The following was sent with a copy of The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder to 2,200 prosecutors.
I am herein enclosing a copy of my New York Times bestselling book The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. I hope that you will find the time to read it and that you will agree with its essential conclusion-that George Bush took this nation to war in Iraq on a lie, under false pretenses, and therefore, under the law, he is guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers who have died so far fighting his war in Iraq.
If you agree, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to talk or perhaps meet with you to discuss two main points. First, whether there is sufficient legally admissible evidence against Bush (in my opinion, there is clear and very persuasive evidence) to warrant a criminal prosecution against him now that he has left office. It should be noted that in addition to all the primary evidence set forth in my book, I think we can be very confident that during a grand jury investigation and with the power of subpoena, much more evidence of Bush's guilt (as well as that of his co-conspirators like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice) will emerge. Just one example. In a book by Ron Suskind that came out after mine, The Way of the World, he presents evidence that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a document linking Hussein with Al Qaeda. The second point to be considered is whether your office would have jurisdiction to prosecute Bush (see pages 154-156, 168, 305-307, and 309-310 of my book) for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from your county who died fighting his war. If the answer to each of these questions is "yes," and you are willing to proceed with this legal case, I would of course be available to assist you in any way you saw fit in this historic prosecution. That assistance could range, if you chose, from being a consultant all the way up to and including being appointed a special prosecutor.
Indeed, a recent candidate for a state Attorney General announced at a press conference with me that if she won, she would appoint me special prosecutor to seek a murder indictment against George Bush. But she entered the race too late (on September 18, just a month and a half before the election), and because she had an under-financed campaign she was unable to get her message out to the citizens of the state. As a result, she did not do well against a well-entrenched Democratic incumbent who had been in office since 1998. It should be mentioned that a poll showed that by 4-1, people in the state said they would vote for a candidate for Attorney General who would pursue Bush criminally. But the campaign, without adequate funds, was unable to connect the candidate with this sentiment already out there. In a related vein, a New York Times-CBS national poll in 2005 showed that the majority of Americans believed that Bush had "intentionally misled" America into war in Iraq.
I don't have to tell you that in America, no man is so high that he is above the law. If we prosecute those in America who only commit one murder, under what theory don't we prosecute a president who is criminally responsible for over four thousand murders? And let's not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies who have died horrible, violent deaths because of Bush's war. Bush is obviously guilty of these murders also, but I was unable to establish jurisdiction here in American to prosecute Bush for the deaths of these Iraqi citizens. However, I was able to establish jurisdiction here in America to prosecute Bush for the deaths of those American soldiers who have died in Iraq fighting Bush's war.
By way of footnote, although I am aware of one constitutional scholar who says that George Bush has immunity from prosecution, the only legal authority he cites for this is a civil case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). But the Fitzgerald case only holds that a president has immunity from civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecution. Indeed, the United States Constitution itself (Article I, Section 3, cl. 7) and The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton in essay number 69 in 1787) make it clear that the president has no immunity from prosecution. If a president had such immunity, there wouldn't have been any need for President Ford to pardon former President Nixon in 1974. Several prominent constitutional scholars have endorsed the conclusion of my book that Bush can be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom for the deaths of American soldiers in the Iraq war.
One additional point. The cost of this proposed prosecution would be great, most likely far beyond the budget of your office. However, there can be little doubt that if it became known that your office was actually proceeding in the prosecution of Bush, and funds were needed, all the money that was necessary would pour in from people around the country to help finance the prosecution. This, of course, is completely permissible. An example in point (but where the group was a number of Louisiana businessmen) was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiracy to commit murder in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
To capsulize my feelings on this matter, although I may not succeed, I'm not going to be satisfied until I see George Bush in an American courtroom being prosecuted for first degree murder. George Bush cannot be permitted to get away with murder. I realize my biggest obstacle is the perceptive observation made by Mark Twain: "Why is physical courage so common, but moral courage so very rare?"
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter, one that would be the biggest murder case in this nation's history. I look forward to a positive response from you at your earliest convenience.
P.S. A documentary for the big screen based on my book is nearing completion and is scheduled to be released within the next half year.