Impeachment a "Gatekeeper Meme"?

Michael D. Morrissey

September 18, 2006

May be redistributed for non-profit purposes, provided copyright is acknowledged. Original place of publication is

If you look for the word "impeach" on all the 9/11 truth websites, you'll find it only rarely. Why is that? It's unrealistic, we hear, because we don't have the votes in Congress, and here is another argument (I will identify the person if she wants me to):

Calls for "impeachment" advance a left-gatekeeper meme that is esigned to conflate any opposition with the official controlled opposition (principally the Democratic Party,, etc.). Very clever way to muddy the waters and BURY the 9/11 murder/treason/fraud crimes by watering them down and trivializing them. After all, there a million implied reasons for "impeachment":from Valerie Plame to WMD to Abu Ghraib to Tom Delay garden-variety corruption--all watered-down and undifferentiated, all red herrings and all completely subordinate to the generic brainwashing and social-control functions of the fake Democratiic/Green/whatever "opposition." After all the president before this one was IMPEACHED for a misplaced cigar and a stained blue dress. So the American public (and the world at large) has already been educated and conditioned to interpret the IMPEACHMENT meme as a twisted joke and trivialization of crimes. Anyone who is serious about nailing the 9/11 perps will not be calling for "impeachment". They will be calling for ARRESTS--indictments, arrests and criminal trials. Because the term "impeachment", especially in American popular understanding, equates to false, fake phony opposition and media preoccupation with sex in the Oval office.

I disagree with this argument, for eight reasons:

1. It is not a question of either impeaching or indicting Bush et al. Both are possible, although for the reasons given below, it is more reasonable to impeach first.

2. If it were reasonable to indict, it would have been done already.

3. It is not reasonable, because the federal judges, even if they accept the case, will not adjudicate political issues (and rightly so) that should be decided in the public arena (primarily, Congress). See Crockett vs. Reagan 1982, Dellums vs. Bush 1990, Ange vs. Bush 1990, and Agence France-Presse et al. vs. US DOD 1991.

4. It is not reasonable, because if there actually were a case, it would be closed to public scrutiny for years. This is the exact opposite of a political movement. It closes off political activity and gives the court the power to decide. (This is why they rightly refuse to adjudicate such issues.)

5. The burden of proof in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt) would be higher than in the case of impeachment. The verdict in in Memphis in 1999 that found the US govt (amongst others) guilty of conspiracy to murder MLK was promptly dismissed in the media by agents such as Gerald Posner with the (spurious, but I won't go into it) argument that civil suits require less proof than criminal cases. How much proof will be required to find a sitting president and vice-president guilty of mass murder? How many crimes will they be accused of? In a criminal case you would have to prove each one of these accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. How much chance is there of that?

6. IF the case ever got to court, if the defendants were found not guilty, that would be the end of it. No more chance for indictments, arrests, etc. No prosecutions. You cannot be tried twice for the same crimes. Given the extreme unlikelihood of proving the president and vice-president guilty of ANY sort of crime, much less mass murder or even murder in one single instance, the very attempt to force this proceeding is suspicious, since it would most likely close off any further chances of prosecution.

7. The very idea of seeking justice in the courts, quite apart from the reasonable proposition that political issues should be settled politically, given the fact that we all know how completely corrupt the judicial system is, ESPECIALLY at the highest level, with a Supreme Court having ruled against the will of the people to install the president they might, in the final instance, be called upon to find guilty of murder, is ridiculous beyond words.

8. The argument that impeachment would "compromise" the 9/11 issue is utterly foolish. The more high crimes and misdemeanors Bush & Co. are accused of, the better. Unlike a criminal trial, in impeachment proceedings everything could be mentioned. The effect would cumulative, because it is a POLITICAL process. That political process starts with a political movement to force the Congresswimps to have the guts that the late Henry Gonzalez had (to try to impeach George I with no support in Congress), and so on. The whole thing depends on people power. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of trying to shove everything into the courts. That is the way to bury it.

Therefore, I believe impeachment is the best thing to try for because it is the only thing we CAN do. It will not bring nirvana, but it's better than nothing, which is the alternative. (Unless you want to wait around for the People's Revolution or the Generals' Coup, which will never come.)

Yes, Democratic Party are biggest gatekeepers of all...

We're supposed the have a 2-party system of checks & balances. Democrates should be questioning Bush & Cheney about everything! However, most key democrates are the biggest gatekeepers out there.

Indictments, arrests and criminal trials are the way we need to go. Impeachment is far too weak for this Nazi-like regime that has taken over the U.S.A.!!!

Ignoring all my points

Yes, yes, but what about my 8 points!