Q&A With Attorney And Author Vincent Bugliosi: "It's Not Enough To Be Rid Of Bush. What About Justice?"

Vincent Bugliosi is a renowned prosecutor and respected lawyer. How good is he? Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic book, Helter Skelter. Bugliosi has also written bestsellers on the O.J. Simpson trial, the Clinton impeachment, the Supreme Court decision that put George Bush in power and the assassination of President Kennedy. Bugliosi's latest, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, is an explosive look at the un-reported (or under-reported) crimes committed by the Bush Administration. In the book, Bugliosi sets forth a legal framework for the case against Bush and evidence of his guilt. He also establishes the jurisdiction, on a federal and state level, for close to 1,000 prosecutors throughout the country to prosecute Bush for the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. 

So where are current efforts right now to bring George W. Bush to justice?

Bugliosi: I've already reached out to the 50-state attorney generals. I've ordered a copy of the national district attorneys from around the country that are elected and appointed prosecutors, not deputies in their office. Only the DA himself can bring a criminal charge against Bush. There's probably 2,700 of them right now. We 're contacting prosecutors who represent counties of soldiers killed in Iraq. I don't know what that number would be, so we sent out a letter to all of them. If we send one to a DA in a county that hasn't lost a soldier, that DA would not have jurisdiction.

So we're going to reach out to every prosecutor in the country. My belief (although I don't feel strongly about it) is that there is a substantial likelihood we're going to get one or more DAs courageous enough to take on George W. Bush. But before they do that, they're going to have to check every citation of mine to make sure they're accurate. They will have to assign members of their staff to investigate the case completely because I don't think there's any question it will be the biggest murder case in American history. So no prosecutor is going to just jump into this. A lot of research, time, and discussion will go into this so I don't expect any immediate response. But I already have a state attorney general whose chief of staff wants to talk with me and a DA that wants to talk to me. So that's a start.

I've gotten quite a few letters from people saying they've sent a copy of the book to their local DAs, asking them to prosecute. Wherever I speak, including today, people come up to me and say, "Mr. Bugliosi, is there any way I can help?" I tell them if you believe what I say in the book is correct, send a copy to the local DA with a cover letter and maybe 50 signatures from people who feel the same way. There is now a mini-movement, in America, that supports the notion of prosecuting George W. Bush for murder. He may very well end up in a prison cell but don't forget, there's no statue of limitations for murder. So when we talk about 2,700 more DAs for the rest of Bush's life, those numbers multiply to 10-15,000 DA's. As long as he's alive, there's no statue of limitations that someone can go after him. Where is it now? I think (the movement's) gaining steam. My guess is if it happens at all, it's going to be at the local level (a local DA) as opposed to a state attorney general or the Attorney General in Washington.

Now you are aware Obama has used the word "immediately" before. He said that if he becomes president, he's going to "immediately" ask the AG to look at the record and see if there's evidence of any genuine crime as opposed to terrible policy. Obama also said that no man is above the law. The implication being if he finds a crime, he's going to look into it.

It's amazing that with all the new information coming out on George W. Bush (Ron Suskind's book for example), you would think people would be in the streets with pitchforks and torches demanding he be arrested. How is this information not reaching the masses? If it is, then why is there so much indifference?

My book does something about it. Suskind's revelations provide nothing at all, even though it's still good. If there was a prosecution, the people who gave him information for those revelations would be witnesses for the prosecutor. Follow what I'm saying?

As far as indifference, I say "What's happened to soul of the Democratic Party?" Why aren't they talking about the monstrous crime Bush committed (at the convention)? Why is that? I don't know. Peoples' memories last as long as a breath and they go onto other stuff. I'm not going onto other stuff. I'm not going to let this guy go. I may not succeed but I'm not going to satisfied until I see him in an American court being charged with first degree murder on trial.

I've had host of shows tell me, "I hate George W. Bush, All I want is for him to go away." And I say, "What about justice? What about the fact that there's at least 100,000 agree with me that this guy needs to be prosecuted?" Then they say, "Well I guess so," but their first instinct is not justice. It's just to get rid of him. I just feel like I'm a fish out of the water here because I'm expecting people to be outraged. But here's the point, an extremely important point. If this could be told to the American public and if evidence could be presented, that Bush took this nation to war and committed murder, that could fall into the hands of John McCain.

Look what happened to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did nothing at all. The consensus among virtually everyone is that his scandal hurt Al Gore in 2000 election. His scandal cost Gore several points in the 2000 election and it got to the point where Gore didn't utilize Clinton in his campaign. The sense was even though Gore wasn't involved, he was still the veep during this scandal. It was nothing it was sublime silliness, but it spilled over. So you can imagine what would happen if the American public were convinced that George W. Bush took this nation to war and committed a crime, that will slide over to John McCain. Particularly since John McCain supported this war. So the discussion should have happened (at the convention) and I wonder why is nobody talking about that. They're talking about everything but that!

It seems that politicians don't want to think about it at all. Their focus is all about winning the 2008 election. How do you get around that?

You know, a man came up to me today, thanked me and said, "My son died in Iraq and I did not sacrifice my son for George W. Bush." Then he said "I hope you get him." I gave him a hug. You know, it's amazing the survivors of the kids that died over there are not up in arms. Do you know why they're not? A lot believed they died for America but they didn't die for America! They died for George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney! What American interests are being served over there? None!

Switching gears now. You said that there's been a virtual blackout by the traditional media in covering your book. What's going on?

When all my other true crime books came out, I went to New York City and started out on national television. Every single one. When this book came out, I didn't go to New York because no network had me on; no cable had me on; and no newspaper reviewed the book. It was a total blackout. The New York Times did an article about the blackout and that opened it up just a tiny little crack. But for the most part, everyone has stayed away from it except progressive Democrats. Without progressive Democrats, this book would never had taken off.

How has citizen journalism, blogs, and other forms of online media helped

You see, I don't have a computer. Apparently the book is big on the Internet. I hear that and I also hear a lot of blogs are talking about the book. That certainly has helped. But if you start out on The Today Show, you reach 8 million people. For me to reach 8 million people the way I'm doing it now, I have to give hundreds of interviews. I don't think there's too much question that this book would have been number one if I had started out like my other ones on national television. As it is, it got up to #9 on the NYT bestsellers list. This week it's #10. If you can do #9 or #10 and still be blacked out by the major media, I think you can extrapolate that this book could have been number one.

[Bugliosi's publicist interrupts to say the book is in its eighth straight week on the New York Times bestsellers list.]

Switching gears again. One of the things naysayers say about the indictment resolution is that citizens cannot and should not have to the power to arrest a former president and vice-president. They consider indictments by popular vote to be mob justice mentality.

I don't think it's mob justice. [The case Brattleboro, Vermont] has passed [to indict members of the administration], that can't happen. There's no criminal indictment that can come from the [city]. It can only come from a grand jury and the grand jury doesn't take things upon themselves. The DA has to offer evidence to them, or a state attorney general. They lead the efforts.