Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi makes the case for putting our soon-to-be ex-president on trial

There are plenty of folks who are looking forward to the beginning of George W. Bush’s career as an ex-president. Vincent Bugliosi is among those eager to see an end to the Bush administration, but for reasons more sanguine than most: He hopes an indictment for murder awaits Bush as soon as he leaves the protection of his office.

Vincent Bugliosi

Bugliosi is best known as the Los Angeles deputy district attorney who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and his “family” of the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate and six others. He later wrote a best-selling book, Helter Skelter, about the trial, one of seven best-sellers he’s penned in his career outside the courtroom. After the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, Bugliosi wrote the best-seller Outrage, criticizing the prosecutor, the defense team and the judge. And in 2001, Bugliosi published The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President. Last year he published Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a 1,612-page endorsement of the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of the president.

This past May, Bugliosi brought out The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Vanguard), in which he uses about one third that number of pages to build a case for charging the nation’s 43rd president with murder. Because Bush intentionally deceived Congress and the American people in order to justify the war against Iraq, Bugliosi says, he is criminally responsible for the death of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Bugliosi is serious, and so is his book: He describes its arguments as “the legal architecture” that provide jurisdiction and strategy to more than 2,700 prosecutors across the country to bring charges. Surely one of these, Bugliosi told AV in a recent interview, is courageous enough to bring Bush to justice.

Last year AV’s resident conspiracy buff, Cy Alessi, spoke with Bugliosi about the JFK assassination. This year, in what is shaping up to be an annual tradition, Alessi was joined once again by forensic psychologist Dr. Susan Feneck to talk to Bugliosi about his latest effort. The following is an excerpt of that interview; the rest is online at Artvoice.com.

AV: In your book, you argue that George W. Bush conspired to drag the country into war in Iraq through lies, distorted intelligence, and misinformation. And you propose that he should be brought to trial for murder as a consequence. In the real world, is this just a hypothetical position? Or can an ex-president really be indicted for murder as a result of his official actions while in office?

Bugliosi: There’s no question that once a president leaves office, he’s vulnerable to be prosecuted for any crime he committed while he was in office. This is beyond dispute. The US Constitution provides for this. It goes all the way back to the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, 1787. He definitely can be prosecuted.

Nixon, when he resigned—let’s see, it was 1974—after he resigned there was quite clamor to bring criminal charges against him for Watergate-related crimes. I think it was obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury, wiretapping. President Ford intervened and pardoned Nixon. If Nixon had immunity from prosecution, there wouldn’t have been any need for Ford to intervene and give him a pardon.

There’s absolutely no dispute. I don’t know if anyone who’s schooled on this matter is going to tell you that a president once he leaves office is immune from criminal prosecution.

AV: As evidence that Bush’s deception of the American public was deliberate, you offer the differences between the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and the white paper summary the administration provided Congress and the public. Can you explain those differences?

Bugliosi: To my knowledge, what I’m about to tell you has never appeared in any major newspaper of magazine in America. Why, I don’t know. Probably just pure incompetence.

I have documentary evidence that when George W. Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA and 15 other US intelligence agencies had told him six days earlier in a top secret classified report on October 1. That’s the National Intelligence Estimate 2002, in which the conclusion was that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. He would only be a threat if he feared an imminent attack on him by us. That is, he would only be a threat if he was forced to fight in self-defense.

We have subsequently found out that under no circumstances would he have been a threat to us, because we found out—we didn’t know at the time—that Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction in 1991, at the end of the Persian Gulf war.

This is pretty serious now, when you have the president telling the nation that Hussein is an imminent threat, and he had a document six days earlier saying he was not an imminent threat.

But it gets worse than that. On October 4, three days later, Bush and his people put out an unclassified summary version of the October 1 classified report.

AV: The white paper.

Bugliosi: The white paper. They put out this white paper so they can give it to Congress and the American people, It’s unclassified. In this white paper, the conclusion of 16 American intelligence agencies led by the CIA 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 taken out, so Congress and the American people never saw any of this.

When I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on July 25, I said to them words to the effect that since we’re talking here about a matter of war and peace, and with the safety and lives of millions of human beings at that time hanging in the balance, and with Congress to vote in just seven days, October 11, whether to authorize George Bush to go to war, what could possibly be worse and more criminal than the Bush administration keeping this all-important conclusion away from the American people?

We’re talking about very serious stuff here. I don’t know how they would get around that at the trial.

In the classified document, the conclusion that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was stated more in the nature of an opinion. The language was “we judge that” or “we assess that” Hussein has chemical weapons or biological weapons. In the white paper that was given to Congress, those qualifying words were deleted and it read “Hussein has” biological weapons.

AV: Let’s move on to the “Manning memo,” the record of a January 31, 2003 meeting between Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their top staff. You offer this memo as proof that both leaders conspired to mislead the public on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and to provoke Iraq into starting a war by staging some sort of incident. Can you elaborate on this memo—and differentiate it from the more widely reported “Downing Street memo”?

Bugliosi: The Downing Street memo arose out of the war cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his war cabinet. That Downing Street memo got a lot of attention here in America—it’s been in books, magazine articles, covered pretty heavily in the newspapers. If I were to prosecute George Bush, I would introduce it, but it’s not quite as strong as the memo you just alluded to. Some people confuse the two.

The Downing Street memo, that took place in London during a meeting of Blair’s war cabinet. It’s weaker than the one you refer to because, number one, there is no specific source, and number two there’s a little ambiguity, which we can get into, if you want.

The Manning memo, which you refer to, received very little attention here in America. I only remember seeing it on the back page of the New York Times, though I understand in England it was very big. This memo puts the hat more on Bush than it does on Blair. Bush and Blair met in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003, for two hours with six of their top aides, including Blair’s chief foreign policy officer, David Manning. After the meeting Manning prepared a five-page memo stamped “extremely sensitive” in which he summarized what took place at the meeting. He said that both Bush and Blair were very concerned about the failure of UN inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but then he goes on to say that Bush, not Blair, because of this worry, started talking about three possible ways to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One of these ways was to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft over Iraq painted with United Nations colors. Bush said if Hussein fires on them, he’ll be in violation of UN resolutions and therefore this will justify going to war.

So here we have George Bush telling the nation, telling the world, that Hussein is an imminent threat to the security of this nation and so we have to strike first in self-defense. But behind closed doors, this very small man was talking about how to provoke Hussein into a war. By definition, if Bush honestly and actually believed that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country—about to strike, and we have to strike first—the thought of trying to provoke him into a war would have never ever entered his mind. That is powerful evidence that when George Bush told the American people that Hussein was an imminent threat, he knew he was lying.

AV But Blair didn’t say, “Well, we can’t do that.”

Bugliosi: Except this was a memo. We don’t have a transcript of every word that was said. We can’t be 100 percent sure that Blair did not interject something here. Though if he had said something, Manning would have included that in the memo.

AV: There was a constant stream of misinformation at the time: about a connection between Hussein, Al Qaeda, and 9/11; about an active chemical weapons program; about Iraq’s efforts to purchase Nigerian yellowcake uranium; about the threat Iraq’s military and weapons of mass destruction posed to whole Gulf, to the world’s oil supply, to the entire world economy. How do you bundle all these elements together for a trial?

Bugliosi: Like in any other case, you present all the evidence, not just one piece of evidence—unless that’s all you have. You put one piece of evidence upon another to prove beyond as reasonable doubt that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law he is guilty of murder for the deaths of all 4,000 soldiers who have died so far in Iraq.

How do you do it? You just put one piece of evidence upon another until ultimately there is a strong mosaic of guilt. It is one piece of circumstantial evidence upon another, then you reach the conclusion that this fellow Bush took the country to war on a lie.

AV: Can you prove that the war is malfeasance rather than misfeasance? That is, that Bush knew what he was doing, as opposed to being negligent?

Bugliosi: Well, these are words that are not used in criminal law; we don’t charge someone with malfeasance. But my understanding is that malfeasance would go in the direction of a crime. Misfeasance would go in the direction of negligence, and negligence is not a crime…well, I can qualify that: Extreme negligence can result in what most states call involuntary manslaughter. It’s called criminal negligence.

But we’re not talking about negligence here. If Bush were only negligent, I would not be suggesting he be prosecuted for murder.

AV: Do you think that the Bush administration is aware of your book and its arguments? Do they take them seriously?

Bugliosi: Well, I was supporting a candidate for attorney general up in Vermont, Charlotte Dennett, very intelligent, brave woman, and she lost up there. I was with her in Burlington, Vermont, on September 18, when she announced her candidacy, and she said he had read my book, and she was very impressed with it and she said, based on the book, “If I win, I’m going to appoint Mr. Bugliosi special prosecutor to seek a murder indictment against George Bush.”

Now at the end of that press conference, the media went to the White House. The White House had no comment. However, the Republican National Committee took a shot at Charlotte. They didn’t mention me, because it’s too difficult to come after me in the area of criminal law because of my background. But they went after her. They said that what she was proposing up in Vermont would only appeal to the fringe elements in our society. Charlotte prepared a response pointing out that—and this is in my book, that in 2005 a CBS/New York Times poll showed that a majority of Americans felt that Bush had “intentionally misled” Congress into war—so in response to the RNC she said, “Are the majority of Americans the fringe elements in our society?”

The fact that the RNC took a shot at her, I think—and it’s not 100 percent conclusive—but I think it goes in the direction of them being concerned about this.

They are aware of the book. A reporter in Washington who’s close to someone in the White House was told that the White House—that doesn’t necessarily mean Bush, he probably lives in a cocoon—the White House knows about the book and have been instructed to respond to the media if asked about it “No comment.” And if they’re asked again about it—you know, “This is Vincent Bugliosi not just some guy off the street”—they are to say that this is just some kind of left-wing diatribe or what have you.

Whether Bush is personally aware of the book or not, I don’t know. But it’s been out there enough now that he probably knows about it. They have to be concerned about it, because I establish not only the evidence establishing guilt but the legal basis, the legal architecture, which would enable prosecutors around the country to bring a criminal charge against him. There’s over 2,700 prosecutors out there that I’ve established jurisdiction for. He’s got to think that there might be one prosecutor out there courageous enough to step forward. Charlotte Dennett was going to do it if she became attorney general up in Vermont. So I don’t think he can rest too easily.

AV: In the book, you’re pretty blunt in the language you use to assess of Bush’s character.

Bugliosi: Well, my view of him…when I call Bush names, people say, “You went over the top in your book.” And I say, “Do you really, really believe that?” There’s a million people in their graves. In one place I call Bush a son of a bitch. I say, “Do you really think that’s too harsh for someone who put a million people in their graves?”

People on the highways, when they cut in front of them and they think they shouldn’t have cut in front of them, they call them even worse names. If he is guilty, as I say he is, there’s no word strong enough to describe this guy. I think he’s a despicable human being with virtually no redeeming human values. I think he could care less about the death of these people. He didn’t intentionally want to kill them—“I want to kill these people”—but he couldn’t care less that they’ve died.

Why do I say he couldn’t care less? Because if he could care less, certain words would never ever ever come out of his mouth. They would not come out of his mouth if he was suffering. The White House has said that he suffers, that he takes the loss of American soldiers in Iraq hard, but that’s just pure moonshine. Just cheap, worthless words. Suffering on one hand and joking around on the other hand are certainly incompatible. They cannot coexist.

The evidence is overwhelming, it cannot be controverted, that while young American kids—I’m talking about 18-, 19-year-old kids who never had a chance to live out their dreams—were being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, this guy, George Bush, he’s the one who created this hell in Iraq, smiled through it all. This guy, while this was happening, was having a lot of fun and enjoying life to the very fullest. You don’t have to take my word for this or the photographs in the book, which have gotten a lot of people angry…Bush himself has had no hesitancy in saying things like this…

Now before I quote Bush, let me ask you to try to imagine Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ, Nixon during their respective wars saying something like this. If you look at the photographs of those presidents during their war, the photos, their faces, reflected the grimness of the war. It’s a very serious time, not a time for fun and games and laughing.

Also, while I’m quoting Bush, try to realize the death and the horror and the suffering that’s going on at the very same moment that he’s uttering these words, the screams and the sea of blood and the decapitations and the mutilations: “Laura and I are having the time of our lives.” These words would not and could not come out of the mouth of an LBJ or a Nixon or a Truman or an FDR. “I’m in a great mood”—this is George Bush—“It’s going to be a perfect day.” In December 2007, at a White House press conference, he said, “I’m feeling pretty good about life.”

He’s feeling pretty good about life? Here’s someone whose war has cost this country hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, with no end in sight. He has virtually destroyed the entire nation of Iraq. He’s caused people around the world to have a negative view of America for invading a sovereign country without provocation. And I repeat, because it bears repeating, he is responsible for over 100,000 precious human beings, including babies, being in their cold graves. And he says, “I’m feeling good about life.” It’s mindboggling.

I tell you, Bush is a happy guy. I mean, as recently as March of this year, he showed up at a press conference to endorse John McCain. McCain was a little late, so what does Bush do? Spontaneously, with a smile on his face, he starts doing a soft-shoe tap-dancing routine to entertain the assembled media. Back in 2005 Mark MacKinnon, a close friend of Bush, told the New York Times that Bush was “as “relaxed, carefree and happy as I’ve ever seen him.”

AV: At the 2004 White House Correspondents Association dinner, Bush showed photographs of himself on his hands and knees in the Oval Office, looking for WMD under the furniture—making a joke of the pretext he used to go to war.

Bugliosi: I don’t think he cares. And because he doesn’t care, he’s able to laugh and joke and slap backs.

AV: Given your past experience prosecuting murderers, how would you diagnose his mental health?

Bugliosi: When I used to prosecute people, the main thing I had to prove—unless the defense was not guilty by reason of insanity, in which there was heavy psychiatric testimony on both sides—is whether or not the defendant committed the crime, did he commit the act, and was there any legal justification.

I don’t want to call Bush a sociopath, because that has implications…one of my strengths is I know my limitations, and I don’t want to get into an area I’m really not qualified to talk about.

We'll be posting a second part to this interview on line, so check back to hear Vincent Bugliosi go on to call Bush a sociopath, and then a psychopath.