Michael Collins: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi Part 1
Michael Collins: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 1
Prosecuting George W. Bush for Murder
Plotting the crime, Bush plans the misleading 2003 State of the Union speech then delivers the lies to citizens and the
Congress: "A brutal dictator, -- with ties to terrorism -- will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the
United States." George W. Bush
In his new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Vincent Bugliosi makes a devastating, well documented case that President George W. Bush is guilty of murder as a result of the lies he told to justify the invasion of Iraq.
As a Los Angeles prosecutor, Bugliosi represented the state in 105 major cases and won 104, including each of his 21 murder cases. Since his first book, Helter Skelter, he's been one of the top true crime writers with three number one best sellers and numerous awards.
In his best known case, Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of murder even though Manson was never at two of the crime scenes when the victims were murdered. While he has not been on hand for any combat, should Bush appears before a judge and jury charged with the murder of U.S. soldiers, Bugliosi is confident that he's provided the arguments and evidence required for a first degree murder conviction.
Bugliosi's argument is simple. Bush wanted a war with Iraq. He had to show that a preemptive invasion of Iraq was justified. To do this Iraq had to be an imminent threat to the United States. There were two major problems. Bush couldn't prove any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. More importantly, his own intelligence estimate found that the only scenario in which Saddam posed an imminent threat to the United States was through a preemptive attack on Iraq that threatened Saddam's survival, i.e., the Bush proposal.
That was a minor obstacle. Bush cheated. He simply reversed the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate (NEI) of 2002, classified the original document, and provided Congress with a doctored version to support his claims. By doing this, Bush pushed through an illegal invasion which he had to have known would cost U.S. lives. That, Bugliosi argues, is an act of murder committed against each and every U.S. soldier killed in the war.
I interviewed Vincent Bugliosi on Sunday, August 3, 2008 for 90 minutes. He was gracious and generous with his time. Totally focused on this project, he is working seven days a week to spread the word and find at least one prosecutor to take the case for the prosecution of George W. Bush.
INTERVIEW Part 1
"Apparently its okay for George Bush to take this nation to war on a lie, to be responsible, criminally responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, but it's not okay to prosecute him. Not only isn't it okay to prosecute him, it isn't even okay to talk about prosecuting him. This is unbelievable what's going on in this country. How can we have a country where they permit a president to do what he did and they do absolutely nothing to him except to try to protect him?" Vincent Bugliosi
Forbidden images: the direct result of the lies leading to war Image cc
Interview with Vincent Bugliosi
Conducted by Michael Collins
August 3, 2008
Michael Collins (MC): You recently published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This is a deadly serious charge from a distinguished prosecutor. What's the core of your case, the essence of it?
Vincent Bugliosi (VB): The essence of the case against George Bush is that he deliberately took this nation to war in Iraq on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law, he is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers who have died so far in Iraq fighting his war --not your war or my war or America's war, but George Bush's war.
I can tell you that if the case went to trial, the central, overriding issue at Bush's trial, would be whether or not he took this nation to war in self defense as he claimed he did: that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and therefore he was an imminent threat to the security of this country, so we had to strike first in self defense.
If Bush could prove this -- he doesn't have the burden of proving it, by the way, but he certainly would assume that burden -- that would be his defense. The prosecution has the burden of showing that he did not act in self defense. But if the evidence showed that he did act in self defense, that would be a legal justification for all of the deaths during the war in Iraq.
If the prosecutor, on the other hand, could prove that he did not act in self defense and he took the nation to war under false pretenses, then all of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq would become unlawful killings. All of those killings would become unlawful killings and therefore murder.
I spent a great amount of time at the L.A. County Law Library and the Ninth Circuit Library here in L.A. working on the issue of jurisdiction, because I realize that even if someone is guilty of murder, if you don't have jurisdiction to prosecute them, you don't have a case, really. I was unable to establish jurisdiction for the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies who have died so far in Bush's war. He is guilty of those murders, but I could not establish jurisdiction against him for those murders. But I definitely established jurisdiction on a federal, state and local level to prosecute Bush for the murders of the 4,000 young American soldiers that have died so far in Iraq.
MC: You outlined some very specific events that happened in October 2002 and discrete pieces of evidence, one concerning the weapons of mass destruction. Can you just describe those and explain why they're so central?
VB: As I testified before Congress, I have documentary evidence that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA had told him just six days earlier in a classified report on October 1 -- that Hussein was not an imminent threat. That classified report was the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002. But it even gets worse than this. On October 4, three days after the October 1 classified report, the Bush administration put out an unclassified summary version of the classified report so they could give it to Congress and the American people. This unclassified version came to be known as the White Paper, and in this White Paper the conclusion of U.S. intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted.
Every single one of these all important words was deleted from the White Paper, so Congress and the American people never saw any of this, and I don't know how things can get too much worse than what I've just told you.
It was because of what I just told you that I got a call on the morning of June 16 here in Los Angeles at my home from a very conservative Republican Southern congressman who voted for the war. He was one of the most outspoken supporters of the war. He told me this. "Bugliosi," he said, "I heard your book on tape, and I'm now convinced that George Bush deceived Congress," or "misled Congress," I think was his word, "misled Congress into war." And he said, "I've already bought several copies of your book, and I've passed them out to colleagues, and I told them, ‘Read the book. We've been lied to.'"
What was he was talking about? He saw that the White Paper did not contain the most important conclusion of all in the classified document, that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. He also learned that the classified document stated many of its conclusions, not the one I just told you, but many of the conclusions in the area of weapons of mass destruction as opinions, using words like "we assess that" or "we judge that Hussein had," let's say, biological weapons. The White Paper that this congressman was given, those words of qualification were completely deleted and it read, "Hussein has biological weapons." He also learned that there were several important dissents from U.S. intelligence agencies with respect to nuclear weapons in the classified report. But in the White Paper that he was given, all of those dissents were deleted.
This is just -- you know, I hate to use the word terrible over again, but it's just absolutely terrible, and the question is how evil, how criminal, how perverse, how sick can George Bush and his people be? And yet they got away with all of this. As I'm talking to you right now, there are well over 100,000 people -- some estimates go in excess of a million -- well over 100,000 precious human beings who are in their cold graves right now because of it. But so far, George Bush has gotten away with murder and we, the American people, cannot let him do this. He's gotten away with murder, and no one is doing anything.
MC: What are the members of the mainstream media and the upper tiers of power doing to bring Bush to justice?
What they are doing -- they are doing something. They're trying to protect him. They're actively trying to protect this guy. Why would they want to protect this monstrous individual who took this nation to war on a lie with the incalculable horror and suffering and sea of blood and screams and mutilations and beheadings he has caused? Why would they want to protect him? They had no hesitancy in going after Clinton for doing absolutely nothing. Clinton has consensual sexual activity outside of marriage, lies under oath to cover it up.
No self respecting prosecutor would ever dream of going after Clinton for this. So he did absolutely nothing, and yet, as I've pointed out many times, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, Clinton was savaged by the mainstream media, including the so called liberal New York Times and Washington Post. He was impeached by this monstrous, grotesque, obscene Ken Starr. The federal government funded a seven year, $70 million effort by Starr to destroy the Clinton presidency. They wanted to hang him in the town square at noontime. No one wanted to protect him. But they want to protect this morally defective, amoral, terrible, despicable human being, George Bush. I have nothing but contempt for George Bush, and yet the mainstream media is out there trying to protect him. I'm not saying there's any conspiracy involved here by the mainstream media to keep me off all these shows. It's just that each member of the mainstream national media feels the same way about it.
VB: They do not want me talking on national television about prosecuting George Bush for murder. So apparently its okay for George Bush to take this nation to war on a lie, be responsible, criminally responsible for well over 100,000 deaths, its okay for him to do that, but it's not okay to prosecute him. Not only isn't it okay to prosecute him, it isn't even okay to talk about prosecuting him. This is unbelievable what's going on in this country. How can we have a country where they permit a president to do what he did and they do absolutely nothing to him except to try to protect him? I don't understand that. Where am I missing something?
I was telling my wife a couple of days ago, I said, "You've heard about these cold case files," and she said, "Of course." And they even have a TV series, I guess, on it. But I've known about them for years down at the DA's office. Very commonly you'll have just one victim of a murder, just one victim, and you'll have a detective assigned to the case pursuing the killer for 10, 15, 20, 25 years, and then after he retires, some other detective takes over. Some of these cases go on for 30, 35, 40 years. The Black Dahlia case in Los Angeles, I think, goes back in the ‘30s. They're still investigating it 75 years later. And frequently we read in the newspaper that the killer is found back East. He's living under an assumed name and he's brought back to Los Angeles and he's prosecuted. Just one victim and you have this detective tenaciously and endlessly pursuing this case.
So I said to her, "There may be as many as one million victims, not one victim, but one million victims in their cold graves right now decomposing as a result of George Bush's monumental crime." And I said to her -- "What person in authority on the face of this globe is representing these one million people in their graves, fighting to bring about justice for them, pursuing the person, the guilty person who put them there?" And she said, "You." And I said, "No, you didn't hear what I said. I said what person in authority is going after the killer of these million people?" I said, "I don't have the authority of an emaciated moth. I don't have any authority."
I'm searching for someone who does have authority to bring George Bush to justice. I want to find that one courageous prosecutor out there, whether he's in Fargo, North Dakota, or Tampa, Florida, who will bring George Bush to justice.
But when you juxtapose the one victim, maybe she's found lying in a pool of blood in her kitchen in L.A. 30 years ago, and you have this detective for 30 years trying to bring about justice for that murder, and then you have a million people dying over there, and there's no one presently that I know of on the face of this globe who's fighting to bring about justice for these people in their graves, and it's mind boggling to me. Am I missing something here?
MC: Does Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) support your efforts? (Conyers is Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary where Mr. Bugliosi gave testimony on July 25, 2008 in hearings on the Kucinich impeachment resolution).
VB: All I know is that he called me and he said he's reading the book and he likes it very much. I got the definite sense that he was supportive of what I'm trying to do. And, as you know, when I testified before Congress, I think it came across in body language and many other ways that he was on my side.
MC: When he held up your book?
House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman holds up Vincent Bugliosi's book prior to testimony by the former prosecutor. Bugliosi was barred from specifically naming the president by the rules of Congress. This is the only Judiciary or other congressional hearing during which a sitting president has been accused of murder. (Video)
VB: He held up the book, and when they wanted to shut me down once or twice, he prevented that. I can tell you (that) he did not specifically say to me, "I agree that he should -- Bush should be prosecuted for murder, and I hope he is prosecuted for murder." He didn't use those words. But the definite implication was that he was very supportive of what I'm doing in the book and he liked the book, but he did not take that additional step.
Now, I'll tell you who did take that additional step, the congressman, the congressman from -- I don't want to mention the state, but a congressman in the South. He said, "Mr. Bugliosi, come November I'm going to be out in the public with you, and I want to be at your side when George Bush, hopefully, is indicted for first degree murder." Now, here's something else when I'm talking about these million people out there.
MC: (On the absence of mainstream support to bring Bush to justice.)
Here's another incredible statistic. I'm trying to bring about justice for those people in their graves. I have no authority to do that, but I'm a private citizen trying to do that. What other person who's a member of the mainstream (is supporting this effort) -- I'm not talking about progressive radio, because they're just as much -- well, they're better Americans than the right wing, but they're not mainstream. They're supporting me. But what person, what other person in this entire country who's in the mainstream -- politicians, prosecutors, the national media, celebrities, many of whom hate George Bush and believe he took this nation to war on a lie -- who has come forward from the mainstream to say, "I support Vince Bugliosi"? You know what the answer is? I think it's zero.
Only one person who's a member of the mainstream has come forward, but not publicly, and said, "I support you, and I want Bush to be prosecuted for first degree murder." That's the congressman from the South, but he hasn't gone public.
VB: But when we remove him, is there one other person -
MC: You have not received one other endorsement?
VB: I can't think of it. I've got -- progressive radio.
MC: Well, sure.
VB: But what I'm thinking of is, you know, a prominent celebrity or a prosecutor. Or someone at the network or cable or someone at a daily newspaper. I'm talking about a main newspaper, not a small paper or a review of the book. No one that I know of. And that came to my mind just last night, kind of an extension of the cold case thing, and I said to my wife, "Is there someone out there that I don't know about that's come forward?" There's got to be someone out there in this country that's got the courage to say, "Bugliosi is right, and I endorse what he's doing." And if there is that person, I really don't know who that person is. There's only one person who's a member of the mainstream who has come forward to support me, and that hasn't been publicly. I'm talking about the congressman. He's making no secret of it on Capitol Hill. He carries the book around with him. He's been passing the book out. He's contacted several people in the media, high up in the media, and asked them to interview me. I've spoken to one of them already, very high up, establishment media. He's working behind the scenes big time, but I think he's coming up for reelection. But he is the only person that comes to my mind in this entire country.
MC: That's stunning.
VB: And the majority of the American people, a poll showed, believe that Bush intentionally misled this country into war. Where is the outrage? Doesn't anyone have the courage to stand up and say, "I support Vince Bugliosi"? So far it's zero, and that just came to my mind last night.
People are always saying how courageous I am, and I'm not courageous. When I tell people, "No, it's all out of anger," they say, "Well, yeah, a lot of people are angry, but they don't have the courage to do anything about it." And I started to think about that, and as applied to me I think this: I have had fears, in taking on the U.S. Supreme Court, taking on the President of the United States, but my anger overcomes that fear. Do you follow?
Continued in Part 2
Permission to reproduce this material in part or whole with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, acknowledgement of images, and faithful representation of Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.