Vincent Bugliosi « Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette

Charles Goyette Interviews Vincent Bugliosi

Charles Goyette, May 29, 2008

Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment

Vincent Bugliosi, author and former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, discusses his new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bush’s plot to lie the people into war, the deaths of over 4,000 American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis, Bush’s October 7th, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, Ohio contradicting the National Intelligence Estimate, Condoleezza Rice’s culpability, Bush’s meeting with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and intention to provoke Saddam Hussein into war, the people’s complicity, the false connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, the Niger Uranium claim in the 2003 State of the Union address and the possible reasons behind Bush wanting to begin the Iraq War.

MP3 here. (23:28)

YouTube here.

Vincent Bugliosi is a bestselling author and former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney. His new book is called, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of his “family” for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases.

Email This | Print This | Share This | Send a letter to the editor | Letters

Comments to “Vincent Bugliosi”

Brian
May 30th, 2008 at 9:35 am

How can the President pardon himself (or anyone else) for a crime he hasn’t yet been convicted of? I don’t see that anywhere in the Constitution. If Bugliosi plans to bring charges after Bush has left the White House, Bush will face trial and then, if convicted, will be eligible for pardon. But until he’s been convicted, there is no “crime” to pardon. If you think the Constitution allows pardons to be used prior to a criminal conviction, then that would essentially place the President, and anyone he chose, outside the law since they could inoculate themselves from any criminal prosecution when planning criminal acts. Though the President (and ALL of Washington, save Ron Paul) does operate outside the law, this is in spite of the Constitution, not in accord with it.

Scott Horton
May 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Nixon hadn’t even been indicted when Ford pardoned him.

Dorky
May 30th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Finally, solid, documented, accountability from a very solid, experienced, very mature source has surfaced …

Reminder: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, BUT, you cannot fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.”

Truth is like a bubble underwater.
It may get jammed under a device for some time.
But, eventually, the bubble it will surface.

Thank you, Mr. Bugliosi.

Amy Harlib
May 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

DON’T WAIT – IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW BEFORE THEIR INSANE, CRIMINAL POLICIES CAUSE WORSE DAMAGE THAN THEY’VE ALREADY DONE!

Impeach Bush and Cheney NOW

Defense of the Constitution Knows No Party

The Bush administration has illegally seized and imprisoned Americans without benefit of their trial by jury, has spied on Americans without warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, has lied America into a disastrous war, and has betrayed an American intelligence officer, who was working on weapons of mass destruction networks, to our enemies (Valerie Plame.)

Impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney are now a distinct possibility, thanks to a recent outpouring of public support for impeachment by Americans across the political spectrum. Your calls and faxes to House Judiciary Committee members are needed to keep up the pressure.

Leave a message for your Congressman, to demand he obey his oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Act now to restore your rights and the rule of law bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, which brave men have died defending throughout our history.

Call the House Judiciary Committee

202-225-3951
and demand that Impeachment hearings begin ASAP!

*What Happened to Make This All Possible?

On November 6, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought H.Res.799, for the impeachment of Cheney, to the House Floor for debate. It was broadcast on CSPAN. A sudden outpouring of public support for impeachment forced lawmakers to keep the resolution alive. Democrats, most of whom currently resist demands for impeachment, were unwilling to kill the bill with the public watching. Republicans and some Democrats, mindful of impeachment sentiment, voted to debate the bill, but failed. At the end of the day, Americans of both parties had made it clear whose “table” this is, and that they want to see impeachment on it.

For more information go to
NEImpeach.org

ALSO:
WE NEED A NATIONAL FAST FROM CONSUMERISM !! If you want to literally do a FAST from eating- that is your choice- Make sure Congress knows you are also calling for NATIONAL CONSUMER FAST asap – AND A NATIONAL STRIKE !! this is the perfect opportunity to grow the movement !!!!

They dont care if we don’t eat, they care if we dont BUY FOOD, GAS, and products that make these corporations money !!! THEY CARE ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET CRASHING ANOTHER 300 POINTS TODAY !!!

http://www.pledgetoimpeach.org
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

the legendary Bill
May 30th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

And the truth about 9-11 may just catch on too…The internet is a useful tool…If we had it back in the days of ” Remember the Maine” and the war material carrying Lusitania, the “surprise” attack on Pearl, the Gulf of Tonkin, Ambassador Glasbie giving our ally the green light to re-take Kuwait. the subsequent babies thrown fm incubators propoganda, etc.

Darren
June 1st, 2008 at 1:47 am

The Democrats won’t impeach Bush because that would involve taking power away from the presidency. They don’t want that, they want to gain that power for themselves.

Dennis
June 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

The Democrats will not impeach Bush and his cronies. A lot of them are as guilty as Bush. Just exam their voting records in Congress. Many of them have voted in favor of Bush’s policies since the beginning. Many of the leading Democrats will be in peril if Bush and his cronies are brought up on charges of impeachment because they have been supporters and perpetrators of the same policies.

ingrate
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:30 pm

U.S. Constitution – Article 2 Section 2
“… and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

How does the “except in Cases of Impeachment” work here? If Nixon had remained in office and faced impeachment, he would not have been able to have pardoned himself, if I understand this correctly. What if Bush finds himself facing impeachment and decides to resign? Can the Legislature refuse to accept his resignation and leave him unable to be pardoned? It it saying he has no powers of pardon when he is under impeachment proceedings?

Steve O
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I love Vincent Bugliosi’s passion and intellect!

Just one correction, though, to Bugliosi’s statement that no president has EVER taken the US to war based on a lie. Really? Two well-known previous examples jump out from US history:

– The US War on Mexico (1848). See then-Congressman Abraham Lincoln’s famous Spot Speeches (”Mr. President! Show me the ’spot’ of US soil upon which American blood was spilled by Mexican ‘aggression’!”). Reward for US war of aggression: the entire Southwest.

– The US War on the Spanish Empire (1898). “They blew up our battleship Maine!” The fraudulent Platt Amendment foisted on the Cuban people. Reward for US war of aggression: an overseas colonial empire of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philipines.

DLC
June 7th, 2008 at 8:02 am

I KNOW Bush contrived this war. I work at the CDC in Atlanta and 3 of my friends who worked in the Bioterrorism Unit were told of the EXACT Iraq Invasion date many months ahead of time. WHY ? They had to have their biological tests ready for the invasion just in case Saddam had anything. The Invasion date was their Deadline… Now when were they told? Try April 2001 !! yes 4 months before 9-11, and 22 months before the invassion. They ha d <2 years to get their tests in order… the tests were developed to detect bioagents like anthrax, smallpox, etc in less that 2 hours… very tough and that’s why they were told and give the deadline.
Bush et al planned this from Day 1 just as Paul O’Neal said !
We should all be outraged !!
This is close to the atrocities committed in WWII.

DLC

BILL
June 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

V. Bugliosi: My perception is that your effort to have Bush charged with murder will ultimately fail. Respectfully suggest you read the Kellogg-Briand pact and the first two charges prosecuted at the Nuremburg war crimes trials and you may find an issue which might draw the attention of an international tribunal. Or at least a sympathetic multinational audience. The readings suggested above are readily on the internet by searching on the subject matter.

BILL
June 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

V. Bugliosi: As an afterthought to my message 6/11/2008 6:45 pm, the idea of seeing Bush indicted as a war criminal by an international tribunal, or even the prospect of such an event, would warm the cockles of my heart, and probably many others. It might also be the subject of your next or some future bestseller.

Steve O
June 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am

…AND Hawaii, by the way.

Matt Clark
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 am

I’d just like to remind Mr. Bugliosi that members of the Congress and Senate, both Republican AND Democrat were privy to the same information that led to the invasion of Iraq and APPROVED the actions taken, including the famous “Mrs. Clinton”. If we are going to indict the President for murder, and the Vice-president and Secretary of State as co-conspirators, then surely we must also indict as co-conspirators all members of the Legislative Branch who had the same info and approved the action. My, the government is going to have a lot of empty offices when ALL the co-conspirators go to prison!

In his speech to the Democrats in Venice, California he brought up Bush’s speech in Cincinnati Ohio. I’d also like to remind him that if he was trying Manson in Cincinnati Ohio, I believe the defendant would have walked because his court argument probably wouldn’t wash here.

In my opinion they won’t let Manson out so Mr. Bugliosi is simply seeking his second 15 minutes of fame.

anthony nParisi
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Can you please tell me how ican contact Vincent Bugliosi

Thank you

john
December 7th, 2008 at 4:48 am

i’m very worried that bush will be pardoned by obama if bugliosi is successful in prosecution. i’d suggest that some one have a”plan B’.many people[including myself]believe that bush was behind 9-11,or knew in advance. i hope that a thorough,independant investigation of 9-11 will be conducted because i think that he could not receive a pardon if convicted of this.

Martin Walsh
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm

If Bush ever does go on trial under oath he must tell us the real reason for the invasion of Iraq.All the reasons they gave us were the pre 9/11 reasons. I believe the real motivation is obvious and makes too much sense for it not to be true. In Afganistan the terrorist were out in the open on a battlefield, once that campaign was done they went back into hiding.Bush was determined to use military might so he had to draw the terrorist out of hiding and what better way to do that than to invade another muslim country. in other words their intention was to create Al Qeada in Iraq,problem is all of the Iraqis who were slaugthered in the process a true crime against humanity.

jerry
January 11th, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Vincent Bugliosi is brilliant! I am sure he is aware of this, but some of his fans may not be. Bush could be found not guilty, could be pardoned, a sentence could be commuted, or he may never even be formally charged with a crime. The republican controlled supreme court could reverse a conviction. Regardless, any of the many thousands of widows of US soldiers who died in Iraq may, at any time, file a LAWSUIT against bush for violating the civil rights of their deceased husbands by bringing the nation into war under false pretenses, resulting in the deaths of those husbands. It worked against OJ Simpson. He cannot be “pardoned” for torts. Appeal would be his only recourse. All that is necessary for a judgment is to establish a 51% probability that bush did that.

Ray
February 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Since March 2003 I have thought exactly as Vincent Bugliosi and felt myself in an isolated vacuum. It has taken until February 2009 to see this book. Halleluluhhhhh.
I feel vindicated – there are other souls such as mine.

Vincent, I agree with everything you write and I have only just started reading your book. The Clinton debacle etc.

I agree so wholeheartedly with your statement about Limbaugh “an uncommonly loathsome individual”.

But, I am extremely worried that that loathsome individual is still given credence.

I am also extremely concerned that more troops are being sent to Afghanistan.

I am also extremely terrified of the dangerous right wing Republican party that continues to have so much power in this nation and is supported by almost half the people in this nation. I keep waiting to hear something come from the Republicans mouths that doesn’t fill my heart with fear.

Highlights

Breaking News