Helter Skelter Vermont Style

November 2, 2008 5:10 AM

CharlotteDennett who read for the bar in Vermont, is now running for Vermont Attorney General on the Progressive Party ticket. Her platform: Prosecute George Bush for murder. Her choice for chief prosecutor: Vincent Bugliosi.

When not running for office, Ms. Dennett is busy trying to get the CIA to release documents related to her father's disappearance.

posted by Xurando (62 comments total)

she's also an excellent investigative journalist - she co-authored Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon - Nelson Rockefeller & Evangelism in the Age of Oil, which is an amazing piece of work
posted by jammy at 5:50 AM on November 2, 2008

Isn't Bugliosi a quack? (Or whatever the legal equivalent may be...)

If it weren't for that one little flaw, I'd be sending her dough.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:59 AM on November 2, 2008

Bugliosi a quack? Baloney.
posted by RavinDave at 6:01 AM on November 2, 2008

Good. It's about time actual socialists stood up and ran for election in the USA.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:04 AM on November 2, 2008 [3 favorites]

A rather strange platform, no? There is not going to be any prosecution of Bush for anything since just about all he had done got full support, or mostly full support, from Congress. A socialist ought to focus upon needed changes in the economic and social structure of the nation--lobby groups, price supports, corporation tax madness etc etc and not focus upon what is for most sane and intelligent voters a distraction.
posted by Postroad at 6:27 AM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

yeah good luck with that. that should go over well with the rest of the country. vermont cheddar boycotts anyone?

not saying i don't like the idea...just saying it's gonna look like some commie liberal evil to most of the U.S.
posted by spicynuts at 6:59 AM on November 2, 2008

Isn't Bugliosi a quack? (Or whatever the legal equivalent may be...)

Hardly. Remember Charles Manson? Helter Skelter? Bugliosi has a great legal mind.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:22 AM on November 2, 2008

Of all things, murder? There are things he's done that are horribly wrong, but murder is not one of them! War crimes perhaps, invasion of a sovereign nation without cassus belli, encouraging torture, etc. However, I'm pretty sure a murder charge would be harder to pin on him than other charges.
posted by explosion at 7:23 AM on November 2, 2008

My question was "how would a state prosecutor have jurisdiction to prosecute George Bush?" She answers it this way:

Vermont does have jurisdiction, as explained below.

The underlying crime that confers jurisdiction to Vermont courts in this case is the crime of conspiracy to commit murder, which does not require, as one of its elements, the death of an individual, whether in Vermont or any other state. All that has to be shown is an "agreement between two or more people" (i.e. George Bush and one or more other members of his administration) to conduct an unlawful war in Iraq, and an "overt act" (no matter how inconsequential) to "further the object of the conspiracy." To establish jurisdiction, this overt act must have taken place in Vermont.

Here, as elsewhere in the nation, there were at least two such overt acts, each of which is equally important.

1) Bush's lies outside Vermont were carried by radio and television straight into the homes and cars of the American people, including into the state of Vermont. These lies (that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, and that Saddam was involved in 9/11), both demonstrably false, were made by Bush to gain the support of the American people for his war in Iraq.

2) Another overt act is the Bush Administration's recruitment of young women and men in Vermont to fight Bush's war in Iraq.

With respect to the separate crime of murder, the general rule is that a state only has jurisdiction over crimes physically committed in that state. However, although the killings in this case did not take place in Vermont, there is a well-established exception to the rule. In instances where the crime occurs outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state, but the crime has a harmful effect on the people of the state, then that state has jurisdiction. Clearly the war in Iraq has had a harmful effect on Vermont, which has suffered the highest per capita loss of soldiers of any state in the nation. Moreover, Vermont has shared in the prodigious cost of the war to this nation -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- with no end in sight. Finally, Vermonters, as Americans, have endured the loss of prestige in the eyes of the world community as a result of America's unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation.

posted by jayder at 7:33 AM on November 2, 2008

Remember Charles Manson? Helter Skelter? Bugliosi has a great legal mind.

I'm not sure it required a great legal mind to convict Manson & company. The Bug hasn't exactly impressed since that career highlight.
posted by Banky_Edwards at 7:34 AM on November 2, 2008

From Democracy Now: "With a new book, he [Bugliosi] outlines his case for the prosecution of George W. Bush for murder."

Those who can, prosecute. Those who can't, "outline the case" for prosecution.
posted by MarshallPoe at 7:36 AM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

The conviction of & company wasn't as big a deal as convicting Manson--who wasn't even present for any of the murders. Hardly an open and shut case.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:37 AM on November 2, 2008

Also, as an aside, he's from the same town in MN as Bob Dylan.

Not that that has anything to do with anything, but I just thought I'd throw out that little known fact.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:38 AM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

This will never fly, because while the state may assert jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will never allow it.

Why? Because if states could pass laws controlling the Federal government, wacky hijinks would ensue.

Example: "The state of Georgia declares that abortion is murder, and that any Federal legislator attempting to pass a bill legalizing abortion is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder."
posted by Malor at 7:41 AM on November 2, 2008 [4 favorites]

"With a new book, he [Bush] outlines his case for the Iraq war entitled 'If I Did It'."
posted by The Straightener at 7:44 AM on November 2, 2008 [9 favorites]

I'd leave the prosecution of George Bush up to the European courts.
posted by Faze at 7:54 AM on November 2, 2008

I'd leave the prosecution of George Bush up to the European courts.

It's too bad GWB didn't travel more before he was made president. He will have a great deal of difficulty traveling after he leaves office (as will Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) because he could very well be held and tried.
posted by terrapin at 8:06 AM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

How would this have a hope of going forward, given the immunity that has generally been afforded to the President for acts committed as part of his official duties? This seems like Nixon v. Fitzgerald all over again. I can't imagine that it would get very far.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:33 AM on November 2, 2008

Hardly. Remember Charles Manson? Helter Skelter? Bugliosi has a great legal mind.

I'm not sure that I'm qualified to judge Bugliosi's legal mind. He did have a somewhat inventive theory that was almost certainly a load of old bollocks, but I'm pretty sure that even Lionel Hutz could have gotten a conviction against Charlie at the time.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Also, as an aside, he's from the same town in MN as Bob Dylan.

Yea, Hibbing.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:49 AM on November 2, 2008

This is art constructed out of the stuff of bureaucracy. But is it good art or bad art?
posted by voltairemodern at 8:52 AM on November 2, 2008

It's too bad GWB didn't travel more before he was made president. He will have a great deal of difficulty traveling after he leaves office (as will Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) because he could very well be held and tried.

Ah yes. The dream of European justice. I am sure they will get around to cleaning up after American war crimes once they finish the prosecution of the English ones. I believe they are scheduled to start somewhere around January, two thousand and never.
posted by srboisvert at 8:56 AM on November 2, 2008 [5 favorites]

A platform isn't a to-do list. A platform is place you stand so you get heard.
posted by DU at 8:57 AM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Man, I love Vermont. I had a friend who went to Marlboro College, and in my visits up there, I was always impressed with the progressive attitude of the state as a whole. One example: during a walk through the woods, in the midst of a lot of tall, slender trees there'd sometimes be some giant anomolous tree of a completely different type. I remember them colloquially refered to as "wolf trees". The explanation behind them was that Vermont used to be comprised of a lot of farmland, but had a re-forestation campaign decades ago - those lone, solitary trees that sit in the middle of pastures had younger trees planted around them. I thought this was just the coolest thing ever.

I wonder what the historical explanations are behind Vermont's progressiveness, especially when compared with surrounding states.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:10 AM on November 2, 2008 [2 favorites]

According to the New York Times and other online sources, Dennett is self-taught. Does this mean her legal credentials were gained without benefit of daily interaction with other people, professors, fellow students? She home-schooled herself?
posted by scheptech at 9:13 AM on November 2, 2008

Marisa Stole The Precious Thing: How Vermont went from being red to blue.

The "Audio Slideshow" that is linked in the middle of the article is a good thing to watch as well.
posted by papayaninja at 9:20 AM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I have as hard a time with this now as I did the last time we talked about Vermont's wackiness and Bugliosi with regards to Bush. There are many crimes, including actual war crimes, that (it seems to me with my admittedly limited knowledge of law) Bush could legitimately be tried for, but I am unconvinced by the murder conspiracy idea. Why something so convoluted when there's illegal torture, detention, spying, and who knows what else to target him with?
posted by Caduceus at 9:27 AM on November 2, 2008

I have a theory that Charlotte Dennett is a far-right sleeper agent designed to make progressives look like morons. This theory is just about as plausible as her theory for Vermont jurisdiction.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:33 AM on November 2, 2008

Marisa Stole The Precious Thing: How Vermont went from being red to blue.

tl;dr version: As the national parties both shifted ideologically to the right, Vermonters didn't, so moderate Vermont republicans found that they had transformed into democrats, moderate Vermont democrats found they'd become left-wing democrats, and left-wing Vermont democrats were suddenly what Rush Limbaugh would now call communists.
posted by Caduceus at 9:35 AM on November 2, 2008

"I wonder what the historical explanations are behind Vermont's progressiveness, especially when compared with surrounding states."

I know, right? All those ultraconservative people in Massachusetts who don't even recognize gay marria..... oh.
posted by jock@law at 9:36 AM on November 2, 2008

immunity that has generally been afforded to the President for acts committed as part of his official duties

And rightly so. Not for the good of Bush, but for the good of a functional government. Otherwise Barack Obama's term will consist of nothing but a tour through the red states as he's charged with silly-ass shit by Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, et al.

The Clinton impeachment wasa treasonous attack on the Office of the president and the Constitution for many reasons, one of which is that it set the precedent that a sitting president can be harassed by civil lawsuits. I'm really surprised Bush hasn't been the target of any I've heard of, but I'm quite sure Obama will.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2008

PS, this is a horribly constructed fpp. Please learn how to link things that make sense. Link text should have been "read for the bar" "Progressive Party" and "prosecute George W. Bush for murder." Your "Vincent Bugliosi" link isn't about Bugliosi, and your "read" link isn't about reading.
posted by jock@law at 9:46 AM on November 2, 2008

I know, right? All those ultraconservative people in Massachusetts who don't even recognize gay marria..... oh.

Oh, come now. I didn't mean that the surrounding area was conservative - just that Vermont seems more progressive to me. Even going across the line into New Hampshire I could feel a real difference.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:46 AM on November 2, 2008

All that has to be shown is an "agreement between two or more people" (i.e. George Bush and one or more other members of his administration) to conduct an unlawful war in Iraq

Doesn't this just sidestep the really difficult question, which is whether waging an unlawful war in state law murder? Or a state law crime at all, or could ever be a state law crime under Article II, section 2?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:21 AM on November 2, 2008

There are many crimes, including actual war crimes, that (it seems to me with my admittedly limited knowledge of law) Bush could legitimately be tried for, but I am unconvinced by the murder conspiracy idea.

That interview is the most irritating thing I've read in a long time. Bugliosi is clearly saying that, as far as his murder theory goes, the deaths of Iraqi civilians are neither here nor there. What really matters are the deaths of professional American soldiers in a volunteer army.

We all know that the American calculus is 1 American life is worth 100 foreigners -- 200 if the American happens to be white, and 500 if it happens to be a young white female, but it's kind of unnerving to see this 'fine legal mind' actually spell it out for us.

And Goodman and Gonzales just lap it all up...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:27 AM on November 2, 2008

The Clinton impeachment wasa treasonous attack on the Office of the president and the Constitution for many reasons, one of which is that it set the precedent that a sitting president can be harassed by civil lawsuits.

Are you thinking of Clinton v. Jones? The Supreme Court unanimously held that a sitting President could be sued for unofficial actions prior to becoming President, but it wasn't part of the impeachment process, and it didn't represent a surprising result.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2008

Charles Gittings' Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions is a much more well developed foray into this field (amateur war crimes prosecutions) than Dennett's. Gittings, who is also self-taught (and not a lawyer), has spent the past few years working up a detailed scenario for prosecuting high-level Bush administration officials for war crimes. Those interested might take a look at this document, which summarizes the effort. Gittings has, incidentally, filed amicus curae briefs in several of the most important enemy combatant cases. My own feeling is that this is all tilting at windmills a bit when it comes to Bush himself, but I still hold out hope that John Yoo and his ilk might eventually end up facing a federal prosecutor. Dennett, needless to say, looks entirely unserious.
posted by jackbrown at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2008

Why not just stop with defrauding Congress and the Senate. It's a much easier case and will have to be proven as one of the stepping stones for making the case for murder. Doesn't it constitute as treason anyways?
posted by Pseudology at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2008

"We all know that the American calculus is 1 American life is worth 100 foreigners -- 200 if the American happens to be white, and 500 if it happens to be a young white female..."

With respect, how do "we all know" that?
posted by MarshallPoe at 11:58 AM on November 2, 2008

Why not just stop with defrauding Congress and the Senate. It's a much easier case and will have to be proven as one of the stepping stones for making the case for murder. Doesn't it constitute as treason anyways?

For one, is it at all clear that a Congressional vote can be the object of a state law fraud? I don't know, but fraud is usually thought of as causing pecuniary (not political) harm to the victim. There's also the question of whether states can criminalize any official acts by federal officials.

Treason prosecutions in the United States are extremely rare, and rightly so, in my mind. Bush didn't wage war against the United States or give comfort to its enemies in any ordinary sense, so I don't see that going anywhere.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:16 PM on November 2, 2008

With regards to trying the Bush administration for the Iraq war, I think the strongest case could be built on the premise of deliberate deception. There's already been plenty of evidence brought to light that intelligence was cherry-picked or deliberately distorted to make the case for war. I don't see that being a state issue, but any number of federal crimes, e.g., fraud, or perjury. Just off the top of my head. I think that would probably be the strongest legal avenue to travel down in terms of persecutions based solely on the invasion - torture and wiretaps, a whole other ball of wax.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:22 PM on November 2, 2008

A rather strange platform, no? There is not going to be any prosecution of Bush for anything since just about all he had done got full support, or mostly full support, from Congress.

He may have had their "support" but he certainly didn't bother to ask them to change the laws to make the stuff he was doing actually legal. The warrentless wiretapping wasn't legal, and though members of congress were briefed, many (of the democrats) now claim that they were mislead about the scope of what was going on. You can't expect democratic members of congress to stand up for this guy if he does get hauled into court over the wiretapping.

Furthermore, no one in congress knew about or approved the torture. Bush could easily be prosecuted for that.

I don't think anyone is actually going to prosecute bush, but if he was he would probably be convicted. I think most Americans hate bush and I think the average D.C. Jury would convict him on wiretapping or torture charges. I'm curious how the congressional retroactive immunity laws that were passed later would effect this though.
posted by delmoi at 12:49 PM on November 2, 2008

The Clinton impeachment wasa treasonous attack on the Office of the president and the Constitution for many reasons, one of which is that it set the precedent that a sitting president can be harassed by civil lawsuits. I'm really surprised Bush hasn't been the target of any I've heard of, but I'm quite sure Obama will.

Clinton was sued for something he did before he became president. I don't think you could sue the president for something he does as president, but you can sue him for stuff he does as an individual. It's not an attack on the "office of the president" and certainly isn't treasonous.
posted by delmoi at 12:51 PM on November 2, 2008

I don't know, but fraud is usually thought of as causing pecuniary (not political) harm to the victim.

Since Bush took office, the public debt increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.5 trillion. Most of this roughly $5 trillion in borrowing was to pay for the war on Iraq.

Investigations have uncovered a pattern of lies and deception intended to start and continue the progress of war on Iraq.

Most of the $5 trillion in spending either disappeared into the pockets of energy and military contractors or Iraqi politicians who are connected to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. As such, Bush and Cheney deceived the public to the end of transferring the public's property to enrich the politicians' friends and family.

An argument could and should be made that taxpayers — the ones who are legally responsible to repay that public obligation — have been made victims of theft by deception.

That's just the pecuniary element.

Certainly, deliberate deception conducted by Bush and Cheney has emboldened enemies and strengthened their resolve to hurt Americans. Further, in order to punish dissenters, Bush and Cheney revealed to enemies the secret identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame — and this is what we know publicly. Through revealing her secret identity, it is likely that other CIA operatives were compromised and killed. In this way, Bush and Cheney directly aided the enemy. Yet further, by playing a primary role in getting the PATRIOT Act written and passed, in conducting illegal domestic surveillance, and in conducting themselves as above the law through illegitimate claims of "executive privilege", Bush and Cheney have done a great deal to deliberately undermine the Constitution of the United States.

In these and so many ways, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have both committed acts of fraud and treason for which they should have — at least — been impeached by Congress.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:57 PM on November 2, 2008 [5 favorites]

You get sillier every time we have this conversation.

Flagged. As has been explained to you before many times, ad hominem insults aren't actually a substitute for reasoning.

It's not entirely clear even that the President is immune from criminal liability if he causes terrible things to happen by mistake - though it probably is. But do you really believe the President is completely immune from any sort of criminal prosecution for deliberate, criminal acts accomplished using his Presidential powers?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:51 PM on November 2, 2008

[a few comments removed - take personal attacks elsewhere, period, thanks.]
posted by jessamyn at 2:15 PM on November 2, 2008

Without looking at the above comments, thanks for posting this, Xurando. Interesting story; I'll have to ask my VT friends what they think of her. I'll also have to remember reading Helter Skelter so many years ago and to go sniffing around on the book where VB outlines the argument to prosecute Bush. Cause I'd so much like to see some, any sort of accountability for the architects of our finest shitting the international bed evar.
posted by not_on_display at 2:36 PM on November 2, 2008

Good. It's about time actual socialists stood up and ran for election in the USA.

Dude, Bernie Sanders (one of VT's senators) IS a socialist - and not in any apologetic way. Every Vermonter knows this, and he's been re-elected about a zillion times.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:23 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

caduceus Why something so convoluted when there's illegal torture, detention, spying, and who knows what else to target him with?
Peter McDermott Bugliosi is clearly saying that, as far as his murder theory goes, the deaths of Iraqi civilians are neither here nor there. What really matters are the deaths of professional American soldiers in a volunteer army.

It's the Capone problem. You can't get him for his actual crimes; therefore, you stick to him any charges that will stick. It's an abuse of process, but it's a lesser abuse of process than is the fact that you can't get him for his actual crimes.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:52 PM on November 2, 2008

Dude, Bernie Sanders (one of VT's senators) IS a socialist - and not in any apologetic way.

Good. It's about time there were considerably more, with higher profiles.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:53 PM on November 2, 2008

Capone actually did fail to pay his taxes.
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on November 2, 2008

It's the Capone problem. You can't get him for his actual crimes; therefore, you stick to him any charges that will stick. It's an abuse of process, but it's a lesser abuse of process than is the fact that you can't get him for his actual crimes.

One reason this is a Capone Problem is that some of the people who are also culpable are in a position to decide to impeach Bush. When we have to talk about deceit and murder on this scale, and yet on these such stark and obvious terms, it is really very hard for the people on the "inside" to step up and prosecute.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:21 PM on November 2, 2008

A socialist ought to focus upon needed changes in the economic and social structure of the nation--lobby groups, price supports, corporation tax madness etc etc

You don't actually understand what socialism is, do you?

It's tragic how "socialism" no longer denotes the abolishment of capitalism and the control of wealth by the workers who actually create it but instead simply means the rejiggering of capitalism. Orwell would be horrified.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:46 PM on November 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh Vermont. Someone had to pick up the ultra-liberal, outdoorsy rebellous streak after California hit 40 and started freaking out about retirement, "smile lines", and putting sun dried tomatoes on everything.
posted by The Whelk at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2008

Dude, Bernie Sanders (one of VT's senators) IS a socialist - and not in any apologetic way. Every Vermonter knows this, and he's been re-elected about a zillion times.

He appeared on an episode of Bill Maher's Real Time a few weeks back, and seemed an eminently sensible, measured and reasonable man. I liked him a lot. The 'guest panel' thing on that show far too often devolves into shouty bullshit, and he has been one of the brighter spots in recent months.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:04 PM on November 2, 2008

While we're talking about Bernie Sanders & VT as being awesome, I will shamelessly share this link of Sanders discussing the bailout.

He reads a bunch of emails from Vermonters, all of which are fairly cogent, but the awesomest part of this is that the "citizen from Springfield" is MY MOM.

I'm so proud of that state where I'm from and its well-chosen Senators and most of all, MY MOM. Holy awesome, Batman.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:04 AM on November 3, 2008

Someone had to pick up the ultra-liberal, outdoorsy rebellous streak after California hit 40

Uh, dude, we've been doing ultra-liberal and outdoorsy since before California was a STATE. The reason that VT wasn't in the original group of states ratifying the Constitution (they came in as #14) was that the state was very reluctant to belong to a federal government that allowed slavery.

We were the first state to outlaw slavery, the first to allow any sort of gay marriage (even if Civil Unions are technically a sort of cop-out)... as for outdoorsy, we don't allow billboards because they mar the scenery and you need permits if you want to cut down trees - even though they are technically weeds as most of them have planted themselves.

We're just getting more publicity than we used to as the rest of the country has moved further and further to the right. We've always been solidly liberal, it's just that the other 49 states used to be kinda liberal as well.

(I say "we" even though I now live in MA. I'll always be a Vermonster at heart, having been born and raised in the Independent Republic of Vermont. It honestly is a different world from the rest of the country, for better or worse.)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:08 AM on November 3, 2008

Also, we let felons vote, while in prison. Yay for your mom grapefruitmoon. I also wrote to Sanders about the bailout. In fact I write him pretty much every week or so. One of the interesting things about the AG race is who she's running against. The Republican/Libertarian candidate is a MtF transexual which is actually a non-issue in the entire campaign. The Liberty Union Party's candidate has an email address that is dissent@[her-isp.com] and the Democratic incumbent won with 60% of the vote last time and hasn't even updated his website this time around. He's been elected in the last five straight elections. In two elections he got both the Democratic and the Republican nominations for the postition
posted by jessamyn at 5:39 AM on November 3, 2008

On a related note: Sex Offender Runs For Senate In Vermont.
posted by Xurando at 3:05 PM on November 3, 2008

Yay! Vermont! I knew you guys opted out of the Delcaration, but I had no idea how hard core your liberal grooves are set.

Plus, you're next to Quebec! Best of all worlds/ Meilleur de Tous mondes possibles.
posted by The Whelk at 11:21 PM on November 4, 2008

Also, we let felons vote, while in prison. Yay for your mom grapefruitmoon.

That looks funny together :)
posted by terrapin at 9:49 AM on November 13, 2008

Also, we let felons vote, while in prison. Yay for your mom grapefruitmoon. That looks funny together :)

Yeah, especially as my mom has never been convicted of a felony! Felon in prison? Plz. She's totally a free-range felon.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:22 AM on November 13, 2008