She develops this idea by supplying this information about the meaning of that phrase, "conspiracy to defraud": "The Supreme Court has defined the phrase 'conspiracy to defraud the United States' as 'to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.' In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement 'between two or more persons' to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn't have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy."
Then she expands on this: "Finally, 'fraud' is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with 'reckless indifference' to their truth."
It does not matter, in the law, de la Vega says, whether the goal of the conspiracy is laudable or reprehensible. (This makes the war policy itself irrelevant to the offense.) "It is possible," she says, "that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud - because, as juries are instructed, 'no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements.'"
It would seem from de la Vega's presentation of the matter --her entire piece can be found at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005Y.shtml
--that there may be as solid a basis for impeachment as with Nixon in Watergate.
But back in Nixon's time, it might be objected, the president was of one party while the Congress was controlled by his opposition. The Senate hearings then were essential to bringing the ingredients of Watergate out from under the rug. Now, by contrast, the Congress is controlled by the president's party. So what is the use, it might be asked, of talking about impeachment?
I would propose a two-fold answer to that question.
First, it is possible that sufficient public outrage would make it politically more advantageous for the Republicans in Congress to sacrifice the administration than to tie itself to its disgrace. (I would also mention here such factors as the belief in the rule of law, and the integrity of Republican lawmakers, but in the face of their utter silence about the ruthlessness and amorality of their leadership in recent years, even my idealism cannot bring me to add that as a potential factor here.)
Already, the public is voicing its disapproval of the administration on these issues. De la Vega writes: "According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52% of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50% said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him."
And pressure is being brought to bear through actions by the minority in the Congress: "Congressman Jerrold Nadler and others have recently written to Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. pointing out that the Plame leak is just the 'tip of the iceberg' and asking that Fitzgerald's authority be expanded to include an investigation into whether the White House conspired to mislead the country into war."
But even if the Republicans in Congress draw their wagons in a circle to block any efforts to hold the president accountable for what may indeed be a "high crime" --for, as many have observed, it is hard to imagine what would be a "higher" crime than one that fraudulently takes the country to war-- raising the issue in these terms is the right political stance. I doubt that those who say "bring the troops home now" believe that their cry will compel the president to bring them home, either. Worthwhile results can take various forms.
The call for impeachment is the better rallying cry because it puts the focus where it belongs-- i.e., on the fact that these rulers have dealt fraudulently with the American people. This indeed has been the heart of the matter all along: that the Bushites are moral frauds, people who pretend to be righteous while they have governed like gangsters.
Let's raise the cry: investigate these people for their conspiracy to defraud the United States; and if the evidence supports the suspicion, impeach them; and if the evidence supports the indictment, drive them out of office.
Then she expands on this: "Finally, 'fraud' is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with 'reckless indifference' to their truth."
It does not matter, in the law, de la Vega says, whether the goal of the conspiracy is laudable or reprehensible. (This makes the war policy itself irrelevant to the offense.) "It is possible," she says, "that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud - because, as juries are instructed, 'no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements.'"
It would seem from de la Vega's presentation of the matter --her entire piece can be found at
But back in Nixon's time, it might be objected, the president was of one party while the Congress was controlled by his opposition. The Senate hearings then were essential to bringing the ingredients of Watergate out from under the rug. Now, by contrast, the Congress is controlled by the president's party. So what is the use, it might be asked, of talking about impeachment?
I would propose a two-fold answer to that question.
First, it is possible that sufficient public outrage would make it politically more advantageous for the Republicans in Congress to sacrifice the administration than to tie itself to its disgrace. (I would also mention here such factors as the belief in the rule of law, and the integrity of Republican lawmakers, but in the face of their utter silence about the ruthlessness and amorality of their leadership in recent years, even my idealism cannot bring me to add that as a potential factor here.)
Already, the public is voicing its disapproval of the administration on these issues. De la Vega writes: "According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52% of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50% said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him."
And pressure is being brought to bear through actions by the minority in the Congress: "Congressman Jerrold Nadler and others have recently written to Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. pointing out that the Plame leak is just the 'tip of the iceberg' and asking that Fitzgerald's authority be expanded to include an investigation into whether the White House conspired to mislead the country into war."
But even if the Republicans in Congress draw their wagons in a circle to block any efforts to hold the president accountable for what may indeed be a "high crime" --for, as many have observed, it is hard to imagine what would be a "higher" crime than one that fraudulently takes the country to war-- raising the issue in these terms is the right political stance. I doubt that those who say "bring the troops home now" believe that their cry will compel the president to bring them home, either. Worthwhile results can take various forms.
The call for impeachment is the better rallying cry because it puts the focus where it belongs-- i.e., on the fact that these rulers have dealt fraudulently with the American people. This indeed has been the heart of the matter all along: that the Bushites are moral frauds, people who pretend to be righteous while they have governed like gangsters.
Let's raise the cry: investigate these people for their conspiracy to defraud the United States; and if the evidence supports the suspicion, impeach them; and if the evidence supports the indictment, drive them out of office.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
