American Culture

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?

S&R: 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.

S&R: 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.

S&R: 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.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

For more on Bush & Co.’s crimes, see. . .
The 935 lies of George Bush (and friends) by Martin Bosworth
Mission accomplished, part deux by Dr. Slammy
Bush golfing again, says “long nat’l nightmare” over by Brad Jacobson

20 replies »

  1. Pingback:
  2. Could the parent of a dead US soldier have their state or county lay charges of murder against Bush after he leaves office?

  3. Zach,

    that’s an interesting though assuming McCain doesn’t win and give him a blanket pardon ala Ford and Nixon.

  4. While this one charge alone should be sufficient, inspite of all the evidence of the facts, the American government does not have the ethics to prosecute George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and a host of others for their war criminal conduct of deliberately and maliciously creating a war that has unnecessarily taken the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers.

  5. In his book Bugliosi contends that Bush can only be prosecuted after he leaves office and it would take the US attorney General or an Attorney General of a specific state to prosecute him for those lives lost from that state. Definitely a great read. He lays it all out for any prosecutor who would go after Bush.

  6. The parent could petition, along with the help of many others, the state or county district attorney to bring charges. Good luck, though. It’s a rare DA who will put his career on the line by bringing charges against a president.

    But all it takes is one.

  7. Before 9/11 Nancy Pelosi knew of the illegal wiretaps, she knew and discussed the torture. Can conspiracy or other charges be filed against her and her other coconspirators? A grand jury hearing, a trial, either would bring out witnesses, grants of immunity and lots of fodder for books.

  8. Agree with Ed. It explains why there is no Impeachment action … they’d all get dragged in to it. They made bad, unethical, and illegal decisions while under the influence of a panic. ALL of them. To review their mindset, listen to the current rantings of someone like “Dadgellena” — so scared they make no sense whatsoever. Fear, fear, panic, panic, I’m scared mommy! That’s the state of mind. Scared of what? Now in WWII we faced country sized budgets and a realistic fear of invasion, yet these cowards did our parents and grandparents a disservice — in WWII we pulled together, we stood up — now, facing a small group with a budget in the 10’s of millions who could MAYBE kill 3,000 people every 5-10 years! The US buckled under fear. ‘Fraid to fly! Hell my dad got on a troop carrier when U boats where stalking the oceans and THEN flew around France when you could see people were shooting at you! What f**ing cowards this modern American is now. Chief among the cowards… our government representatives. Those not afraid are USING the fear. A real leader used to say, “You have nothing to fear but fear itself.” now it is “Boo! Do what I say!”

  9. Ditto with Ed..what is it that Sherlock Holmes used to say?
    “whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” That said, the Democrats being culpable is not that improbable but for the very ‘faithful’…


  10. Hi thanks for the article I find every thing “swings” except the notion Bush is having a good time while the war goes on being devil’s advocate .pun intended
    Kennedy was having a good time(partying bringing Jazz to the White house ) during the threatning ofCuba risking nuclear war and Vietnam continuing the oppression .etc. Roosevelt I’m sure was also partying during World War 2

    Just because a “world (mis) leader” is smiling and having a good time at any particular time doe’snt mean he or she is not concerned .
    Thanks for making the world a more peaceful and joyful place despite the international rulling class.yours in struggle Orion****

  11. Bush cannot be sent to any international court, neither can anyone Bush decided shouldn’t be there.

    In fact, Bush has made it clear that, even military action will be taken if he decided that someone being held in an international court should be released, and the court doesn’t want to release them.

    When will Americans realize we are being controlled by the biggest terrorist organization in the history of the earth; the US Government, the very enemy of the people, the earth and all of mankind.

    Corey Mondello

  12. I think Bush should be impeached but there is something more important. If we impeach him, the fact that our judicial system is now so slanted towards the right that Bush could easily get acquitted. And more than likely the nation would vote very republican in the next election.

    But a truth and reconciliation commission would serve to destroy the Bush legacy and name. This just might lead to a turn back against republicans for the next generation. Thus putting the people back in charge of this nation.

  13. So the impeachment process is possible and/or can be used for criminal prosecution even after George W. Bush leaves office—giving the American people a sense of hope. Even though impeachment while Bush is in office does not seem likely due to the complicity of Congress relative to the illegitimate Iraq War, Kucinich’s efforts relative to impeachment and the efforts of hundreds of Americans relative to impeachment are not wasteful collectively. For example, such efforts are beneficial in that (1) legitimate accusations made in the course of Bush’s presidency appropriately and importantly inform the American people and the world of Bush’s abuses of power, corruption, and dishonesty; and (2) legitimate accusations, for example, in Dennis Kucinich’s excellent book, “The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush,” may contribute to some impeachment and/or punitive process against Bush after he leaves office.

    Dennis Kucinich is my role model. Kucinich is simply the best. Congressman Kucinich has, in any case, done invaluable, noble, and exemplary work in pushing for impeachment so vigorously and single-mindedly.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA