To read the full SIbel Edmonds interview, click HERE.

For more details on the developing revelations by Edmonds, see the diary at Daily Kos by Sibel Edmonds 'expert', blogger Lukery, HERE, and at the Democratic Underground HERE.

 And without further ado, the crooks and liars post. Believe me this is true, I have been following developments for several weeks as the solution was found.

Multiple states are discussing issuing arrest warrants for the President of the United States. This has been well thought out, is connected with well grounded legal theory, and is consistent with the duty of Americans to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies. Congressional inaction on impeachment does not oblige We the People to remain silent or do nothing about alleged war crimes and the President’s alleged criminal conduct.

Congress and the State leadership have failed to fully assert their oath to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies. We the People may open discussions of issuing lawful arrest warrants not just against the President, but also those allegedly who have refused to fully assert their oath: Members of Congress, State representatives, and attorneys across the nation.

Power Retained By We the People: Vermont, Mass, and Kentucky discussing arrest warrants for President, consistent with the 10th Amendment. GMD The Constitution does not narrowly prohibit only Congress to take legal action. The Constitution only delegates the impeachment power of investigation/removal to the House and Senate. Rather, the power to arrest a sitting President is one that is retained by We the People, via the 10th Amendment.

Legal Scholar Discussion of Arresting A Sitting President: This approach of issuing arrest warrants and prosecuting a sitting President outside Congress, outside impeachment has been well discussed by legal scholars. [ Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000). ] There is no legal bar for these arrest warrants to issue. Bush’s name may be soon added to this database.

Legal Duty of Attorneys Generals: However, if a prosecutor refuses to consider this approach as a method to enforce the Constitution; or refuses to defend this Supreme Law from these alleged domestic enemies, they could be found complicit with alleged war crimes, in defiance of their attorney oath. Inaction on these types of alleged war crimes was the basis at Nuremberg to issue indictments against prosecutors, attorneys, and lawyers at the Justice Trial for their refusal to fully enforce Geneva against the Nazis. These issues must be examined by We the People in the Judicial system; they cannot be swept under the rug. Inaction could be a basis for state disciplinary boards to conduct investigations into prosecutors and disbar them for malfeasance in re alleged domestic enemies of the Supreme Law.

Untested: If you hear, “This is unprecedented” or “not allowed,” respond with, “No, it is untested.” It’s time to use this approach. The Congress and State legislatures have impermissibly permitted these alleged war crimes to go ignored too long.

Sovereignty: It is time for We the People through the power of arrest and the grand jury process to force this President to account for the alleged wart crimes, breaches of the peace, and the defiance of his oath of office. If We the People do not take action to investigate these alleged war crimes, other nations — under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation of Geneva — make use any and all abuses this President is alleged to have committed against Americans. If we fail to assert the rule of law, we give up sovereignty: The power to self-govern. Refusing to prosecute a sitting President for alleged war crimes is, by definition, complicity with tyranny.

Please safeguard any evidence you may have that Members of Congress, state legislators, or other have attempted to block enforcement of these arrest warrants, or have made threats against anyone, or made promises to any one to dissuade action in enforcing the laws of war against the President.

Any effort to interfere with the lawful efforts to arrest the President or interrupt the proceedings could be adjudicated as alleged obstruction of justice. This may be adjudicated as a subsequent offense under the laws of war. The maximum penalty imposed by a war crimes tribunal includes the death penalty.