Bugliosi of 1970s supports conspiracy in RFK case!

[David Octopus]

Some of you might be aware of this very interesting-revealing piece of history,
but lets stress it here again!

Vince Bugliosi was a part of the conspiracy scene during the mid 1970s when
he worked on behalf of a client alleging conspiracy in the RFK case.

Now, since the mid 1980s with the Oswald TV trial on british TV he goes exactly in the
opposite direction with his arguments. Unbelievable, also check his recent videos on
his "Bush Murder" book, this guy is just very very strange.

With respect to his latest "Bush Murder" book, one could call it the strategy of "overstating/overblowing" the case, it could be a diversionary tactic either/and/or to put blame only on one individual,
by all acounts Bush is just a cog in the much bigger machine. On the other hand this could be also
interpreted as some sort of psyop type preparational work to soften up the audience for throwing Bush and the neocons under the bus by some rival inner clique (think Brezinski et al) before the elections.

Bugliosi in all his radio and TV interviews ALWAYS brags for minutes about his credentials as
having numerous top ten selling books, highest score conviction rate as former LA county
deputy prosecutor etc. And that he is not in this for fame, hah?!?


Two part video on "Bugliosi as former conspiracy theorist":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4UgPBS4RA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspLZ825JCE

[PurpleHaze]

David Octopus wrote:

...this guy is just very very strange.

That he is.

With respect to his latest "Bush Murder" book, one could call it the strategy of "overstating/overblowing" the case, it could be a diversionary tactic either/and/or to put blame only on one individual, by all accounts Bush is just a cog in the much bigger machine.

Have you read the book? I haven't, but I can't imagine anybody with even half an ounce of brains placing responsibility for Iraq solely on Dumbya. What about Cheney and the rest of the neocon cabal? The "news" media? The roll over and play dead Democrats?

In the comments section on YouTube I noticed this post by "SCGATOR"...

"Bugliosi has now convinced HBO to produce a 10 part miniseries to "convince" the American Public that there was a lone gunman, not a conspiracy. The series will star Tom Hanks."

I don't know if HBO is actually doing the series, but Tom Hanks is another guy that I often wonder about.

Thanks for injecting some life into this very dead board, David.

[David Octopus]

Thanks for the reply.

Also check the link from the Bugliosi CT video it's on the bottom of the info page.
That leads to 2007 TV interview on Hardball with David Talbot, where Bugliosi had the
opportunity to clear his CT background up, and he didn't answer it..

--
In terms of Hanks, this guy is also a bit strange, taking parts in reality&history
distortion/cover-up flics such as "Apollo 13", "Charlie Wilson's War", and others..
Although I liked "Forrest Gump", the undertones about 1960-70s contra culture=bad,
1980s reaganomics=good were clearly apparent..

I'm afraid the Bugliosi-Hanks mini series is still in the plans/works because he mentioned
it also in 2008 "Bush Murder" book TV interviews. This will be a major setback,
because Hanks is "beloved" by the nation. It's like compensating for the fact that Stone's
JFK got on board very beloved actors at that time like Kevin Kostner, Walter Matthau, Jack Lemon,
Spacek and others who boosted up the credibility of the project and increased the public anger..

But who knows their motivation, that's almost like telling the Sutherland jr. that in comparison
to his father (depicting Col. Prouty in Stone's JFK) he is just a complete establishment
whore and sellout by doing that "24" terror/torture TV series (which I do think is exactly the case
given his fallapart career beforehand)..

[David Octopus]

This is an interesting point of departure in the critique of the "Manson" trial debate leading to the role of our dear friend Bugliosi. The research by the early WC critic Mae Brussell presents strong case that the booming less consumeristic-non violant(no war)-contraculture-hippy movement, gaining significant strenght since 1967 had to be stopped.

The "Manson" case depicted by the msm in long and powerfull *campaign as "violant hippy gang" presents one of the reactionary tactics which brought it down. Bugliosi sold 7mil. copies of one book only on that myth-topic! Mae provides very interesting personal look on the attacks against the contra-culture at that time and info about Manson's background, "fake hippie", apparently financing his sect by contacts in shady mil.industrial complex circles, etc.

The first two audio links:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Audio/Merrill%20College%20Lecture.html

A bit more free stuff from Mae's archive here:
http://mondocratic.podomatic.com/

PS the fact that Bugliosi planned to reopen the RFK case in mid 1970s when several House/Senate investigations have been taking place - and it was already after Ted Charach famous Golden Globe nominated documentary, The Second Gun (1973), suggest that Vince was and is a very top disinfo plant and possibly higher echelon operative
(credited source of recent Vince Palamara's "conversion" to lone nutterism).


Bugliosi's timeline:
LA psycho prosecutor - Manson fame - RFK case reopen "attempt" - Oswald UK TV trial - OJ - JFK - Bush Murder


Sorry Vince the pattern is clear, you can't hide now..


--
* as mentioned hollywood opus "Forrest Gump" clearly follows this fake history scenario,
i.e. setting up strawman = those dirty and violant hippies versus good old middle class values, everybody finds salvation in consumeristic reaganomic 1980s afterwards, .. , hmm too bad I'm starting to dislike Hanks very much..

[PurpleHaze]

Our friend Bugliosi was a guest on the Alex Jones show yesterday. I haven't managed to listen to the entire interview yet, but it seems that Jones let Bugliosi stick to the topic of prosecuting Bush without bringing up any of those "whacky conspiracy theories." I suppose that makes sense, since otherwise the discussion would've no doubt turned into a scream fest. As full of shit as he is in so many areas, Bugliosi does make a good case for charging Bush with murder, and you can't argue with him about the apathy and cowardice displayed by our "liberal lights," either. Bugliosi charges Bush with 100,000 Iraqi deaths. I think it's more like a million, and then if you include the million and a half or so that Bush 1 and Clinton killed off... I wonder why Bugliosi doesn't accuse them, too?

The Jones program will be repeated for the rest of the weekend, at Infowars. http://www.infowars.com/

Below is an excerpt of a piece that Bugliosi published at Huffington Post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense.

Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken on the David Letterman show said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his budget."

Senator Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No President of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war." But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html



Thanks for all the info, insight, and links, David. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I haven't played all the audio/video clips yet. I had a molar pulled Tuesday, (split the root and pulled it out in pieces) and afterward suffered an allergic reaction to the prescribed antibiotic. Benadryl and Vicodin knocked me out before I tore all my skin off, but during the night the stitches covering the hole where my tooth was came undone, and I woke up with a mouthful of blood. I bled steadily until the oral surgeon stitched me up again, Wednesday afternoon. I was getting a little woozy by then. As a finishing touch, the right side of my face swelled up until I looked like a squirrel gathering its winter stash. I'm still pretty sore, but getting better. I really know how to have a good time, man.

[MinM]

David Octopus wrote:

...this guy is just very very strange.

That he is.

With respect to his latest "Bush Murder" book, one could call it the strategy of "overstating/overblowing" the case, it could be a diversionary tactic either/and/or to put blame only on one individual, by all accounts Bush is just a cog in the much bigger machine.

Have you read the book? I haven't, but I can't imagine anybody with even half an ounce of brains placing responsibility for Iraq solely on Dumbya. What about Cheney and the rest of the neocon cabal? The "news" media? The roll over and play dead Democrats?

In the comments section on YouTube I noticed this post by "SCGATOR"...

"Bugliosi has now convinced HBO to produce a 10 part miniseries to "convince" the American Public that there was a lone gunman, not a conspiracy. The series will star Tom Hanks."

I don't know if HBO is actually doing the series, but Tom Hanks is another guy that I often wonder about.

Thanks for injecting some life into this very dead board, David.

Playtone, Tom Hanks' production company, does not appear to have anything in the works for the Bugliosi book. That's the good news from a quick check of the IMDB. Now the bad news:

Just as the truth gains more traction in the mainstream:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Former_President_Ford_secretly_told_FBI_0809.html

Mole exposed doubts on JFK assassination | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Real History Blog: The Real History of Gerald Ford, Watergate, and the CIA


Hollywood is bringing the Hartmann/Waldron disinformation to the big screen:

Waldron's 'Legacy of Secrecy' - Entertainment News, Liz Smith, Media - Variety

[PurpleHaze]

Where've you been, MinM? This is such a lonely place without you...        

I posted on multiple boards myself for a while, way back, but find the burnout factor is bad enough just from regurgitating news items in one forum. (Or is that "Fourm"?)  I'm supposed to be doing housework right now, and if I don't want to eat Cheerios or peanut butter and jelly for dinner, I ought to get started. I guess I just want to say that your posts are so good that I hope they don't stop coming. On the other hand, I also understand that posting on a dead board begins to seem pointless after a while. There's no "back and forth" here; no debate. I've always considered debate/argument to be a source of growth and learning, and for me at least, it's fun, too. At least a person can express their point of view here without censorship, and that counts for a lot.

CLIP FROM "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFOgLI4DwRU

CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR - misinformation in the movie
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.Channel&ChannelID=301499050

[Doctorno]

I think it possible Bugliosi threw the issues of the past behind him to promote this book. I do think it more important that Bush and Company is prosecuted for their crimes. Brining up JFK or RFK at this point is counter productive to getting Bush and Co. Indicted.

I am not saying Bugliosi is an angel, just a pragmitist.

[PurpleHaze]

I think it possible Bugliosi threw the issues of the past behind him to promote this book. I do think it more important that Bush and Company is prosecuted for their crimes. Brining up JFK or RFK at this point is counter productive to getting Bush and Co. Indicted.

I am not saying Bugliosi is an angel, just a pragmitist.

Is there anything about the Democrats that makes you think they'll ever indict Bushco? Not in a million years, IMHO. Bugliosi did recently bring up JFK, with his shitty "Oswald did it" book. But, he seems to be passionate in his belief that Bushco ought to be punished, which is something, at least.

Rambling on... I've wanted to throw something at the screen every time I've heard Obamarama, Biden, the TeeVee talking heads, et al, refer to John McCain as a "war hero" and blather on about his "brave service to his country," etc, etc. The asshole was bombing civilian targets when he got shot down, as part of a fascist war of aggression. Americans ought to be collectively ashamed of our genocide in Vietnam, not talking about it like it was some great shining moment in our history. Fuck McCain and every dolt that calls him a "hero." Grrrr.... 

[Doctorno]

The last Hero to hold office was Ike for warning us about the M.I.C. which when You listen closely, included the University system.

I think it clear that This Administration is running a crime syndicate. the reason the Democrats are "lame" is that Martial Law has been declared as of 911.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

I see no better explanation for events as I see it.

[PurpleHaze]

The last Hero to hold office was Ike for warning us about the M.I.C. which when You listen closely, included the University system.

I think it clear that This Administration is running a crime syndicate. the reason the Democrats are "lame" is that Martial Law has been declared as of 911.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

I see no better explanation for events as I see it.

Eisenhower warned us as he left office, which I suppose means he was powerless to do anything about the MIC as president, and he knew it. They killed his successor, and collectively I think most of us know it, but we're unable to do anything about it. (RFK and many others, as well)

About your previous comment: Bringing up JFK or RFK at this point is counter productive to getting Bush and Co. Indicted. You mean that it's a distraction, right? I think even using 9-11 as a spear point against Bush could be viewed the same way. He and Cheney are guilty of breaking so many laws, and guilty of so much outright treason, that that alone is (or should be) more than enough to drag their sorry asses  out of office and put them behind bars. Pushing "conspiracy theories" to the forefront blurs the distinction between the very legitimate legal case that Bugliosi (among others) has laid out, and the "tinfoil hat loonies" that the MSM and 99% of our gov't "representatives" like to portray JFK/9-11 researchers as being. I could've said it better, I think, but did I summarize your point reasonably well? It makes sense to me... stick to what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, if this is true... the reason the Democrats are "lame" is that Martial Law has been declared as of 911... then are we just fucked, altogether?
-----------------------------

Evidence is Growing: Continuity of Government Plan is Currently in Effect

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then Congress acting even more obviously like corporate and military lapdogs than normal and totally ignoring the will of the people would make sense. It would make sense that "impeachment is off the table", because Congress would not even be sitting at the table under a non-constitutional COG form of government; and Congress certainly would not be a co-equal branch of government with the Executive branch.

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then the corporate media's acting even more obviously like the disinformation arm of the government than usual would make sense.

Given the stakes, it is vital that we demand that Congress and the White House state on the record whether or not Continuity of Government plans are currently in effect. We're not going to make any progress on whatever issue is most important to us -- peace, liberty, election integrity/vote fraud, 9/11 truth, etc. -- if we are living under a COG regime and we don't even know it.  http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/

[Doctorno]

"About your previous comment: Bringing up JFK or RFK at this point is counter productive to getting Bush and Co. Indicted. You mean that it's a distraction, right? I think even using 9-11 as a spear point against Bush could be viewed the same way. He and Cheney are guilty of breaking so many laws, and guilty of so much outright treason, that that alone is (or should be) more than enough to drag their sorry asses  out of office and put them behind bars."

I feel the issue of JFK RFK is a distraction to Vincent B. going after Pinky and the Brain.

We should investigate everything to the max. That is why We are here. At the same time I can see the need for Vince to stay focused on getting the original evil ones.

[barbh]

Hello.  I am new posting here.  I just wanted to add my two cents about the Bugliosi book on George W. Bush.  I have always thought that was very fishy.  To attempt to charge Bush with murder, seems to be overcharging on a massive scale.  One would have to prove Bush intended to kill all those people. Surely with Bugliosi's legal experience he would be well aware of that.
 I feel like Bugliosi may have been trying to  ingratiating himself with the huge number of people who dislike Bush, in order to have some credibility with them when he puts forward the book on JFK.

[PurpleHaze]

Hello. I am new posting here. I just wanted to add my two cents about the Bugliosi book on George W. Bush. I have always thought that was very fishy. To attempt to charge Bush with murder, seems to be overcharging on a massive scale. One would have to prove Bush intended to kill all those people. Surely with Bugliosi's legal experience he would be well aware of that.
I feel like Bugliosi may have been trying to ingratiate himself with the huge number of people who dislike Bush, in order to have some credibility with them when he puts forward the book on JFK.

Hi Barb,

I think that proving Bush's intent to murder would be pretty easy, wouldn't it, since he ordered the '03 invasion and the "shock and awe" attacks. What would one expect to be the result of such actions, if not death on a massive scale? If Bugliosi was serious, though, he would've also charged Clinton and daddy Bush as well. The U.S. was responsible - directly or indirectly - for the deaths of more than two million Iraqis during those three administrations, and the total continues to rise under Obama.

Thanks very much for inspiring me to scribble something. There are several posts that I've been meaning to respond to, but haven't been able to make myself do it. Lots of personal, real world distractions going on too, which hasn't helped.

Keep writing - the board needs you. 

[chuck1972]

i am glad this topic was here bugliousi from the campaign in 75 is rather difficult to reconsile with the reclaiming history prosecuters brief.