Bugliosi's Book- Just heard about it today

Trash · 07-02-2008, 08:24 PM

I didn't know about "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" book until I heard Bugliosi being interviewed on the Radio today. He said that the Mainstream Media won't touch it and refuse his requests to be interviewed about it. Well you know they're all "Liberal" and shit why would they report anything bad about Bush? Wait. What?

He did say that the NY Times will be coming out with story about why a book that is on their Best Seller list and is about something so contraversial is not being covered by the Mainstream Media.

Basically he said the book is a blue print for State AGs to file a case against our favorite Chicken Hawk. Jurisdicton, evidence, laws broken, etc.....

I searched and found this little YouTube Promo. Interesting.

YouTube - Prosecute Bush for Murder

SXSMITH · 07-02-2008, 11:13 PM

Bush isn't that smart.

Trash · 07-03-2008, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Bush isn't that smart.

True. Too true. But it will be interesting to see how lucky he is.

flylooper · 07-03-2008, 12:43 AM

Hell, I think I mentioned Bugliosi's book weeks ago. You didn't read? You didn't buy - on my recommendation? Ugh! The horror. No one takes me serially.

Edit: I did! Two Books to Read: (One corroborates the other)

Trash · 07-03-2008, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flylooper

Hell, I think I mentioned Bugliosi's book weeks ago. You didn't read? You didn't buy - on my recommendation? Ugh! The horror. No one takes me serially.

Edit: I did! Two Books to Read: (One corroborates the other)

Ooops sorry Fly. I'm buying this book tomorrow.

county · 07-03-2008, 10:35 AM

Actually an amazing read. He draws a great parrallel between Bush and Charley and another between Condi and Squeaky.

Trash · 07-03-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by county

Actually an amazing read. He draws a great parrallel between Bush and Charley and another between Condi and Squeaky.

keystonejenks · 07-03-2008, 10:48 AM

He's been making the rounds. I've heard several interviews now and plan on picking up the book. I think what's interesting is that he's not some crazy trying to get publicity. He's a WELL respected lawyer who NEVER lost a murder case.

county · 07-03-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keystonejenks

He's been making the rounds. I've heard several interviews now and plan on picking up the book. I think what's interesting is that he's not some crazy trying to get publicity. He's a WELL respected lawyer who NEVER lost a murder case.

Really, I thought he was a hack who cashed in on the Manson trial?

flylooper · 07-03-2008, 11:13 AM

Did anyone ever read Bugliosi's take on the SCOTUS's decision to award Bush the presidency in 2000? It was an incredible awakening for me. An great example of "judicial activism" that the GOP likes to whine about.

A snippet from an article which appeared in The Nation:

None Dare Call it Treason

Vincent Bugliosi: That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening events ever to have occurred in this country.

In the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law. If you doubt this, try to imagine Al Gore's and George Bush's roles being reversed and ask yourself if you can conceive of Justice Antonin Scalia and his four conservative brethren issuing an emergency order on December 9 stopping the counting of ballots (at a time when Gore's lead had shrunk to 154 votes) on the grounds that if it continued, Gore could suffer "irreparable harm," and then subsequently, on December 12, bequeathing the election to Gore on equal protection grounds. If you can, then I suppose you can also imagine seeing a man jumping away from his own shadow, Frenchmen no longer drinking wine.

From the beginning, Bush desperately sought, as it were, to prevent the opening of the door, the looking into the box--unmistakable signs that he feared the truth. In a nation that prides itself on openness, instead of the Supreme Court doing everything within its power to find a legal way to open the door and box, they did the precise opposite in grasping, stretching and searching mightily for a way, any way at all, to aid their choice for President, Bush, in the suppression of the truth, finally settling, in their judicial coup d'état, on the untenable argument that there was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause--the Court asserting that because of the various standards of determining the voter's intent in the Florida counties, voters were treated unequally, since a vote disqualified in one county (the so-called undervotes, which the voting machines did not pick up) may have been counted in another county, and vice versa. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court's order that the undervotes be counted, effectively delivering the presidency to Bush.

Now, in the equal protection cases I've seen, the aggrieved party, the one who is being harmed and discriminated against, almost invariably brings the action. But no Florida voter I'm aware of brought any action under the equal protection clause claiming he was disfranchised because of the different standards being employed. What happened here is that Bush leaped in and tried to profit from a hypothetical wrong inflicted on someone else. Even assuming Bush had this right, the very core of his petition to the Court was that he himself would be harmed by these different standards. But would he have? If we're to be governed by common sense, the answer is no. The reason is that just as with flipping a coin you end up in rather short order with as many heads as tails, there would be a "wash" here for both sides, i.e., there would be just as many Bush as Gore votes that would be counted in one county yet disqualified in the next. (Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the wash wouldn't end up exactly, 100 percent even, we'd still be dealing with the rule of de minimis non curat lex--the law does not concern itself with trifling matters.) So what harm to Bush was the Court so passionately trying to prevent by its ruling other than the real one: that he would be harmed by the truth as elicited from a full counting of the undervotes?