Hot Potato Mash

LEGALIZED ABORTION AT STAKE IN THE 2008 ELECTION

What follows are not scare tactics but facts. And when taken together they present a stark picture of what a John McCain presidency would mean to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Anyone who is pro-choice should think long and hard before casting a vote for John McCain.

Note that the next president will undoubtedly appoint at least one but probably a handful of Supreme Court justices and that many of the likely vacancies will come from the four member moderate/pro-legalized abortion wing. Justice Stevens is 88 years old, Justice Ginsburg is 75 years old and has fought cancer, Justice Breyer is 69 years old and Justice Souter is 68 years old and allegedly longs to retire to his New Hampshire home.

Meanwhile, as Jeffrey Toobin (a moderate Supreme Court expert) recently wrote in a must read article about a McCain speech addressed to the religious right, legalized abortion is on the table in a McCain presidency:

"In short, this one passage in McCain's speech amounted to a dog whistle for the right -- an implicit promise that he will appoint Justices who will eliminate the right to privacy, permit states to ban abortion, and allow the execution of teen-agers."

And McCain has told Fox News: "I do not support Roe vs. Wade. It should be overturned."

The importance of these statements and beliefs cannot be understated because the Supreme Court already consists of four conservative radicals who, along with conservative Judge Anthony Kennedy, have been chipping away at legalized abortion over the last few years. The replacement of just one judge from the liberal/moderate pro-abortion wing with a McCain appointee would tip the balance and all but guarantee the end of legalized abortion in most states, if not the country.

An April 2007 Court decision that criminalized partial birth abortion evidenced the radicalness of the ultra-conservative Court members:

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision... While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

I wrote the following about the decision in April 2007:

"Isn't that special! Five old, rich, white (with all apologies to Clarence Thomas), Jesus fearing/loving men have decided that they know what's best for women who otherwise may come to regret their choices in life and suffer depression. In other words, women are dumb and need men to tell them what to do. Interestingly, the Paternal Five are not troubled by the lack of reliable evidence supporting their position because it seems unexceptional to themselves. Or, who needs evidence when something is so plain to the eye (of at least 55% of Supreme Court Justices). Ladies and gentlemen, announcing the arrival of the faith based Supreme Court!"

As it turns out, there is plenty of evidence that the Paternal Five are full of it. Earlier this month the American Psychological Association released a study that debunked much of the Supreme Court's reasoning, concluding that a single abortion does not pose a mental health threat to women.

Facts be damned! The conservative justices were making a clear statement that they know what is best for women and that that does not include abortion. And the only thing standing in the way of criminalizing abortion altogether is one more radical judge -- the kind that John McCain has repeatedly promised to appoint to the Supreme Court:

"McCain has cited Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito as being his model justices, and he's also praised Scalia, one of the most conservative justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court."

And McCain's views were shaped long before he picked the ultra-conservative Christianist Sarah Palin as his running mate. The even more radical Palin believes that abortion should only be legal when a mother's life is at stake. Thus, she is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape. Palin has stated that she would choose life even if her own daughter was raped.

Making matters even worse, both McCain and Palin support policies that make it more likely that women will have unplanned pregnancies. They both support abstinence only education which has been proven ineffective by government studies. And they oppose the much more effective safe-sex education. Sadly, such policy choices have also led to a huge increase in teenage STD cases. In fact, 26% of teenage girls are infected with an STD according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

McCain has also worked to cut funding for family planning and opposes requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. And as Governor, Palin has cut funds that would help teenage mothers.

So grim is the McCain/Palin ticket for supporters of women's rights issues that the co-chair of Republicans For Choice said the following this week:

"Well, it means we have to work harder. We have to make sure that the McCain/Palin administration... don't make these issues, the social issues, the central portion of their policy agenda, as Bush has done. We have a lot of work to do. We don't believe McCain would -- he really doesn't care much about the issue, even though he has an almost perfect pro-life voting record."

And on the prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade:

"The only thing that gives me comfort is that Democrats are going to win the Senate."

But it is the president who nominates Supreme Court judges. And while it is true that the Senate must confirm those picks, it is worth noting that four Democrats voted for Samuel Alito in 2006 and 22 Democrats voted for John Roberts in 2005. Further, there is no guarantee that Democrats will hold onto the Senate in two years.

Finally, McCain's pick of Palin to be his VP all but proves that he is beholden to the religious right whose top desire is to outlaw abortion. McCain's top two choices for vice president -- Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge -- were shot down by the religious right because of their pro-abortion stances. So McCain settled on Palin, a choice which has been met with overwhelming approval by James Dobson and other far right religious extremists.

Make no mistake about it, legalized abortion as we know it is at stake in this election.

KARL ROVE INCRIMINATES SELF AND REPUBLICANS ADMIT DON SIEGELMAN CASE FIXED

In a new installment of Bush League Justice today, guest Julian Epstein, former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, stated that Republicans will admit, off-camera, that the case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was fixed.

The segment concentrated on Karl Rove finally giving written answers to questions, NOT under oath, about the Siegelman case. The questions, which were posed by Lamar Smith (R-TX), and answers can be read at Talking Points Memo.

While the general consensus is that the softball questions were a "pathetic attempt to save Karl Rove", the effort appears to have failed. In the video above, Epstein states that Rove actually appears to "incriminate" himself by refusing to answer a specific question about whether he contacted non-state officials.

Marcy Wheeler agrees with Epstein over at emptywheel:

In a classic non-denial denial, Karl Rove makes it clear that he did talk to people about Siegelman's prosecution--even while he denies that he spoke to anyone in DOJ about it.

And Larisa Alexandrovna thinks "This is getting to be rather fun" before proceeding to rip apart Rove's answer with the facts. She also poses six real questions she'd like to see asked of Rove.

BUSH LEAGUE JUSTICE: CONGRESSWOMAN SANCHEZ WANTS KARL ROVE IN JAIL

Representative Linda Sanchez says she wants to see Karl Rove in jail. A second segment follows with law professor Jonathan Turley. There does appear to be some confusion as to whether or not the White House has claimed executive privilege on behalf of Rove as both Sanchez and Turley state. Marcy Wheeler, on the other hand, makes a compelling case that executive privilege has not been claimed by the White House over at Empty Wheel.

Technorati Tags: Bush League Justice, congress, Constitution, Dan Abrams, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Jonathan Turley

BUSH LEAGUE JUSTICE: Karl Rove Officially Refuses To Testify Before The House Judiciary Committee

Karl Rove “remarkably says no to a lawful subpoena” to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday to testify about the Don Siegelman prosecution by claiming executive privilege despite previously stating that he had no discussions with the White House about the case. Will the House call Rove's bluff and hold him in inherent contempt? Apparently not if Nancy Pelosi has anything to say about it.

See Hot Potato Mash's entire Don Siegelman coverage.

lian epstein, congress, house, judiciary committee, michael waldman

Technorati Tags: Bush League Justice, Dan Abrams, Don Siegelman, Juilian Epstein, Karl Rove, Michael Waldman

SHOCKING! Pelosi Trying To Block Rove Contempt Charge

One wonders what the Republicans have on the Speaker of the House since she has continuously done the White House's bidding since the Dems took over in 2006...

From Pam Miles:

I have firm confirmation that Nancy Pelosi is urging the Judiciary committee NOT to go forward with contempt against Rove.

Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary staff are battling for it but this has become an infight among dems.

Time to burn up the phone lines.

800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 toll free to congressional switchboard

PLEASE CALL. House Judiciary Committee:

Here are the direct phone #'s of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. They're all democrats, and they're all congressmen:

All their phone numbers begin with 202, next three digits are 225. I will list only the last four digits, to save time:

John Conyers, Michigan - 1-202-225-5126

Howard Berman, California - 4695

Rick Boucher, Virginia - 3861

Jerrold Nadler, New York - 5635

Bobby Scott, Virginia - 8351

Melvin Watt, North Carolina - 1510

Zoe Lofgren, California - 3072

Sheila Jackson, Texas - 3816

Maxine Waters, California - 2201

Bill Delahunt, Massachusetts - 3111

Robert Wexler, Florida - 3001

Linda Sanchez, California - 6676

Steve Cohen, Tennessee - 3265

Hank Johnson, Georgia - 1605

Betty Sutton, Ohio - 3401

Luis Gutierrez, Illinois - 8203

Brad Sherman, California - 5911

Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin - 2906

Anthony Weiner, New York - 6616

Adam Schiff, California - 4176

Artur Davis, Alabama - 2665

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida - 7931

Keith Ellison, Minnesota - 4755

VIDEO EXLUSIVE: Vincent Bugliosi Supports Compassionate Release Of Manson 'Family' Member Susan Atkins

Susan Atkins spent the last 37 years in a California state prison for the murders of the actress Sharon Tate and musician Gary Hinman. Tate, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant with director Roman Polanski's son, unsuccessfully begged Atkins for mercy stating, according to prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, "please let me live so I can have my baby."

Atkins, however, showed no compassion and replied to Tate, "look bitch I do not have any mercy on you, you are going to die," before stabbing her to death.

Now Atkins, who suffers from brain cancer, has had her leg amputated and has been given six months to live, is requesting that the state parole board grant her a "compassionate release". Surprisingly Bugliosi, who sought the death penalty for the entire Manson Family and opposes parole for of all of its members, supports Atkins' petition.

"I'm not sure that you can say that just because she was this monster that 37 years later under these new conditions that it necessarily follows that we cannot give her whatever little mercy it is," Bugliosi said. "I think it's a non-sequiter to say that," he continued before adding, "and if she were not in the condition she's in obviously I would be against her ever being released on parole."

The state parole board will also likely consider the testimony of the surviving relatives of Atkins' victims, many of whom oppose any mercy, before issuing it's ruling in the coming months.

The L.A. Times has more

UPDATE: Bugliosi appears to be in the minority when it comes to Atkins compassionate release.

"Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders" (Vincent Bugliosi, Curt Gentry)

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: VINCENT BUGLIOSI: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

On Wednesday, famed Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi spoke to a packed and enthusiastic crowd of more than 350 Angelinos about his new book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” While Bugliosi’s talk will eventually appear on C-SPAN, you can view it first in its entirety below…

Part 1 (19:45)

In my book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” I present evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore under the law is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers who died so far in this war.

Bugliosi began the evening by explaining to the Los Angeles audience that George W. Bush is guilty of murder, according to the law, if he brought the country to war under false pretenses. And Bugliosi emphasized the legal aspect of the case in order to fend off likely attackers:

So although Bush supporters can argue that Bush should not be prosecuted because they don’t think he did anything wrong, they cannot legitimately say that he should not be prosecuted if he has done what I say he did. To say that is to admit that you have no respect for our American system of justice and democracy and that you would prefer that presidents have the same rights as tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein.

Bugliosi had a similar answer for those who simply believe it is impossible to prosecute Bush for murder:

There’s this sense out there among many that prosecuting Bush for murder can’t be done. Which is the equivalent of saying what - that he is above the law. That ordinary laws simply don’t apply to him.

Bugliosi also had some special words for the American Right Wing which has expressed its disapproval with his book:

The third group of people responding to my book is the nation’s right wing. And they of course have contempt for me and my book. But whatever contempt they have for me, I can assure them and I can assure you I have much much much more contempt for them. There are no more repugnant, hypocritical and un-American – and that’s the word I want to emphasize – un-American people in our society today than the right wing.

Bugliosi, however, made clear that this book was not political for him and even said he would have written the same book had Bush been a Democrat. So fair is Bugliosi that he even offers up some mitigating evidence for Bush and his co-conspirators:

And there is one thing that I should probably say in partial defense of these people that goes in mitigation, arguably reduces their moral culpability. And what I’m talking about is that many of these people are incredibly stupid. And they make up for their stupidity by being extremely ignorant. And when you combine stupidity with ignorance that’s a toxic combination.

Finally, Part 1 ends with the law:

If a conspirator, or anyone for that matter, deliberately sets in motion a chain of events which he knows will cause – that’s the key word – cause a third party innocent agent to commit an act, the defendant is criminally responsible for that act. Bush, in invading Iraq, caused Iraqis to kill American soldiers in much the same fashion that a person causes a gun to fire a bullet that kills someone by pulling the trigger.

Part 2 (17:54)

Part 2 begins with Bugliosi explaining the only way Bush might be innocent of murder:

Bush can only wash his hands of culpability if he did not take this nation to war under false pretenses. If he did, which the evidence overwhelmingly shows, he is criminally responsible for the deaths of all those American soldiers who have died fighting his war in Iraq.

The main issue would be whether or not George Bush went to war, as he always claimed, in self-defense – the so-called pre-emptive strike. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, alleged as so, therefore he was an imminent threat to the security of this country so Bush had to strike first in self-defense. If the war was not in self-defense but one that the prosecutor can prove Bush took us to under false pretenses than all of the killings of American soldiers in Iraq become unlawful killings and therefore murder.

While Bugliosi's animus was mostly reserved for Bush and his co-conspirators, he did find time to also criticize Ken Starr, The New York Times and the Supreme Court:

I seem to be getting more angry and acerbic and caustic and that’s because I am always in a state of rage. How can I help but be -- the monstrous, grotesque, obscene Ken Starr almost destroyed the Clinton presidency over absolutely nothing while being totally and completely supported and funded by the federal government. They funded his seven year, seventy million dollar effort, the federal government. And the so-called liberal media, The New York Times savaged Clinton on a day to day basis, supported this monstrous, grotesque, obscene figure – one of the most reprehensible figures in American history – Ken Starr.

The US Supreme Court 2000, stopping the recount in Florida which was specifically authorized by Florida law, taking the election away from the American people and appointing George Bush president, one of the biggest crimes in American history.

The heart of Part 2, however, is reserved for Bugliosi's evidence against George W. Bush. And first on the list was Bush's lies to the country that were contrary to the National Intelligence Estimate:

In George Bush’s first speech to the nation on Hussein and Iraq, October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by his attacking us with the so-called weapons of mass destruction or by giving these weapons to a terrorist group to attack us. And Bush said that this attack could happen, ‘on any given day,’ meaning what, that the threat was imminent.

The only big problem for George Bush is that on October the first, six days earlier, the CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate – a classified top secret report that represented the consensus opinion of all 16 US federal intelligence agencies on the issue of whether or not Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country and on page 8 of that 91 page report it clearly and unequivocally says – and by the way what I’m about to tell you to my knowledge has never been said or never been written or never appeared in any major newspaper or magazine in America – page 8 clearly says that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. That he would only be a threat if he feared we were about to attack him.

So we know then, not think but know, that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7th, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Now if we had nothing else at all, and there is so much more, that alone shows what, that George Bush took this nation to war on a terrible terrible lie. Therefore all the killings in Iraq became unlawful killings and murder.

But it gets worse! In fact, it gets evil, perverse, sick and criminal:

But it gets worse. It gets worse. October 4th, three days later, Bush and his people had the CIA release an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report so that this October 4th unclassified version could be released to the American public and to Congress. This unclassified version came to be known as the White Paper. And in this White Paper that was shown to the American people and to Congress, in which contained the opinion of 16 US intelligence agencies that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country, that conclusion was completely deleted, completely eliminated. Every single one of these all important words, the most important conclusion in that classified document, was completely deleted from the White Paper. And the question I have of you, is how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be?

The next piece of ever damning evidence, according to Bugliosi, is the January 31, 2003, Manning Memo written by Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor after a top level meeting in the Oval Office less than two months before the invasion.

He says that George Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction that Bush started to talk about three ways to ‘provoke a confrontation’ with Saddam Hussein. One of which he said was to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft over Iraq falsely painted in United Nations colors and he said if Saddam fires on those planes it would be a violation of UN resolutions and therefore justify our going to war. So here is George Bush telling Americans, telling the world, that Hussein is an imminent threat to the security of this country, but behind closed doors this very small human being was talking about how to provoke Hussein into a war.

Part 3 (15:50)

Part 3 begins with another piece of evidence against Bush. Mainly, how Bush responded to the ever positive testimony of chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix on March 7, 2003, by throwing him and his team out of the country and quickly invading Iraq. Blix had told the UN Security Counsel that the inspectors were getting proactive cooperation from Saddam Hussein and that their investigation would be completed in a few months:

Blix and his people became Bush’s biggest adversaries because if Blix and his people confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that would rob Bush of his main argument for war – a war that he wanted to fight at all costs.

The bulk of Part 3, however, does not concentrate on evidence of Bush's guilt but rather Bush's state of mind. Bugliosi takes great offense to the fact that Bush has often described his days as perfect and that he proclaims himself to be so happy:

Even if George Bush was only guilty of making an innocent mistake in taking this nation to war in Iraq, not murder as I firmly believe, with all of the death, horror and suffering he has caused, what type of a monstrous individual is it who could be happy with his life? What type of a human monster is George Bush?

If I ever killed one person in my life, even accidentally – a car accident – I’d never have another perfect day as long as I lived. George Bush is responsible for the horrible deaths of thousands of human beings and he is talking about having a perfect day. Bush’s plans to have a perfect day right in the middle of all the death and horror in Iraq goes so far beyond acceptable human conduct that no moral telescope can discern its shape, form and nature.

Bugliosi concludes by telling the audience that he will not rest or be satisfied until George W. Bush is prosecuted for first degree murder:

I don’t like to see anyone get away with murder, even one murder. [O.J.] Simpson got away with two murders and I got so angry that I wrote a book - Outrage, the Five Reasons O.J. Simpson got away with murder. If I can get so angry about someone getting away with one or two murders you can imagine how I feel about George Bush who has gotten away with over 100,000 murders and has been smiling and enjoying himself throughout the whole period. It may sound presumptuous of me but I can tell you that while I may not succeed, I’m not going to be satisfied until I see George Bush in an American courtroom being prosecuted for first degree murder.

The first degree murder of over 4,000 American soldiers:

If justice means anything at all in America, if we are not going to forget about those 4,000 young American soldiers who came back from Bush’s war in a box, I say we have no choice but to bring murder charges against the son of privilege from Crawford, Texas.

"The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" (Vincent Bugliosi)

George W. Bush, Ken Starr, Manning Memo, Murder, NIE, Right Wing, Saddam Hussein, Supreme Court, video, Vincent Bugliosi

DEMOCRATS COLLUDING WITH BUSH TO GUT 4th AMENDMENT TO COVER THEIR OWN CULPABILITY

That's right folks. Democrats will pass a Bill in the House tomorrow that will eviscerate the 4th Amendment and grant after the fact immunity to lawbreaking corporations in an effort to cover their own asses. Is it possible to get any more craven?

To put this law in context, even the Republican controlled Congress couldn't get this legislation passed. But now that the Dem leadership has been exposed to have had knowledge about the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans (and did nothing), Dems are jumping at the bit to coverup their actions.

And just where o where is Barack Obama? As the Democratic Party leader all he need do is make a simple phone call telling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to shelve the destruction of the 4th Amendment until after the election. Yet, despite his repeated claims to be adamantly opposed to this legislation and for the rule of law, he remains dead silent. Nice leadership.

Face it people, unless Barack Obama changes course by tomorrow he will prove himself to just another politician. And the right wing noise machine will be able to rightfully claim that Obama is all rhetoric and no substance.

PLEASE CALL THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND TELL THEM TO KILL THIS BILL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]

Keith Olbermann

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Dr. William Pepper on James Earl Ray's Innocence, Sirhan Sirhan's Innocence, 9/11 Truth and Prosecuting War Crimes

Dr. William F. Pepper is an internationally acclaimed lawyer who defended James Earl Ray in a 1999 civil trial (supported by Martin Luther King's family) where the jury found Ray not responsible for the MLK assassination. Now Pepper is defending Sirhan Sirhan for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a case he says is “an easier one than the assassination of Martin King and the innocence of James Earl Ray”.

Last Wednesday Pepper spoke about all of his projects, including 9/11 truth and prosecuting the Bush administration for war crimes, to a packed celebrity filled house in Los Angeles. Among those in attendance were Ed Asner, Gina Belafonte, Judd Nelson and 9/11 author Professor David Ray Griffin. Videos of his talk follow below... 

Part 1 (6:21) - Introduction 

In Part 1 Pepper talks about his background, childhood and motivation. He also speaks about the time he spent in Cuba playing baseball where he got to know Fidel Castro. According to Pepper, Castro foresaw much of what is happening in the United States today:

“When, in that massive country to the north, the masses of the people ever understand what it is that their ruling class has done to them and is doing to them, there will be such a torrent of opposition. They will rise like never before and then there will be the world’s greatest social revolution, the American second revolution.”

The video concludes with Pepper explaining how he came to work for Robert F. Kennedy and Martin King: 

 

Part 2 (5:36) - Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination/James Earl Ray Innocence 

“Took me ten years to convince myself that [James Earl Ray] was an absolute patsy” - Dr. William Pepper 

In Part 2 Pepper begins with the Martin King assassination and explains how he became involved with James Earl Ray's defense some nine years later. He also goes into detail about the 30 day civil trial against Loyd Jowers, et al, where a jury found Ray not responsible for King's assassination after listening to 70 witnesses under oath. 

Pepper believes that Ray's civil trial should serve as a template for getting out the truth in a wide range of cover-ups including the Robert F. Kennedy assassination and 9/11. He thinks using the courts is an effective way to get the truth into the public record despite the efforts by the mainstream media to prevent its dissemination to the public.

 

Part 3 (9:56) - Robert F. Kennedy Assassination/Sirhan Sirhan Innocence 

“I found from just a preliminary examination of the record that [the Sirhan Sirhan case] on the law, on the facts of the case, was an easier one than the assassination of Martin King and the innocence of James Earl Ray” - Dr. William Pepper 

In the first half of Part 3 Pepper details the startling evidence that necessitates a second shooter in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For starters the medical examiner states that Kennedy was shot four times from the rear including one shot about an inch behind his right ear which conflicts with all the witness testimony that Sirhan was always three to five feet in front of the likely Democratic presidential nominee.

Secondly, the analysis of audio recordings from the assassination with formerly unavailable new technology has led to the determination that 13 shots were fired at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Sirhan's gun only held 8 bullets. In other words: 

“There had to be a second shooter there” - Dr. William Pepper

In the second half of Part 3 Pepper details the efforts taken by the prison and the Department of Corrections to prevent his legal team from psychoanalyzing Sirhan Sirhan.

Part 4 (4:59) - Robert F. Kennedy Assassination (Continued) 

In Part 4 Pepper continues the RFK assassination discussion and his efforts to clear Sirhan Sirhan whom he says is innocent:

“The problem we face is if we get our client clearly innocent of the killing of Bob Kennedy – which he is, clearly innocent of that killing – he has five other counts of attempted murder” - Dr. William Pepper

In addition to the belief in Sirhan's innocence Pepper believes the case is important because it is representative of a larger problem facing the country:

“Each of the things I’m talking about are symptomatic of a pervasive sickness in this country. This is not the country we were all led to believe it was or should have been. This is what has emerged because we have had a small group of criminals grab power over a period of time following the orders of the people in the shadows who really do dominate life and justice and the injustices that exist in the society.” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 5 (8:36) - 9/11 

“The 9/11 matter is, in my lifetime, the most traumatic assault on democracy and the safety of this Republic.” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 5 is dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11. Pepper supports two different ways for accomplishing this goal. First, he backs an effort to create a new commission to investigate 9/11 by New York state referendum. Volunteers are currently trying to get the necessary 30,000 signatures from registered New York voters to get the measure on the ballot.

The second approach is to once again file a lawsuit in the courts. Pepper is leading this effort on behalf of the Jersey Girls and plans to sue, among others, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is widely believed to have sent $100,000 to lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta.

Part 6 (8:03) - War Crimes 

“I’m determined that what I saw in Vietnam and what is happening in Iraq will not go unpunished. Absolutely determined that that’s the case. What that means is this entire gang of war criminals in Washington are going to have to be prosecuted” - Dr. William Pepper

Part 6 covers what Pepper believes is his most important project -- the prosecution of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington, Doug Feith and Richard Pearl, et al, for war crimes.

Pepper plans to accomplish this monumental task by following the precedent set in the case of Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet. In that case, a Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant for Pinochet whose charges including 94 counts of torture.

Ultimately Pepper hopes for a conviction in absentia of the American war criminals which would prevent the guilty from ever stepping foot outside of the United States.

NOTE: To order a DVD of the night's entire programming, which includes a lively Q & A session with Dr. William Pepper and a talk by Professor David Ray Griffin on new 9/11 evidence, please contact Kathleen at quantumysticKFR@gmail.com to request a copy.

“An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, New and Updated Edition” (William F. Pepper)

“Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr” (William F. Pepper)

Technorati Tags: 11, administration, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Dr. WIlliam Pepper, Fidel Castro, George W. Bush, iraq, James Earl Ray, Jersey Girls, Martin Luther King Jr., puppy, Robert F. Kennedy, september11, Sirhan Sirhan, torture, war crimes

And The Pressure Mounts

Former prosecutors challenge White House immunity claim...

Twenty former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, urged a federal judge Thursday to intervene in a constitutional battle over whether two White House officials should be forced to testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The former top prosecutors, including two who served under President Bush, argue in court papers that the judge should reject the Bush administration's assertion of blanket immunity for presidential chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in the congressional investigation.

Democrats in the House of Representatives say they were forced to sue in March, more than a year after they launched the probe, because the administration has refused to allow Miers and Bolten to provide crucial information about the reasons the prosecutors were fired. The case also could determine how former presidential adviser Karl Rove responds to a subpoena in a related congressional investigation.

The lawsuit accuses administration officials of injecting partisan considerations into the firing decisions and making "questionable or outright false statements" in subsequent explanations to Congress.

"In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration" (David Iglesias)

NY TIMES Perpetuates The Myth - It Created - That Bush Won Florida In 2000

Thank you Larry Beinhart for finally putting together a clear article for all to read about Gore's win and the massive coverup by the mainstream media led by the NY Times:

The New York Times: "STUDY OF DISPUTED FLORIDA BALLOTS FINDS JUSTICES DID NOT CAST THE DECIDING VOTE."

If you were still interested, after the headlines, and bothered to read the stories, it didn't get much better. I read it in the New York Times. Frankly, I missed the key paragraph, until I saw it pointed out in an article by Gore Vidal. I subsequently went back and read all the stories. The Times was the worst in terms of active misdirection. They spent the first three paragraphs supporting the headline and they explicitly stated that Bush would have won even with a statewide recount. Finally, in the fourth paragraph -- if you got that far -- was the statement quoted above:

"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin."

There it was. A very simple statement. Al Gore got more votes in Florida than George Bush. It is also very well buried. It had arcania about chads on both sides of it. Even so, as if in a panic to make sure that nobody might think that it mattered that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, the Timesdismissed what the Consortium had spent a million dollars to find out: "While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real-world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes." Even though that would seem to be a fairly obvious interpretation of the law and it is what was found when someone actually did sit down and count the votes.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

"Wag the Dog: A Novel" (Larry Beinhart)

Eleanor Clift Questions Democrats Spine In Dealing With Karl Rove

Eleanor Clift: "Karl Rove's claim of executive privilege will not hold up in court if the Democrats have the spine to challenge it."

Technorati Tags: Don Siegelman, Executive Privilege, Karl Rove, Eleanor Clift, Subpoena

Supreme Court Expert Jeffrey Toobin Says Voter ID Laws Are 'A Very Clear Attempt By Republicans To Stop Democrats From Voting'

Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Toobin explained to Bill Moyers last night that the real intent behind GOP sponsored Voter ID laws which the Supreme Court recently ruled were Constitutional was "to stop Democrats from voting":

Jeffrey Toobin: "I thought it was a bad decision but a predictable one. Because it was a very clear attempt by Republicans to stop Democrats from voting. I don't think there is any doubt about what the motivation was of that law. It didn't say that in the text of the law and the aim of stopping fraud was one that we all can embrace. But the fact is electoral fraud scarcely exists in this country. The real agenda was to help Republicans."

The reality is that the new Voter ID laws that are sprouting up all over the country as a result of the partisan Supreme Court decision are a poll tax that "makes voting harder for poor, elderly, and disabled citizens without photo IDs" (and nuns) and will result in The Great Disenfranchisement of as many as 21 million Americans.

In fact, the man who led the Bush administration's efforts on the Photo ID front, John Tanner, even admitted that the laws disenfranchise elderly voters. Tanner, who eventually was forced to resign for making insane comments (see below) that I caught on video and blogged about at Brad Blog, called it a "shame" that the elderly would be disenfranchised by Voter ID laws:

"And I think that it is probably true that among those who don't [have Photo IDs] is primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame. You know, creating problems for elderly persons is not good under any circumstance.

Of course, that also ties in to the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first. There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities. Just the math is such as that."

Thus, we are left with a situation where the Supreme Court ruled a law Constitutional that the government admits will disenfranchise untold Americans in an effort to prevent voter fraud which the government and the Supreme Court admit is virtually non-existent.

Thus the Supreme Court, the Bush administration and Republican operatives across the country have set back our democracy decades. And this will only be the beginning if John McCain, who wants to appoint more Supreme Court judges in the Bush mold, is elected and gets to replace the 88 year-old Stevens, 75 year-old Ginsburg, 69 year-old Breyer or 68 year-old Souter.

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Election, Jeffrey Toobin, John McCain, John Tanner, Poll Tax, Democracy, Supreme Court, Voter ID

KARL ROVE ROUNDTABLE With Siegelman Goldman Isikoff Inglesias and Abrams

Dan Abrams hosted an informative roundtable discussion on Karl Rove subpoena issues with former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, law professor Stan Goldman, Newsweek journalist Michael Isikoff and fired US Attorney David Inglesias.

Part 1 (9:43)

Part 2 (9:05)

"Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War" (Michael Isikoff, David Corn)

Update: Karl Rove's attorney goes after Conyers

"I do not misunderstand either the Committee's procedures or the scope of its interest in Mr. Rove; nor, in light of your reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his ass,' am I the least bit confused about the Committee's motives and intentions," Luskin wrote. "I confess, however, that I do not understand why the Committee is threating a subpoena to Mr. Rove for information related to the alleged 'politicization of the Department of Justice,' when, as the Committee is surely aware, Mr. Rove has already received a subpoena for the same subject matter from the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Raw Story has more.

Technorati Tags: Dan Abrams, David Inglesias, Don Siegelman, Executive Privilege, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Linda Sanchez, Michael Isikoff, Stan Goldman, Subpoena

KARL ROVE SUBPOENAED!

Not sure why Congress gives Rove until July 10, 2008 since he more than likely won't show up anyways. This certainly lends credence to those who believe Congress is merely pursuing Rove for show to quiet the Party's progressive faction which insist on upholding the rule of law.

(h/t 99)

Technorati Tags: Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Subpoena