether so vast that it is a major undertaking just to list them all."
 
But if it is "a major undertaking just to list them all," then there should be no dearth of either evidence or principles that can be employed against these federal gangsters to impeach them, try them, and send them to jail as President Teddy Roosevelt pointed out. And in spite of all their crimes and the resultant mass murders and deaths, Nancy Pelosi and her despicable Democrats indicate that "impeachment is off the table." It's obvious that these despicable parasites don't even need the table. We should break off the legs and use them as clubs to drive these power lenders out of our House!
 
Roberts asks rhetorically: "What explains Bush-Cheney invulnerability to accountability? Perhaps the answer is that Bush has desensitized us." I disagree! The majority wants out of Iraq, does not want to attack Iran, and wants funding stopped for both. Who holds the complete opposite view to that attributable to a now-probable majority of 80 percent of the American people? It is AIPAC, ISRAEL, and their ZIONIST PRESS!
 
When Democratic Congressman John Conyers attempted to publicize the Downing Street Memo, the criminals, the GOP [Gangsters of Politics] banished Conyers and his panel to the basement of the people's House. And Zionist traitor, "journalist" Dana Milbank of the treasonous Washington Post, mocked the Conyers inquiry and then smeared Conyers as being "anti-Semitic." Instead of supporting an investigation in to the criminal activities of the Bush regime, the "newspaper" of Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee pimped for Bush.
 
Think of those in our military who died and were maimed because of the treason committed by the Washington Post and The New York Times. The "official" death toll of our military at the time Downing was aired then stood at 1,700. Could a free and independent press have started to turn things around beginning back then such that many lives and limbs could have been saved?
 
In his commentary of March 18, "Domestic Spying Revelations Make Impeachment Now Imperative," Dr. Roberts addresses the current Alberto Gonzales debacle; and please let's not forget that Roberts, like me, had Republican beginnings. Roberts writes, "While serving as President Bush's White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president's war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants."
 
An "order signed by Bush?" Is this godammed piece of paper still around somewhere? And if it is, how come Congress doesn't know about it?
 
Why is impeachment off the table?
 
Roberts again: "By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration's program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales' professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program."
 
Roberts has continually pointed out the vast criminal activities of the Bush regime, and as his earlier quote related, the detailing of the laundry list of Bush crimes is indeed a daunting task. Roberts gets to the point faster than most commentators, and understands the implications of his subject matter: "We are faced with almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals."
 
I will go further than "almost certain." I am totally positive that both are heavily armed and extremely dangerous criminals, to US and the whole world as well. These gangsters have taken it upon themselves to write law, which they are not authorized to do, rescind and/or ignore laws they are supposed to obey, and then judge the legality of their actions based upon their own views. Who can possibly challenge them? Governmentally, what higher authority exists? If you or I had such power, wouldn't we damn well do as we please?
 
Roberts continues: The evidence that Bush and Gonzales have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and exchanges of letters between the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress.
 
"Justice Department memos?" "Exchanged letters between Justice and Congress?" Letters and memos and Congress. Oh my! Letters and memos and Congress. Oh my! Aren't these godammed pieces of paper rock solid evidence? As Roberts points out, these documents WERE LEAKED to the National Journal and reported by America's only true investigative journalist, Murray Waas. And Roberts assures US that Waas backed up this information with actual interviews as well. Oh my!
 
Actual evidence exists proving that Bush and Gonzales obstructed justice, and is now in the hands of the Democratic-controlled Congress that received a mandate, even from a Republican such as I formerly was, to do something quickly about Bush before he ignites World War III via his unauthorized and illegal planned attack on Iran. But now I must revise "unauthorized" to "authorized," thanks to Democrat Nancy Pelosi and her handlers at AIPAC.  
 
Why is impeachment off the table?
 
Why is Iran on the table?
 
In his excellent article for National Journal, America's sole investigative reporter, Murray Waas, gets beneath the layers of secrecy and propaganda created by the Zionist media to protect the criminal Bush regime as it sacrifices America fore Israel. His March 15th article entitled, "Internal Affairs ­ Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales," lays out precisely how the Bush crime machine and its rogue Department of Justice operate. The DOJ is a rogue Bush outfit precisely because of the firings of federal attorneys whose mission it was to provide oversight of Department activities to ensure compliance with constitutional law and due process. And any organized criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush gang simply cannot tolerate either the light of day or the obstructive burdens of truth and justice.
 
But how and why did this all start? As Roberts had pointed out, letters were indeed exchanged between Congress and Justice, but this all started more than a year ago. Waas reports: "[H. Marshall Jarrett, head of OPR] undertook his investigation [of the illegal Bush/NSA spying on Americans program] after receiving a request on January 9, 2006, from Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and three other House Democrats." Waas goes on to explain that, "OPR did not have a mandate to determine whether the eavesdropping program itself was illegal or unconstitutional. Rather, the office was to investigate 'allegations of misconduct involving department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice,' according to the office's policies and procedures."
 
The Office of Professional Responsibility itself has complimentary overseers: one was a Jack Goldsmith, formerly an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, and another was James A. Baker, the counsel for Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. Waas relates: "Both men had raised questions about the propriety and legality of various aspects of the eavesdropping program, which was undertaken after September 11 as an anti-terrorism tool." This last observation continues to reinforce my belief that 9/11 was an inside job deliberately planned and executed by the criminal Bush regime.
 
But how do we get from the NSA spy flap to the attorney firings now so current and of such staggering and dangerous potential to Bush and his Zionist press? Waas explains: "Baker, the counsel for Justice's intelligence office ­ and the second official whom OPR investigators were eager to interview ­ had warned the presiding judge of the FISA court that authorities improperly used information from the program to obtain surveillance warrants submitted to the court, Justice officials recalled in interviews."
 
Waas emphasizes: "If the Justice inquiry had been allowed to continue, Baker would almost certainly have been asked about any discussions he had with Gonzales and his top aides regarding these issues, according to officials close to the inquiry." This is because the natural course of the inquiry, had it been allowed to proceed unhampered by underhanded politics, would have had to challenge not only the illogical and unjust origins of Bush's NSA "spying on America program," but the relationship between the creator of such "laws" as well as the "enforcer" of such laws. And Gonzales was both!
 
As White House lawyer, he advised Bush that he could break any laws and restrictions upon his authority by virtue of a totally new dimension to government; namely the "war on terror" conveniently created by 9/11. Then, as Attorney General, guess who got to enforce the very same illegal laws he created. It was the function of OPR, even in its indirect analysis of attorney procedures and Justice Department protocol, to begin the inquiry via this approach. And of course, Gonzales found out about this aspect of the investigation.
 
It is this dual role on the part of Gonzales that triggered the current flap. But the real issue is this: in order for the OPR investigation to begin, issues of "national security" are a concern. In order for OPR attorneys to proceed, one of the underlying basic steps is that of obtaining security clearances. And it was in this seemingly uncontroversial area where the President of the United States of America, one George W. Bush, got directly involved. Remember, these are United States attorneys that were already required to take an oath of office and in all likelihood sign a federal Certificate of Disclosure.
 
Bush ordered that the OPR attorneys' required security clearances be denied!
 
This constituted DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in stopping an investigation!
 
And remember, the investigation was only coincidental as regards Gonzales' role. The OPR attorneys might simply have advised Gonzales that portions of the "law," or certain Justice procedures, might simply have to be changed. But is this the issue now? No, of course it isn't! It's Bush stopping a Justice Department investigation into the "legality" procedure-wise of an administration practice. The NSA spying on Americans without a warrant is a blatant violation of FISA. And Bush's direct involvement is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
Why is impeachment off the table?
 
Waas points out that Gonzales spoke to Bush about the OPR investigation. There is existing evidence [godammed pieces of paper] PROVING that Gonzales notified Bush, and that after that, Bush took action to stifle approval of OPR's clearances. Of course, the Bush apologists, protectors, propagandists and other unsavory characters immediately offered the following pap for public consumption: White House spokesperson, Dana Perino, quoted in Waas' article offered: "The Office of Professional Responsibility was not the proper venue for conducting that." Waas relates that White House press secretary Tony Snow offered that the security clearance denials were warranted because "'in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people to it tight for reasons of national security.'"
 
But that national security program is illegal! And Perino's contention that the "terrorist surveillance program" is a "highly classified national security" to fight GWOT is also nonsense." Our Constitution is now null and void because of GWOT? The Magna Carta and habeas corpus are now null and void because of the 9/11 terror act that Saddam and Iraq had no part in? All the lives, limbs and sacrifices of all our military in all our wars since 1776 are meaningless now because we, the nation on record as having created the greatest acts of terrorism in the world, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden, must cow in horror and give up all our freedoms to Bush, and Cheney, and Snow and Perino.
 
But here's the real kicker delivered by Waas: "In contrast, Jarrett noted, the administration PROMPTLY APPROVED 'the Criminal Division's request for the same security clearances for a large team of attorneys and FBI agents that was investigating who initially leaked details of the NSA eavesdropping program to The New York Times.'" [Emphasis added.] If this isn't selective enforcement of the laws of this land, then I don't know what is. 
 
Why is impeachment off the table?
 
And if all of this isn't bad enough, check out this tidbit from Waas: "Hinchey and other Democratic House members asked Jarrett why he was unable to obtain the necessary clearances; Jarrett's superiors, according to government records and to interviews, instructed him NOT TO INFORM CONGRESS that PRESIDENT BUSH [himself] HAD MADE THE DECISION." [Emphasis added.]
 
These are the events that immediately preceded the attorney firings that are now coming to light and will shortly be dropped by the mass media. The public has a short memory and our "free and independent press" always counts on that. Clear and unavoidably proven evidence shows the Gonzales and Bush obstructed justice. The attorney flap was launched over a year ago and has been smoldering since the NSA story broke. It would be interesting to find out why it was reported by the Times, Bush's number one mass media protector and enabler. But I believe NY Times columnist James Risen's book [State of War] was part of the airing of Bush's criminal agenda. The March 6th conviction of "Scooter" Libby on four of five counts definitely shook up the District of Criminals' notorious notables, while at the same time, putting a focus on the value of hard working and honest US attorneys and true and loyal public servants. And the comment of juror Denis Collins, expressing his sympathy for railroaded Bush-Cheney scapegoat Libby, queried, "Where's Rove?"
 
On March 9th, Glenn A. Fine, inspector general for the Justice Department, presented a 130-page report to the House Judiciary Committee exposing FBI abuses under the Bush-Gonzales USA PATRIOT Act that Congress passed without even reading. And now they are shocked, shocked I tell ya, to find out our torturing and mass murdering lying monkey abused the powers of his exalted station. What is now irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing is described by the Bushniks as merely "privileged" and "private" conversations between a president and his advisors.  Nonsense! They are proof, backed up by hard evidence in the form of godammed pieces of paper and other written documents, proving that Bush and Gonzales obstructed, and are continuing to obstruct, justice. And remember that latter precious characteristic of a government of, by and for the people as articulated in our Constitution's Preamble?
 
The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only patriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else.
- President Theodore Roosevelt
 
 
Why is impeachment off the table?  
 
Theodore E. Lang
 
© THEODORE E. LANG 3/24/07 All rights reserved  
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.


Disclaimer






MainPage
http://www.rense.com


This Site Served by TheHostPros