United States V George W Bush Et Al

A New York Times Bestseller What if there were a fraud worse than Enron and no one did anything about it? In United States v. George W. Bush et. al., former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega brings her twenty years of experience and her passion for justice to the most important case of her career. The defendants are George W Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell. The crime is tricking the nation into war, or, in legal terms, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Ms. de la Vega has reviewed the evidence, researched the law, drafted an indictment, and in this lively, accessible book, presented it to a grand jury. If the indictment and grand jury are both hypothetical, the facts are tragically real: Over half of all Americans believe the president misled the country into a war that has left 2,500 hundred American soldiers and countless Iraqis dead. The cost is $350 billion -- and counting. The legal question is: Did the president and his team use the same techniques as those used by Enron’s Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and fraudsters everywhere -- false pretenses, half-truths, deliberate omissions -- in order to deceive Congress and the American public? Take advantage of this rare opportunity to "sit" with the grand jurors as de la Vega presents a case of prewar fraud that should persuade any fair-minded person who loves this country as much as she so obviously does. Faced with an ongoing crime of such magnitude, she argues, we can not simply shrug our shoulders and walk away.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega brings her 20 years of experience and her passion for justice to the most important case of her career. The defendants are George W Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell. The crime is tricking the nation into war, or, in legal terms, conspiracy to defraud the United States. Published in association with Tomdispatch.com, a regular antidote to the mainstream media and a project of the Nation Institute.

Prosecutor argues there is overwhelming evidence President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses and must be held accountable for what he considers to be monumental crimes.

On December 12, 2000, a controversial decision by the Supreme Court of the United States effectively ended the disputed presidential contest between George W. Bush and Albert Gore Jr. with a 5-4 ruling that revealed the court to be as bitterly divided as the electorate. Four days earlier, the Florida Supreme Court had abruptly changed the dynamics of the election by reversing a lower court and ordering hand recounts of "undervotes" statewide. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly stepped in to halt the recounts and agreed to hear Bush v. Gore. After brief oral arguments and a short period of deliberation, the high court reversed the state court decision. The justices in both cases were bitterly divided, and passionate language emerged in both the majority rulings and the dissents. The drama and divisiveness of this extraordinary saga come to life in the rulings, opinions, and dissents from these two cases: U.S. Supreme Court case 00-949 (Bush v. Gore) and Florida Supreme Court case 00-2431 (Gore v. Harris). The first section of this volume gathers the complete text of both rulings, along with selections from oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case. The second section of the book gathers the most significant opinion pieces from journalists and scholars on both sides of the political fence. Selected and organized by political analysts E.J. Dionne and William Kristol, these articles illuminate the perspectives of both sides about the various twists and turns in the post-election campaign, and the landmark judicial intervention. A companion website will provide links to documents from additional legal proceedings and other related documents and writings. The legal and historical significance of the 2000 election will be studied and debated for years to come. This volume combines the most important source documents with the most intelligent opinion and analysis about the conflict and its controversial resolution.

In this hard-hitting and persuasive new book, a seasoned journalist and a Constitutional expert assert that it's time for the American people to take action against President George W. Bush.

What really happened in the 2000 presidential election - and can it happen again? It was the most tumultuous and uncertain transition of power in the history of the United States, and yet, to most Americans, what really happened in the 2000 presidential election remains unclear something went wrong in Florida, but the Supreme Court cleared it up and then, er, everyone was happy . . . right? But who actually won the Florida vote recount? What, exactly, did the Supreme Court decide? Was there truly no dissent? What role did the mass media play? In Irreparable Harm, Renata Adler, the long-time star of The New Yorker magazine who is also an attorney and a life-long Republican, takes a blistering look at the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision, and uncovers numerous problems, including instances where the judges mis-cited their own previous decisions, or reversed them. Irreparable Harm is one of three hard-hitting books published by Melville House (The Road to Illegitimacy, Irreparable Harm and The Big Chill) that take a close look at the 2000 election - based on three pieces of investigative journalism originally filed at the time, by three of the country's top journalists. These three insightful books are riveting history. But more importantly, they may help troubled Americans with one of the most pressing questions we face: Can it happen again?

Combines perspectives from law and the social sciences to assess the long-term impact of the 2000 presidential election.

Argues for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, based on an analysis of the Constitution and the circumstances under which he has violated its provisions.