House committee releases witness list for Bush hearing

'Imperial presidency' hearing to feature 13 witnesses
Nick Juliano
Raw Story
Thursday July 24, 2008

Kucinich, Barr, Bugliosi among those testifying

The House Judiciary Committee has released a witness list for its hearing to examine "the imperial presidency" of George W. Bush.

Testifying Friday morning will be Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced several resolutions calling for President Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's impeachment; former Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian presidential candidate who led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998; Vincent Bugliosi, author of the just-released book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder; and 10 other current and former members of Congress, constitutional experts and human rights activists.

The hearing, which was announced last week, seems to be the one Judiciary Chairman John Conyers promised to Kucinich after he introduced his second impeachment resolution aimed at Bush earlier this month. Any action on Kucinich's articles of impeachment still seems unlikely, but the Ohio Democrat has previously said he just wants to be able to present his case.

Late Thursday afternoon, the committee released the full witness list, broken down into two panels.

Panel One

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio
The Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Representative from New York
The Honorable Walter Jones, Representative from North Carolina
The Honorable Brad Miller, Representative from North Carolina

Panel Two

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Former Representative from New York
The Honorable Bob Barr, Former Representative from Georgia, 2008 Libertarian Nominee for President
The Honorable Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, Founder and President, High Roads for Human Rights
Stephen Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law
Bruce Fein, Associate Deputy Attorney General, 1981-82, Chairman, American Freedom Agenda
Vincent Bugliosi, Author and former Los Angeles County Prosecutor
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Elliott Adams, President of the Board, Veterans for Peace
Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Conyers (D-MI) previously laid out six areas the hearing would explore:

(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday on Capitol Hill.

CSPAN will be covering this.

I have verbal confirmation that the entire hearing will be covered by CSPAN.

Radical Pragmatist


That's what I was wondering. Thanks.

PACIFICA Affiliates to Broadcast Hearings

KPFA & Pacifica Radio will air Friday's hearing from 9:00AM - 1:00PM EDT streamed live at and and on the air at KPFA (Berkeley), KPFK (Los Angeles), KPFT (Houston), and others TBD.

This Friday, the House Judiciary Committee will take the first step to investigate what Rep. John Conyers calls "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct." Pacifica Radio will broadcast the hearing live, starting at 9 a.m. Friday July 25, anchored by KPFA's Larry Bensky.
Expected speakers include Congress members, including Dennis Kucinich; Elizabeth Holtzman; John Dean; Bob Barr; Ralph Nader and others.


Dennis Kucinich has done an excellent job of exposing his criminal colleagues.

For a second there

I thought "witnesses" meant people like Karl Rove, Philip Zelikow, Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean....


Or Sibel Edmonds, William Rodriguez, and others, etc.

Vincent Bugliosi - Radio

July 12, 2008

Best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi joins Bobby Kennedy Jr. to give an update on his crusade to prosecute George W. Bush for murder

serious dissonance here

Is Bugliosi trying to atone for participating in the cover-up of the CIA hit on Kennedy's uncle?

More likely Bug is throwing Bush under the bus to shield the CIA.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

LIHOP suggested in congress!!!

Rep. Hinchey is going after Bush on 9/11!!!! OMG!!!! suggesting that Bush let OBL go so they could invade Iraq! Also hinting at the fact that Rice ignored Clark BEFORE 9/11!!! LIHOP!!!!! omg!!!

It's Beautiful!!!!!!

yes, I know it's LIHOP... but still, it's a start......


"yes, I know we need a new investigation ... but still, it's a start......"

Fixed that for you. Btw, the expiration date on the divisive term "LIHOP" is long past.

9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

False Dichotomy

The terms LIHOP and MIHOP are fabricated inventions. A false dichotomy

Wargames? Made to happen. Plane strikes? Allowed to happen without response.

So how is 9/11 one or the other of these two choices? It was BOTH made and allowed to happen. The attacks would not have been possible without this coordination. Even assuming that the attacks were completely "allowed" to happen without any assistance, this would mean a systematic and system wide deliberate stand-down. This would be therefore intentional and "made" to happen. See how unhelpful these terms really are when they are framed like this?

Describing a complex event like 9/11 into LIHOP/MIHOP paradigm is turning reality into simplistic and even cartoon versions of what happened. It is not an either or choice. These terms are meaningless Orwell-speak.

Here is my deconstruction of these terms and how they are used to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement:

"The inaccurate LIHOP term is a misnomer; even if you believed the attacks were fully “allowed” to happen, this involved “making it happen” coordination—even the clumsy term admits it was “on purpose”. 9/11 Family member Mindy Kleinberg, in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission hints at this issue:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[18]

The official 9/11 conspiracy theory depends on omission and ignorance of the coordinated and simultaneous “failures”. David Ray Griffin gives a particularly hilarious example:

“Another reason for skepticism… is that the incompetence of the FAA on that day… is too extreme to be believed. The task that the FAA allegedly failed to perform repeatedly that day—notifying the military when an airplane shows any of the standard signs of being in trouble—is one that the FAA had long been carrying out regularly, over 100 times a year. Can we really believe that virtually everyone—from the flight controllers to their managers to the personnel in Herndon and FAA headquarters—suddenly became ridiculously incompetent to perform this task? This allegation becomes even more unbelievable when we reflect on the fact that the FAA successfully carried out an unprecedented operation that day: grounding all the aircraft in the country. The Commission itself says that the FAA “[executed] that unprecedented order flawlessly.”[19] Is it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”[20]

If all of these “failures” happened simultaneously as we are told, was it “luck” or was it “made” to happen? If these simultaneous failures were intentionally coordinated (i.e. “made” to happen), how can the inaccurately named LIHOP theory even exist? The LIHOP label absurdly implies that a massively coordinated “failure” was not MADE to happen, while the MIHOP label has been used to indiscriminately imply that parts of the attack were not ALLOWED to happen. It is impossible to choose between the two unless by inaccurate generalization. Both happened, and yet both “theories” pretend that only one or the other happened, which is demonstrably misleading. "
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Depends on the dichotomy

false flag operation = MIHOP

A false-flag operation necessarily includes interfering with the normal course of national security and law enforcement procedures, and the planting of evidence and creation of a storyline pointing to patsies. In other words, a false-flag operation (i.e. MIHOP) necessarily includes ingredients of LIHOP.

I believe this is your understanding of LIHOP; one that is consistent with, and a necessary component of, a false-flag operation.

What you and others alleging that the MIHOP/LIHOP distinction is trivial at best and divisive at worst fail to appreciate is that this is NOT how these elements of the plot have necessarily been treated. To put it plainly, some at various stages of 9/11 truth activism or awareness (Note: I used to be one of them!!) have viewed and spoken of the attacks in terms of the Bush adminstration deliberately allowing a plan autonomously conceived and carried out by foreign enemies ('al Qaeda') to proceed without interference.

Is there truly anyone on this blog who can fail to see the difference between arguing, 'The administration purposely let al Qaeda attack the U.S. on 9/11' to, 'elements in the U.S. government carried out (or helped carry out) the attacks of 9/11 and blamed it on a foreign enemy--'al Qaeda'"

I think Arabesque has the second view; but it is just not true to claim that the former outlook--that is LIHOP not as a necessary element in 'making it happen', but simply allowing 'evil furriners' to 'make it happen.'

Rule of thumb: if a critique of the 9/11 official story essentially leaves the al Qaeda bogeyman untouched as the entirely autonomous oerpetrators of the attack--with all the pshychological effects such a bogeman continues to exert over the public mind, and with the 'casus belli' ('going after those who attacked us') essentially intact--THAT's the kind of LIHOP to be concerned about.

Sentence completed

' is just not true to claim that the former outlook--that is LIHOP not as a necessary element in 'making it happen', but simply allowing 'evil furriners' to 'make it happen.''

This sentence was meant to conlclude with '...has never been advanced by critics of the 9/11 official story.'

Points of View and Framing the Debate

"a false-flag operation (i.e. MIHOP) necessarily includes ingredients of LIHOP."

This was exactly my point. This is why you can't choose between the two. As soon as you admit that elements of the attack had to be allowed to happen (for example the plane strikes, and keeping the patsies out of jail), you are admitting that the so-called "MIHOP" term is inaccurate. Why use inaccurate terms to describe a complex event like 9/11?

Accuracy in language is important. This is not a trivial matter. As soon as you start making false assumptions and generalizations, we are getting away from reality and turning to subjective terms. Language is complex, imprecise, difficult enough to deal with as it is, which is why we should use precise language to describe the complex reality of 9/11.

"Is there truly anyone on this blog who can fail to see the difference between arguing, 'The administration purposely let al Qaeda attack the U.S. on 9/11' to, 'elements in the U.S. government carried out (or helped carry out) the attacks of 9/11 and blamed it on a foreign enemy--'al Qaeda'""

I agree that these are two different points of view. One blames "terrorists" for carrying out the crime, and the other blames insiders. Both find fault with government response.

However, everyone has a different knowledge of the facts of 9/11. This knowledge is what causes different conclusions, or "points of view" like the options you gave above. The challenge of the 9/11 truth movement is to correctly frame the debate. The debate should be over establishing the facts of the event in question, and critical analysis of these facts.

For example, there is a difference between saying: "9/11 was an inside job", and "NORAD gave three different stories about their actions on 9/11".

The first is merely a conclusion. To the uniformed, this conclusion is simply an assertion. If you don't know the facts behind this conclusion, many will be inclined to reject it. Especially when the conclusions is "controversial". The second statement is a fact. To the uninformed, facts are what will ultimately change minds about what really happened on 9/11. This process of education is underplayed by many, but it is of critical importance. We can't change minds about 9/11 until others are made aware of the facts. This should be the real debate, and this is what will lead to success for the 9/11 movement.

I would argue that the 9/11 movement should be about educating the public about the facts of 9/11. Disagreements over conclusions have limited value if they are not also a discussion about the relevant facts. This is important because not everyone has the knowledge to change their view about the events of 9/11, and terms like MIHOP/LIHOP are not going to be helpful when they are substituted in place of actual facts. In fact, I would argue that these terms are "lazy"--since they AVOID talking about the facts. They are shorthand for "we KNOW what happened, but we don't have to talk about it, because we already know it". In this situation, how useful are these terms for the uninformed when it comes to 9/11?

By speaking with accurate language, clear facts, and correctly framing the debate, the 9/11 movement will make progress. Arguing among ourselves over "opinions" and "points of view" without critical analysis is not going to be effective or get us anywhere but following our own tails in circles. By framing the debate about facts instead of conclusions, we will see real progress. I have an opinion that 9/11 was an inside job, but if I can't support this with arguments, I'm not going to convince anyone. This is why we have to be more concerned about our arguments and our facts than our conclusions.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

So long as we avoid unwarranted concessions

'The challenge of the 9/11 truth movement is to correctly frame the debate. The debate should be over establishing the facts of the event in question, and critical analysis of these facts.'

Yes--and what gave rise to the term 'MIHOP,' as a deliberate contrast to 'LIHOP', was a framing of the debate by some critics of the official story which effectively conceded essential points to that account; as in treating al Qaeda's ultimate responsibility for the crime as a given, and in considering the greates possible extent of U.S. government culpability in the attacks to have consisted in some comparatively passive facilitation of a plot which was actually organized and carried out by outsiders .

Don't forget who Bugiolsi

Don't forget who Bugiolsi is.
This is another case where *anyone* who utters the phrase "prosecute Bush" is given a free pass. Being on Democracy Now then opens the door to every single left media and blogger to accept him unquestioningly. But as Michael Green states, "The purpose of Bugliosi’s 'Reclaiming History' is to defend the integrity of the USG National Security State by grossly distorting its nature and function." Could such distortions, and the taking down of the JFK truths one year earlier, have been a necessary ingredient of becoming a central figure in the supposed prosecution of Bush?

Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again
The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up
by Michael B. Green
Sep. 19, 2007

Please find the

Please find the audio/video/transcript!!! there were some eminently quotable sentences !!!
search links and screenshots from the webcast are here: