An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 1

[BettorsChat]

Friday, 8 August 2008, 11:51 am
Column: Michael Collins
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

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC

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




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.

MC: Right.

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.

MC: Right.

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

END
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Vanguard Press

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.


Scoop: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 1

[BettorsChat]

An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 2

An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 2

Tuesday, 12 August 2008, 11:10 am
Column: Michael Collins
Michael Collins: Bush, Manson, and a Media Blackout on Prosecuting Bush

An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 2



"More dead since the war was declared won. A war based on lies and deceit."


If a man carefully plans and executes the killing of another, we call him a murderer, arrest and try him, then send him off to the nearest death chamber. In many states, individuals convicted of three felonies are subject to an automatic life sentence under a program quaintly referred to as the "three strikes and you're out law." Justice for ordinary citizens in the United States may not be swift but when executed, it is final and unforgiving.

But when a national leader fabricates evidence to support the reasons for war thus causing death to thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians, what do we do? We give him 24 hour a day, 7 day a week protection, a stretch limo and a deluxe plane with all the gas he'll ever need, and a house full of history and helpers in the middle of the nation's capitol. We call him "Mr. President."

Renowned prosecutor and best selling true-crime author, Vincent Bugliosi, has a different idea in his book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

In 2001, the newly elected president began planning the Iraq invasion and occupation described by his Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic 'A' 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." (CBS News, Jan. 11, 2004).
Investigative reporter Ron Suskind recently reported that faked letters linking Iraq to the 911 attack were coming from the White House. The Bugliosi book explains how the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was distorted to mislead Congress and citizens into thinking that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States. The evidence used to support the Iraq invasion was not just flawed. It represented deliberate distortions and deletions that mislead the nation into a war that had little, if anything, to do with national defense.

This has happened before. The Viet Nam War began in earnest with a major escalation after a reported attack on two United States naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin that never occurred as described. The incident was a fabrication to justify a major war. It took four decades for the truth about that "attack" to emerge.

Unlike President Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush lives in a time of quickening, a digital age based on the citizens free network, the Internet. In just weeks, highly motivated citizens began to expose the absence of any rationale for war. This started the unraveling.

What is the outcome for our leaders after their war produced deaths and injuries reaching the tens of thousands for United States soldiers plus more than a million deaths of Iraqi civilians lost in civil chaos produced by the war?

I interviewed Vincent Bugliosi on Sunday, August 3, 2008 for 90 minutes. Part 1 of this series conveyed Vincent Bugliosi's core case for prosecuting George W. Bush for murder. In Part 2, Bugliosi discusses the nature of the current president compared to other's he's prosecuted, the fears that allow the right wing to paralyze the nation, and the mainstream media lockout of this book, so unlike the open embrace he's received for prior works.

INTERVIEW Part 2

Vincent Bugliosi (VB): I've prosecuted a lot of murderers, and it was never personal with me. By that I mean I wasn't emotionally involved. Certainly the survivors of the murder victims, it was personal with them. They were emotionally involved, but prosecutors are not supposed to get personal. They're not supposed to get emotional, because the sense is that it could cloud your vision.

Michael Collins (MC): Right.

VB: With Manson, as an example, because he's the most well known, by far, of all my murder defendants, I simply viewed him as an extremely evil person who had committed horrendous murders and therefore forfeited his right to live. He deserved the death penalty, and I told the jury, "If this is not a proper case of imposition of the death penalty, no case ever would be." I even challenged the jury. I said, "If you're not willing to come back with a verdict of death in this case, then we should abolish the death penalty in the state of California. How many people would you have to kill to get the death penalty?" And they did come back with a verdict of death.

I also looked upon Manson as someone who, if he walked out of court, was going to continue to kill.

But let me tell you this: For the first time in my career, it's very personal with George Bush, and I'll tell you why. If I prosecuted him and Cheney and Rice or whoever else, Cheney and Rice it would not be personal. I would seek the death penalty against them, for sure. They deserve to suffer the ultimate penalty for what they did, no question about it. But it would not be personal. I'll tell you why it's personal with George Bush -- because the evidence is overwhelming, overwhelming. It cannot be disputed.
If anyone tries to dispute it, they're going to make a fool out of themselves if I have time to rebut what they're saying. The evidence is overwhelming that while young American soldiers -- I'm talking about 18, 19 year old kids who never had a chance to live out their dreams -- are being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, this guy, George Bush, was having a lot of fun playing, joking, laughing on a day to day basis and enjoying himself to the very utmost. The evidence is overwhelming to that, and that's what's made it personal with me, the fact that he could do what he did, this monstrous individual, and still have fun on a daily basis when kids are being blown up, and you see Bush and he's smiling and laughing and joking and tap dancing. It's unbelievable.




"I'm feeling pretty good about life."


MC: The pictures in your book were compelling, especially those with him laughing. Of the 21 or so individuals that you've successfully prosecuted for murder, where does Bush rank?

VB: Well, he's -- let me -- you've asked a different type of question. Manson was very evil. I wouldn't say Bush is evil in that he doesn't want to kill people. But I will call him a despicable human being who's extremely coldhearted and couldn't care less, couldn't possibly care less that thousands upon thousands of people are dying horrible, violent deaths because of what he did, couldn't possibly care less. How could he care less if he has done what he has done, enjoyed life the way he has and said the things that he did? He's extremely arrogant and extremely self centered. I don't think he has any redeeming human characteristics. He's a despicable human being. But I don't think he wants to kill anyone. He just doesn't care.

MC: He doesn't care.

VB: Whereas Manson, if he had a chance, he was going to kill as many people as he could. You know, Bush, he has shown no hesitancy in saying things like this over and over again, and I've said this before and I'll repeat it now. Try to imagine Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ, Nixon during their respective wars saying things like this. They would never do it. It would not happen. You see photographs of their face during war, and those photographs reflect -- the photographs of their face reflect the grimness of the war. It's a very serious time. It's not time for fun and laughter.

Also, as I'm uttering these words, try to keep in your mind that at the very moment I'm uttering these -- at the very moment that George Bush said these words, think about the death and the horror and the suffering and the sea of blood and the screams and the mutilations of the body, the beheadings going on in Iraq as he is saying these words. These are some of the quotes: "Laura and I are having the time of our lives." "I'm in a great mood." "I'm feeling pretty good about life." "It's going to be a perfect day." Now, that remark that he made, "I'm feeling pretty good about life," that was at a December 2007 press conference.

Here's someone who has taken this nation to a war that has cost us over one trillion dollars so far with no end in sight. He's virtually destroyed an entire country, the country of Iraq, and most of all and most importantly by far, and it bears repeating, he's criminally responsible for over 100,000 people dying horrible, violent deaths. And he says he's feeling pretty good about life. It's mind boggling. It's incomprehensible. And there's no question that this man is enjoying life

(His media strategist) Mark McKinnon told the New York Times in 2005 right in the midst of this horrible war that he couldn't recall ever seeing Bush more calm, relaxed and happy, words to that effect. Bush, right in the midst of all this horror and death, told reporters at the ranch, after a hearty breakfast, what his plans were for the rest of the day, and he said, "I'm going to have lunch with Secretary of State Rice, talk a little business, take a little nap. I'm reading an Elmore Leonard book right now. Knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon, go fishing with my man, Barney," Bush's dog, "have a light dinner and then head for the ballgame -- " or, "head to the ballgame, so it's a perfect day."
MC: A perfect day?

VB: "So it's a perfect day," he said. And when I read those last words by Bush, I said to myself, I said, "No, you son of a bitch, if I may call you that, Mr. President, you're not going to have a perfect day, or I should say you're not going to have another perfect day for as long as you live, if I have anything to say about it, because I'm going to put a thought in your mind (of prosecution) that you're going to take with you to your grave. It's the least I can do for the thousands of young American soldiers that came back from your war in a box or a jar of ashes and for the thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies who died horrible deaths because of your war. That's the least I can do." I almost said those exact words to myself when I heard him say that he's going to have a perfect day. About putting a thought in Bush's mind, I'm referring, of course, to my proposed prosecution of Bush for murder and the fact that there's no statue of limitations for the crime of murder.

MC: (Regarding the mainstream media blackout of his book)

VB: They don't want me on.

MC: How many best sellers have you had? Three or four, right?

VB: Oh, well, I've had three that got up to number one on The New York Times. No American true crime author has had more than one. I've had three, and then I've had other best sellers. "Till Death Do Us Part" was a best seller. "Reclaiming History' for one week was a best seller. That was a book that, you know, weighed seven and a half pounds and cost $57.

MC: What do they say? Do they have an explanation, or is it just --

VB: Well, I can tell you what my publicist said that -- before the book came out they start booking you, and they would call these people and say, you know, "We're representing Vince Bugliosi," and right away, "Oh, yeah, I know Vince. We've had him on the show. He's a good guest. What's the new book?" The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. And you can -- they kind of indicated to me that they could just sense the shriveling on the other end of the line. And they said, "Well, let me get back to you on this. This may be a little difficult," or, "I'll have to get back to you on this." And then, of course, they just stopped responding to emails and everything, and that was absolutely across the board. They would not have me on. It got so bad -- it got so bad that ABC Radio refused to take money from my publisher to take out a radio spot.

MC: Oh, you're not allowed to advertise either?

VB: Yeah, on ABC Radio they would not take the money.

MC: That's a first.

VB: Which is, I think, kind of mind boggling. I don't know. It just seems to me that it's mind boggling. And then, of course, as you know, I had a very difficult time getting the book published. I never had trouble before. I had to fly back to New York City, knock on doors, and it was obvious that the publishers I met with thought the book was very marketable, and they seemed to be sympathetic with what I was saying, but it was equally obvious that they were frightened. They would say things like this to me: "Mr. Bugliosi, are you sure you want to publish this book?" And one of them put it in black and white, typed it, or maybe an email, "Too hot too handle."
MC: Has anybody bothered you since it was published?

VB: No. No, there hasn't been anyone that's bothered me. But, in any event, I finally found a courageous publisher over at Vanguard Press. And then we get down to the audio level. That's something I never gave a thought to, ever. It was automatic. Reclaiming History was Simon & Schuster. This time, Peter Miller, my agent, called me and said, "Vince, I can't find any audio company in America that will do the audio on the book." We finally got the BBC to do it, thank God. That's the one -- that tape is the one that that congressman from the South heard driving back to the South from Washington, D.C. (see Part 1). There's a documentary on my book being produced at the present time for the big screen. The producers couldn't raise one penny in America for the book.

MC: Not a cent?

VB: The money came in from Canada. So it may sound presumptuous of me to say this, but this, I think, is an important story, because it is a snapshot glimpse of a nation, I think, in serious decline, with freedom of speech and expression supposedly being our most cherished constitutional right, and we say we're, what, the land of the free and the home of the brave? What has happened with my book, I think, throws into question the present vitality of both of these assumptions.

Three people independently of me told me essentially the same story, and it's something I hadn't thought about, and what they said is, "Mr. Bugliosi, the reason they're not having you on television is because of who you are." And I said, "What do you mean by that?" And they said, "Well" -- three people independently at separate times and essentially the same words. Obviously they didn't use the same words, but essentially the same words. They said, "If some nut wrote a book with a title like this, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, (we) would probably have him on because it's colorful, it's entertaining, it doesn't mean anything, it doesn't go anywhere. But you're a very serious person, and you write very serious books." And in all of my true crime books -- and I wrote about the biggest crimes of the twentieth century, the Manson case, the Simpson case, the Kennedy assassination -- I prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt.

So the right wing certainly does not want me on their shows talking about prosecuting the guy they love so much for first degree murder, where he may end up on death row. And even if they haven't read the book, they know my reputation in the area of criminal law, and they know what I do in my other books. They probably feel it's the same type of book. He's proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt, so they don't want to give voice -- they don't want to help me give voice to my message. And these three may be right.

The reality is that if you're unknown and less effective, you can get published and heard. If you're well known and highly effective, you're not allowed to disagree.
For a book of this nature, people take me seriously, because I write very, very serious books, and I can say this. This book is identical to every other true crime book I've ever written. Some people have said it's my greatest true crime book. I'm not going to say that one way or the other. It's certainly my most powerful, explosive book.

What I'm saying, Michael is that this book is identical. I present the evidence with powerful inferences and the law, the applicable law. I present the evidence and the applicable law to prove my case. That's the only way I'm capable of writing.

MC: 130,000 have sold right now, or it's probably above that, isn't it?

VB: I really don't know what the number is, but the book is a best seller. It's number ten this week on the New York Times, and that number is not a particularly high number for me, but I can tell you that the publisher is ecstatic about it, because they say, "Vince, come on. This is incredible. You've been essentially blacked out by the mainstream media, and you're still a New York Times best seller."

Why am I a best seller? Well, one reason is the tremendous word of mouth the book has been given. Number two, people like you, Michael, who are giving me a voice to convey my message to the American people. And progressive radio. By the way, that New York Times article, my publicists were high fiving it back there before it came out. They thought it was going to open up the media to me, because of The New York Times article. I'm proud of them, because they're at the pinnacle of the mainstream establishment, and they've kind of chided the rest of the media for blacking me out. It did not open up the media at all, or hardly at all. I was on one show -- what's the -- not McDougall.

MC: On television?

VB: Cavanaugh, Scavanaugh --

MC: Oh, Scarborough.

VB: Scarborough. I was on the Scarborough show early in the morning.

CNN came to the house and talked to me for a couple of minutes on the blackout, very, very little, and then they wanted to do a regular interview with me. And they were disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful. They interviewed me for around 20 minutes, taped it, and then they put four and a half minutes out there that basically almost converted it into a pro Bush piece

What they did is they totally bastardized the 20 minutes. And this was CNN. Now, people have asked me, "What's the genesis of all this?" And I'm no authority on this, because I haven't studied contemporary history, but I can tell you just my sense, it's the despicable right wing in America. They have transformed this country into a nation where people like myself -- and many other people said the same thing -- for the first time ever do not feel 100 percent comfortable. They have transformed us into a nation where someone as honorable and decent as Mario Cuomo could say, "I respect Rush Limbaugh," an uncommonly loathsome individual.

MC: I had not read that until I read it in your book. I was stunned.

VB: Yeah. If I may be so presumptuous, Mario Cuomo does not respect Rush Limbaugh. That would not be humanly possible. Limbaugh is just endlessly reprehensible. And yet he said that, and I think he said it because he's sufficiently intimidated to say that. People yield to fear. They capitulate to fear, and they cater to the source of the fear. The left fears the right in America. Why? Well, the far left and the far right are both daffy, zany, but there's a big difference. The people on the far left are not mean people. They may be crazy, but they're not mean. The people on the far right are mean spirited, horrible human beings. They're rotten from the top of their head to the bottom of their feet. And the left fears the right in America. That's why the left leaning stations, networks and cable, will not have me on, because they're fearful of being savaged by the right if they have me on.

MC: Well, and then there's the element of corporate ownership too, because if CNBC or NBC has you on, their parent company, General Electric, might feel a little heat.

VB: Right. Right.

MC: And you talked about that in the book. Has anybody accused you of class warfare yet? That's what they always do.

VB: Class warfare, no. No, I haven't heard that yet. I do want to say this, that I'm much older than you, and in the America that I grew up in, we've always had the far right, but in my day they were on the fringes. They were an embarrassment. They were an absolute embarrassment to people like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, even the first President Bush. But now they've taken over the party. They've always been out there, but they used to be on the fringes, and they've taken over now.

Since Bush is a conservative Republican and so are they, anything he does, anything at all, including murder, is just fine with them, just fine. Can you imagine what these people would be doing to Clinton if Clinton had done the same identical thing that Bush did with respect to Iraq? They would be skinning him alive if they had a chance. So these are phony, despicable human beings. They've taken over the party. They've terrified the nation. And I went off on a riff, but I think they are the ones responsible for my being blacked out, the fear of the right in America.
Now, you talk about corporations. That's true, but what about -- and I'm not going to mention names right now, although in due time I'm going to out these people either on TV or radio or in the second edition of this book. And they know who they are. What about the people out there who are members of the left who are not terrified of the right and they call Bush a murderer, a criminal and everything else? If it was all corporate, why would their corporations permit them to do that, would they permit them to do that? And these people are not having me on either.

MC: The people on the left?

VB: They're on the left. They're not afraid of the right. This is a small group of people, and they won't have me on either. These are the people with whom I'm very angry, very angry. I'm not angry with the liberal people who are frightened of the far right, because I'm not in a position to be angry with someone who's terrified. I don't respect them, necessarily, but I'm not angry with them, because they're frightened. They're terrified of their own shadow. But I am angry with those who are not terrified of the right and their corporations apparently -- the ones who are in charge or own the network they're with (which) apparently is not handcuffing them -- or what would the word be -

MC: Gagging.

VB: Gagging is the word. They're not gagging them, and yet they won't have me on either.

MC: Right. Well, it's self censorship perhaps, or self preservation. I heard Orson Welles years ago, and this is a partial quote, but he said: 'In Europe during World War II, people betrayed their friends to save their lives. In America, during the McCarthy era, people betrayed their friends to save their swimming pools." I've never forgotten that. They may take a pay cut, they may not get to ride in the jet next to the chairman, but the point you bring up is absolutely vital in that you're talking about people, all of those around him (Bush), serving him and saying, "I guess this is just -- this is what happens during a war."

VB: That's what they say. I have talked to conservative acquaintances of mine, and I say, "Do you feel bad at all?" Because I do. Whenever I hear of Iraqis or Americans getting killed over there, it immediately depresses me. I said, "If you hear about a hundred innocent Iraqi civilians in a mosque or a market blown to pieces over there, don't you get upset?" "No, no." they say. "Why? That's what happens during wartime." Let me tell you about these people. I don't want to embarrass them, but I can tell you -- I can give you a 99 percent guarantee they don't even care when American soldiers are blown to pieces. They don't care.

But they don't want to bring him to justice, and they don't want to give me a voice to bring him to justice. So, no, you're right. There are millions of Americans that (would be) supportive of what I'm doing, if they knew about it. I would say that 90 percent of American people don't know this book is even out there.

MC: Well, maybe the answer to that is in this: the mainstream media has deliberately censored, as badly as Bush has, the truth about Iraq all along. Yet today 70 percent of the people oppose that (war). Where did they get the information? They got it from friends and family who got it from the Internet and from union halls and from discussions. The Internet is really, as you're finding out, a powerful alternative.

VB: Well, I find out indirectly, because people print stuff off of the Internet and they send it to me. But I don't have a computer myself. But I do get stuff from the Internet all the time.

Next - a look at CNN's hatchet job of their interview with Vincent Bugliosi

END
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi Vanguard Press

BBC Audio Book: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi, narrated by Marc Cashman

An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi: Part 1 -- Prosecuting Bush for Murder by Michael Collins


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


Scoop: An Interview with Vincent Bugliosi - Part 2

[BettorsChat]

The war has cost an estimated $860 billion;

In October, the Congressional Research Service estimated that in 2006 (the latest available figures), it cost $390,000 a year to sustain each American trooper overseas.

These amounts I don't believe take in the costs to rebuild Iraq or other cities bombed by us. As well as all of the health care costs for the troops that have came back home that are injured and sick.

[flarendep1]

Sounds like Buglisi needs to make some $$$$, write a book that Dems will drool over.

[BOBBY5ACES]

the right wing cannot handle the truth . boy george was/ is a piece of shit and should pay a price (him and his coward ,pal- p-s the father of the croutch canable) chenney the fat bastard

[Celtics86]

Sounds like Buglisi needs to make some $$$$, write a book that Dems will drool over.

What are you talking about dude...... Bugliosi has been a fairly conservative prosecuter forever.......... He just believes in the rule of law and can't believe where this country has gone in the las 40 years. Sounds like you believed in this war from the beginning and can't admit YOU and millions of brainwashed like you were WRONG and it's fucked us royally. Thanks for being informed.

[jordanrules23]

my daily point is proven once again

[BettorsChat]

Sounds like Buglisi needs to make some $$$$, write a book that Dems will drool over.

Do you know anything about him? The man is a mulit-millionaire. The man never lost a case in his life.

The point of me posting this was the fact that George Bush and his Cronies lied to the public, lied to Congress, lied to the Senate etc. They removed lines from the famous White Paper. Which made it look like Iraq was an immediate threat and had weapons of mass destruction. Which was the exact opposite of what the report really said. That is some fucked up shit. And because of this the war has cost us over $800 billion and climbing every day. Not to mention all of the lives lost. The people that did live who are fucked up mentally and physically.

I don't care who you are when you take CIA document and change shit around to your desire and mislead people on what it says you should be fucking in jail. If it was Obama I would be saying the exact same thing.