Bugliosi: Bush is guilty of murder

[mhgaffney]

Vincent Bugliosi testified this week before the House Judiciary Committee and had some strong words about GW Bush's war against Iraq.

Bugliosi is a former Los Angeles DA who obtained convictions in every murder case he ever tried -- 22 out of 22 cases. This includes the Manson case.

Check out this 6 minute video during which Bugliosi calls for the criminal prosecution of the president.

MHG

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle20400.htm

[W*GS]

We already hashed this out, gaffney:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=69229

Please do and try to keep up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, this is an update - the thread W*GS linked didn't mention anything about Bugliosi testifying before the House Judiciary Committee.

[Rohirrim]

Bravo, Vince. Bravo! At least such a voice can highlight the abject gutlessness of Congress. Like history so often has pointed out, great republics can fall not just because of the evil that men do, but equally because of the cowardice of those who fail to act.

[Florida_Bronco]

Good video, will have to check out the book.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Impeachment? Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Never Mind That - Haul George Bush into a Court of Law, Part 1




Today we visit Vincent Bugliosi's book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Tomorrow we visit Vincent Bugliosi himself as he talks about his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee appearance and his book.

As you may have heard by now, the mainstream media has been giving Vincent Bugliosi's latest book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, the cold shoulder. Never mind that he authored what was, at the time, the bestselling crime book in history, Helter Skelter, about his successful prosecution of the Manson family. Nor that he's written numerous bestsellers since. His 2007 book, Reclaiming History, a 1,600-page attempt to dispel alternative histories of the Kennedy assassination, is being made into a mini-series by HBO and Tom Hanks.

In the only mainstream media article addressing The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and its reception, New York Times reporter Tim Arango writes: "The editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham, said he had not read the manuscript, but he offered a reason why the media might be silent: 'I think there's a kind of Bush-bashing fatigue out there.'"

The main reason though may be Bugliosi's agenda: Impeach Bush? Convene a truth and reconciliation commission for him and his gang? Forget all that. Once Bush is out of office, let's drag his butt into a court of law. But the media's perception that much of the public can't conceive of prosecuting a president in a court of law is probably accurate.

Most Americans are too invested in whatever remains of the myth of the presidency and fear that a trial would subvert a president's authority. Besides, as Bugliosi himself said in an interview with the Nation, "Americans just can't believe an American President would engage in conduct that smacks of such criminality, and thus the whole notion of taking the President to court for murder is a revolutionary one."

Myth-busting aside, and however out of fashion Bush-bashing may be, Bugliosi summons up a depth and breadth of rage that shames those of us who have been reduced to ennui and cynicism by the Bush years. You'd never know that not only is he 73 years old but still on the rebound from the monumental task of researching and writing his Kennedy tome.

For instance, he has no compunctions about pulling the rug out from under soldiers' rationalization of last resort –- that they fight over there to keep from fighting here. To Bugliosi the question isn't why but who. He writes: "If you say our young men didn't die for Bush, Cheney, and Rove, then whom did they die for?"

Nor does he pull any punches on Bush's character. "What I strongly believe (without absolutely knowing) is that this man has no respect or love for this country." What makes him think that?

For starters, Bush put our young people in harm's way for no good reason, avoided the draft when young himself, and experiences no apparent concern for the carnage in Iraq. Furthermore, he spends much of his time in Crawford, neglects to read reports, and is guilty of blatant cronyism. What really sticks in Bugliosi's craw is the cheerfulness and insouciance that Bush exhibits in a time of war.

For instance, Bugliosi cites an August 2005 day Bush spent in Crawford in the midst of a two-week period during which 42 Americans were killed. With Bush's only work-related activity lunch with Condoleezza Rice, he called it a "perfect day." Bugliosi writes: "I don't know about you, but if I ever killed just one person, even accidentally, like in a car accident, I'd never have another perfect day as long as I lived."

At one point Bugliosi even declares: "Bush is a grotesque anomaly and aberration." If, even in the service of rallying us to prevail upon the Justice Department to bring charges, such exclamations seem over the top, look at this way. The least we could do is allow Bugliosi to vent since much of this book is essentially a turnkey project for a federal attorney to start the ignition on the prosecution of Bush and put it in gear.

A crime is an act that's not only prohibited, but accompanied by criminal intent. In the case of murder, this is known as malice aforethought, which comes in two varieties. The first is express malice -- the specific intent to kill. In the second, implied malice, the intent is not to kill but to commit a dangerous act with wanton disregard for the consequences as well as an indifference to human life.

Bush, Bugliosi writes, not only fulfilled the second requirement, implied malice, but he started the Iraq War "without any lawful excuse of justification."

Bush's defense would be self-defense –- that he needed to carry out a preemptive strike on Saddam. But lying that Saddam possessed WMD and conspired with al Qaeda to commit 9/11 shows that Bush wasn't acting in self-defense, but, instead, in a criminal state of mind. Hence, every American killed as a result of his actions are murders on Bush's part.

In most states implied malice is second-degree murder. But, Bugliosi writes, "Bush's alleged crime is. . . on such a grand scale that it would greatly dishonor those. . . who paid the ultimate price because of it if he were not to pay the ultimate penalty."

In the interest of prosecuting Bush for first-degree murder, Bugliosi writes that a "very credible argument could be made that in a real sense he did intend to have American soldiers killed in his war."

Say what?

Bugliosi explains. A typical example of implied malice is a high-speed chase though a school zone, in which "not only didn't the defendant intend to kill, but he had no way of knowing whether someone would die or not. [But] while Bush never specifically intended to kill any American soldier, he absolutely knew American soldiers would necessarily die in his war." (Italics are Bulgiosi's.)

He continues. "Therefore, a case could be made that unless Bush intended to have a war without any casualties, which is. . . an argument that would make Bush sound absurd. . . he did, in fact, specifically intend to have American soldiers killed."

In other words, as everyone knows, in war, casualties come with the territory. If the "natural tendency" of an act is to take another's life, the law can't help but conclude that was intentional.

As for his chances of success, ". . . as a former prosecutor with twenty-one murder convictions without a loss. . . I am probably in a better position than the average person to know what type of evidence is necessary to go to trial with." If he's rusty, he sure doesn't sound like it. In fact, he's begun to arouse the interest of current prosecutors.

Much of the rest of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is given over to cataloging Bush's crimes. Bugliosi brings some to our attention that have gone unnoticed by many of us. For example, who remembers Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, stating before the invasion that Iraq's cooperation in the inspections, "can be seen as active, even proactive"?

Part 2 tomorrow.

[Rohirrim]

Wish I was a billionaire TV producer. I'd crank up a special, two hour show called "The Trial of George Bush." I'd select a jury of regular Americans. Then let Bugliosi bring his witnesses and present his case. Ken Starr can be Bush's defense attorney. No commercials. Bypass the flaccid Congress and let the people decide.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Wish I was a billionaire TV producer. I'd crank up a special, two hour show called "The Trial of George Bush." I'd select a jury of regular Americans. Then let Bugliosi bring his witnesses and present his case. Ken Starr can be Bush's defense attorney. No commercials. Bypass the flaccid Congress and let the people decide.

That I would pay top dollar to see.

[The Lone Bolt]

Most Americans are too invested in whatever remains of the myth of the presidency and fear that a trial would subvert a president's authority.

Any statistical data to support this?

"Americans just can't believe an American President would engage in conduct that smacks of such criminality . . ."

How does he know this?

"If you say our young men didn't die for Bush, Cheney, and Rove, then whom did they die for?"

Umm. . . how about to rid the world of a dangerous reckless ambitious defiant dictator?

Bush put our young people in harm's way for no good reason . . . (and) experiences no apparent concern for the carnage in Iraq.

Opinion not fact.

"Bush is a grotesque anomaly and aberration."

Bugliosi is looking more and more fair and objective all the time.

Bush's defense would be self-defense –- that he needed to carry out a preemptive strike on Saddam. But lying that Saddam possessed WMD and conspired with al Qaeda to commit 9/11 shows that Bush wasn't acting in self-defense, but, instead, in a criminal state of mind. Hence, every American killed as a result of his actions are murders on Bush's part.

I imagine bush's defense would be that he was acting on his interpretation of the available evidence, and did not intent to mislead people. I wonder how Bugliosi would be able to prove that this could not have been the case? So far the only "proof" of lies that I have seen has been circumstantial evidence that does not eliminate the possibility (IMO) that bush was acting on what he believed to be true at the time.

Would be interesting to see what a jury thinks.

while Bush never specifically intended to kill any American soldier, he absolutely knew American soldiers would necessarily die in his war." (Italics are Bulgiosi's.) . . . In other words, as everyone knows, in war, casualties come with the territory. If the "natural tendency" of an act is to take another's life, the law can't help but conclude that was intentional.

So does this mean that no American President would ever be able to order troops into combat unless the reason is 100% indesputable? Because that is never the case. Somebody somewhere will always have a reason to dispute the necessity of military action, so American Presidents would then never again be able to order troops into combat without being charged with murder if Bugliosi won his case.

Furthermore this legal precedent could theoretically be extended to any line of work in which people are put in harm's way, i.e. firemen, police, security, rescue, etc. After all, casualties come with the territory in these lines of work as well. Unless the order to act is completely indesputable, the person in charge arguably becomes guilty of "murder."

The likely consequence of this would be that any officer (police, military) or person in charge of others who may be ordered in harm's way would be reluctant to do so if there was any possibility at all that they (the person in authority) could be charged with "murder."

For example, who remembers Hans Blix, UN weapons inspector, stating before the invasion that Iraq's cooperation in the inspections, "can be seen as active, even proactive"?

Quote taken out of context. At the time he made this comment Iraq was cooperating only temporarily. Later Saddam was back to his pattern of obstruction and defiance (and Blix noted it)

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Vincent Bugliosi testified this week before the House Judiciary Committee and had some strong words about GW Bush's war against Iraq.

Bugliosi is a former Los Angeles DA who obtained convictions in every murder case he ever tried -- 22 out of 22 cases. This includes the Manson case.

Check out this 6 minute video during which Bugliosi calls for the criminal prosecution of the president.

MHG

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle20400.htm

So how come you take what Bugliosi says as gospel when he is slamming Bush
but claim he doesn't know what he's talking about when Bugliosi says
that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK and that Oswald
acted alone? I think you even called into question Bugliosi's conviction
of Manson.

[Dudeskey]

Who did Pelosi kill?

[baja]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Wish I was a billionaire TV producer. I'd crank up a special, two hour show called "The Trial of George Bush." I'd select a jury of regular Americans. Then let Bugliosi bring his witnesses and present his case. Ken Starr can be Bush's defense attorney. No commercials. Bypass the flaccid Congress and let the people decide.

You know what Ro that is a great fuccking idea.

You should email Bugliosi about that and maybe HBO too.

[baja]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Any statistical data to support this?



How does he know this?




Umm. . . how about to rid the world of a dangerous reckless ambitious defiant dictator?



Opinion not fact.



Bugliosi is looking more and more fair and objective all the time.



I imagine bush's defense would be that he was acting on his interpretation of the available evidence, and did not intent to mislead people. I wonder how Bugliosi would be able to prove that this could not have been the case? So far the only "proof" of lies that I have seen has been circumstantial evidence that does not eliminate the possibility (IMO) that bush was acting on what he believed to be true at the time.

Would be interesting to see what a jury thinks.



So does this mean that no American President would ever be able to order troops into combat unless the reason is 100% indesputable? Because that is never the case. Somebody somewhere will always have a reason to dispute the necessity of military action, so American Presidents would then never again be able to order troops into combat without being charged with murder if Bugliosi won his case.

Furthermore this legal precedent could theoretically be extended to any line of work in which people are put in harm's way, i.e. firemen, police, security, rescue, etc. After all, casualties come with the territory in these lines of work as well. Unless the order to act is completely indesputable, the person in charge arguably becomes guilty of "murder."

The likely consequence of this would be that any officer (police, military) or person in charge of others who may be ordered in harm's way would be reluctant to do so if there was any possibility at all that they (the person in authority) could be charged with "murder."



Quote taken out of context. At the time he made this comment Iraq was cooperating only temporarily. Later Saddam was back to his pattern of obstruction and defiance (and Blix noted it)

Dude I really believe I could lay your balls on an anvil and smash them with a hammer and you would want proof that there was pain.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by baja

Dude I really believe I could lay your balls on an anvil and smash them with a hammer and you would want proof that there was pain.

And I really believe that you would scream "murder" if bush so much as looked at you funny.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

I imagine bush's defense would be that he was acting on his interpretation of the available evidence, and did not intent to mislead people. I wonder how Bugliosi would be able to prove that this could not have been the case? So far the only "proof" of lies that I have seen has been circumstantial evidence that does not eliminate the possibility (IMO) that bush was acting on what he believed to be true at the time.

Would be interesting to see what a jury thinks.

I hope you realize that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases in this country are prosecuted using circumstantial evidence? You do, right? I mean, it's pretty rare that somebody will commit a crime with a bunch of people standing around watching them. IMO, anybody who weighs the evidence starting with Paul O'Neill and Bob Woodward all the way up to the recent Suskind revelations and not come to the conclusion that Bush is a lying bastard has only one excuse: partisan blindness. The evidence is overwhelming.

So does this mean that no American President would ever be able to order troops into combat unless the reason is 100% indesputable? Because that is never the case. Somebody somewhere will always have a reason to dispute the necessity of military action, so American Presidents would then never again be able to order troops into combat without being charged with murder if Bugliosi won his case.

That is just a silly argument. Bush's malfeasance is out of the norm. If it is not prosecuted the next idiot with ideas of tyranny will have an even smoother path. And what exactly is wrong with an American president taking a long, cold, hard look at the facts before driving this country into war? Isn't that's how it should be? Shouldn't he/she be absolutely 100% sure first?

Furthermore this legal precedent could theoretically be extended to any line of work in which people are put in harm's way, i.e. firemen, police, security, rescue, etc. After all, casualties come with the territory in these lines of work as well. Unless the order to act is completely indesputable, the person in charge arguably becomes guilty of "murder."

The likely consequence of this would be that any officer (police, military) or person in charge of others who may be ordered in harm's way would be reluctant to do so if there was any possibility at all that they (the person in authority) could be charged with "murder."

That already exists. What we are talking about is reigning in a president who is convinced that no power on Earth has the right to impose oversight on his actions. See? That's the problem. I doubt you'll find too many firemen, police, etc. that would share that view. They know they must answer for their misdeeds. Would you prefer presidential power without oversight? That would require a considerable reworking of the Constitution.

Quote taken out of context. At the time he made this comment Iraq was cooperating only temporarily. Later Saddam was back to his pattern of obstruction and defiance (and Blix noted it)

Plenty of evidence exists now to show that there were multiple indications from multiple sources that the WMD claims were a sham. Even the simplest minded detective in the world would have tossed the bona fides of Allawi and Curveball in about a millisecond. The truth is that the case for war was fabricated. Perhaps an argument could be made that Bush was simply too stupid to know what was going on and that in fact Cheney was the one pulling the strings. Whatever. As Bugliosi points out, Bush would then be guilty of the secondary charge of gross negligence. The only reason to accept other explanations to the extent that you are willing to stretch the point would be blatant partisanship.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I hope you realize that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases in this country are prosecuted using circumstantial evidence? You do, right? I mean, it's pretty rare that somebody will commit a crime with a bunch of people standing around watching them. IMO, anybody who weighs the evidence starting with Paul O'Neill and Bob Woodward all the way up to the recent Suskind revelations and not come to the conclusion that Bush is a lying bastard has only one excuse: partisan blindness. The evidence is overwhelming.

Well my understanding is that curcumstantial evidence must reach the same level of proof that direct evidence does: it must eliminate all reasonable explanations. IMO the existing circumstantial evidence does not accomplish that.

But that would be up to a jury to decide and I would accept the verdict if the trial was fair.

That is just a silly argument. Bush's malfeasance is out of the norm. If it is not prosecuted the next idiot with ideas of tyranny will have an even smoother path. And what exactly is wrong with an American president taking a long, cold, hard look at the facts before driving this country into war? Isn't that's how it should be? Shouldn't he/she be absolutely 100% sure first?

Well I think it's impossible to be 100% sure, and I agree that the POTUS has an obligation to review all evidence as objectively as possible and if he/she makes a mistake in judgment he/she needs to back up their reasoning. If their reasoning is flawed then it could be considered incompetence but not necessarily intentional deception.

Just because in 20-20 hindsight we can see what intel was correct and what intel was flawed doesn't mean that the decision should have been obvious from the start.

But I disagree that this might be setting a precedent that could be taken even further and used to handicap the office of the Presidency.

That already exists. What we are talking about is reigning in a president who is convinced that no power on Earth has the right to impose oversight on his actions. See? That's the problem. I doubt you'll find too many firemen, police, etc. that would share that view. They know they must answer for their misdeeds. Would you prefer presidential power without oversight? That would require a considerable reworking of the Constitution.

I think the oversight we have now is adequate. It's impossible to eliminate mistakes in judgment and if the POTUS is incompetent then the answer is to vote him/her out of office.

Plenty of evidence exists now to show that there were multiple indications from multiple sources that the WMD claims were a sham. Even the simplest minded detective in the world would have tossed the bona fides of Allawi and Curveball in about a millisecond. The truth is that the case for war was fabricated. Perhaps an argument could be made that Bush was simply too stupid to know what was going on and that in fact Cheney was the one pulling the strings. Whatever. As Bugliosi points out, Bush would then be guilty of the secondary charge of gross negligence. The only reason to accept other explanations to the extent that you are willing to stretch the point would be blatant partisanship.

That's another issue. The fact remains that the author quoted Blix out of context, the same quote which LABF constantly removes from it's proper context as well which creates the false impression that Iraq was in full compliance and cooperating fully with UNSCOM. They were not.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Well my understanding is that curcumstantial evidence must reach the same level of proof that direct evidence does: it must eliminate all reasonable explanations. IMO the existing circumstantial evidence does not accomplish that.

No. The "preponderance of evidence" must overcome reasonable doubt.

But that would be up to a jury to decide and I would accept the verdict if the trial was fair.

Well I think it's impossible to be 100% sure, and I agree that the POTUS has an obligation to review all evidence as objectively as possible and if he/she makes a mistake in judgment he/she needs to back up their reasoning. If their reasoning is flawed then it could be considered incompetence but not necessarily intentional deception.

"Objective" being the operative word. I think the preponderance of evidence shows that Bush and the neocon cabal were anything but objective.

Just because in 20-20 hindsight we can see what intel was correct and what intel was flawed doesn't mean that the decision should have been obvious from the start.

Again, a preponderance of evidence shows that Bush had access to a broad range of intel that would have made an objective person pause. Bush made the conscious decision to ignore, and in some cases even squelch, information that did not proceed to his desired goal.

But I disagree that this might be setting a precedent that could be taken even further and used to handicap the office of the Presidency.

Our government is designed so that no single element of the government is allowed carte blanche. Bush, and especially Cheney, have done all they can to strip away the oversight of the presidency, in effect, creating an imperial presidency. If we wish to remain a republic, this we cannot allow.

I think the oversight we have now is adequate. It's impossible to eliminate mistakes in judgment and if the POTUS is incompetent then the answer is to vote him/her out of office.

The remedy in the Constitution is impeachment. Unfortunately, Pelosi has just as little regard for that document as does Bush.

That's another issue. The fact remains that the author quoted Blix out of context, the same quote which LABF constantly removes from it's proper context as well which creates the false impression that Iraq was in full compliance and cooperating fully with UNSCOM. They were not.

Again, I'm more worried about the preponderance of evidence than I am with any single piece of it.

[Hotrod]

Ok how much credit do I really have to give the dude that managed to get a guilty verdit in the manson case.........I mean really..........

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Ok how much credit do I really have to give the dude that managed to get a guilty verdit in the manson case.........I mean really..........

That was actually an extemely complex case. There was no direct evidence against Manson. Bugliosi got him as the leader of a conspiracy.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

No. The "preponderance of evidence" must overcome reasonable doubt.



"Objective" being the operative word. I think the preponderance of evidence shows that Bush and the neocon cabal were anything but objective.



Again, a preponderance of evidence shows that Bush had access to a broad range of intel that would have made an objective person pause. Bush made the conscious decision to ignore, and in some cases even squelch, information that did not proceed to his desired goal.



Our government is designed so that no single element of the government is allowed carte blanche. Bush, and especially Cheney, have done all they can to strip away the oversight of the presidency, in effect, creating an imperial presidency. If we wish to remain a republic, this we cannot allow.



The remedy in the Constitution is impeachment. Unfortunately, Pelosi has just as little regard for that document as does Bush.



Again, I'm more worried about the preponderance of evidence than I am with any single piece of it.

We're not talking about Bush most likely being guilty or anyone being almost certain. A criminal conviction requires "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Absolute certainty. They cannot prove that and they will never be able to prove that.

Your single line about someone making the argument that Bush was too stupid to even know what's going on would be a simple defense and could easily plant the seed of doubt. Unless some huge, extremely damning evidence one day comes to light, this is all about this Bugliosi guy cashing in on a book opportunity.

I wonder if he'd be willing to put his record on the line to try Bush. I bet he would for the publicity but he couldn't expect to win.

[baja]

Originally Posted by cah412

We're not talking about Bush most likely being guilty or anyone being almost certain. A criminal conviction requires "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Absolute certainty. They cannot prove that and they will never be able to prove that.

Your single line about someone making the argument that Bush was too stupid to even know what's going on would be a simple defense and could easily plant the seed of doubt. Unless some huge, extremely damning evidence one day comes to light, this is all about this Bugliosi guy cashing in on a book opportunity.

I wonder if he'd be willing to put his record on the line to try Bush. I bet he would for the publicity but he couldn't expect to win.

Immediately box up your computer and return it to the manufacturer you are too stupid to be trusted with using it.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by baja

Immediately box up your computer and return it to the manufacturer you are too stupid to be trusted with using it.

So I'm stupid but you don't disagree with my point? If nature tells us we usually take the path of least resistance, I take this to mean attacking me is easier than attacking my statement?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by baja

Dude I really believe I could lay your balls on an anvil and smash them with a hammer and you would want proof that there was pain.

You'd think he'd already be in enough pain - the sort of convoluted thinking he has to do to defend Bush must make his brain hurt.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Plenty of evidence exists now to show that there were multiple indications from multiple sources that the WMD claims were a sham. Even the simplest minded detective in the world would have tossed the bona fides of Allawi and Curveball in about a millisecond. The truth is that the case for war was fabricated. Perhaps an argument could be made that Bush was simply too stupid to know what was going on and that in fact Cheney was the one pulling the strings. Whatever. As Bugliosi points out, Bush would then be guilty of the secondary charge of gross negligence. The only reason to accept other explanations to the extent that you are willing to stretch the point would be blatant partisanship.

Ding ding ding!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Impeachment? Truth and Reconciliation Commission? No, Haul George Bush into a Court of Law, Part 2

Vincent Bugliosi talks about prosecuting George Bush and his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee appearance. The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is a call to action.

A man of 73, in the wake of years spent creating his masterwork, 2007's Reclaiming History about the Kennedy assassination, has constructed his case with the passion of an idealistic college student. Surely the rest of us are capable of catching one last wave of Bush & Co. outrage. We do want to see Bush brought to justice, don't we?

RW: On July 25 you appeared on a panel before the House Judiciary Committee with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Elizabeth Holtzman to examine the "imperial presidency" of George Bush. When you appeared at the Great Mind Series in Los Angeles, it was reported that you said of Committee Chairman John Conyers, "He's completely behind what I'm doing here." Do you think summoning you to speak was Conyers's way of shifting attention from impeachment to a process with a better chance of success?

VB: Conyers called me up and said he read the book and liked it very much. This was before there was any mention of the hearing. Then I got the invitation. So I spoke to his assistant and I said I'm not an authority on impeachment. I'm only talking about prosecuting George Bush for first-degree murder. Everyone there was talking about one of two things: executive power and constitutional limitations or impeachment, and I was talking about murder. So they knew in advance.

Though they didn't say it, they may have expanded the hearings for me. I'm just saying that I told them that I was not coming back there [to Washington from L.A. -- Ed.] to talk about the subject matter of the hearings. Although, certainly, if you're talking about the basis for impeachment -- high crimes and misdemeanors -- murder obviously qualifies as one. They may have very well felt that what I was saying obviously did apply.

I tried to simplify for the hearing. I didn't have much time. The difficulty always is it takes more time to figure out how to convey your message when you only have a short period of time. [Here Bugliosi cites the famous saying attributed to either Pascal, Voltaire, or Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." –- Ed.]

They're telling me I've got five minutes -- tell me what's in your book in five minutes. It took me more time to figure out how I was going to do that then if they said I had a half hour. I tried to compress it into five minutes, which was not easy at all. But I got some good stuff in there.

I want to make it very clear. I definitely believe that Bush should be impeached. There's no question about that. It's just that I'm not satisfied with impeachment, him not spending one day in the county jail, continuing to enjoy himself. I don't see any real justice there.

But impeachment isn't too likely because of a couple of things: One, the time element. Two, Nancy Pelosi, doing what Democrats do so well, is not in favor of impeachment and she's the speaker. That makes it almost insurmountable when you have the speaker against it. Three, impeachment would be good even if it's not successful. Anything to stain the record of this terrible human being.

You can't get a conviction on impeachment because you need two-third vote of the Senate and, as you know, the Senate is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Still, I'd like to see an impeachment at least. But the notion that would be enough for what he did is something that I don't agree with.

RW: You're not working in opposition to Congressman Kucinich, who introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, are you?

VB: No, absolutely not. I agree with everything Dennis says. But, again, impeachment alone is too good for George Bush.

RW: You also said to the Judiciary Committee: "It would greatly dishonor those in their graves who paid the ultimate price because of this war were you not to refer this case to the Department of Justice." Does the go-ahead for a prosecution start with Conyers and his committee?

VB: No, it doesn't start there. This is just one way to get this case going and it's the least likely. If they did it, then a criminal investigation would commence. The attorney general in Washington DC, that would be the best way. If anyone does anything –- I have to be candid with you –- it's unlikely that any one of the 93 federal attorneys would begin criminal proceedings without getting the consent of their boss in Washington, the attorney general. And that's why, realistically, on a federal level, there is only one person who would ever bring criminal charges against Bush and that's the attorney general.

I want to point out that the burden that has to be met when referring a case to the attorney general's office is very low. All that's required is that there be a quote reasonable unquote suspicion that a crime has been committed. Surely, there's a reasonable suspicion here that Bush took this nation to war under false pretenses. The attorney general's office can't prosecute him now but they can commence the investigation immediately. Then once he leaves office, at that point they can file charges. But there's only one attorney general and it's a highly politicized office.

Part 1. Part 3 tomorrow.