Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins

By JOHN CURRAN â?? 2 hours ago

BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) â?? Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett's.

Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.

Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq â?? U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.

She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.

"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."

Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.

Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed "overt acts" including the military's recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.

"No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law," said Bugliosi.

The White House press office didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett.

"It's extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont," Latoff said. "These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can't be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general."

Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It's the only state Bush hasn't visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.

In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.

Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn't believe a Vermont attorney general would have the authority to charge Bush.

"The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president," Sorrell said.

The Associated Press: Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins

hahaha. i guess she really wants to get elected? kind of rediculous..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seattlesmoke247

hahaha. i guess she really wants to get elected? kind of rediculous..

---

ridiculous, no...but wouldn't it be nice for him to pay the price..

Is more power to her! :thumbsup:

Would be nice to see,but I seriously doubt it.

so we have another fool out whoring for votes amongst the naive and misguided. will we ever get over this silliness? if we were to prosecute every politician that ever lied or wasted the lives of the innocent through their stupidity our prisons would be full of petty bureaucrats (probably not such a bad idea, but a bit it wouldn't solve any problems). i suppose we can go on with this childish game of scapegoating, but wouldn't it be more productive to grow up and indict the entire system for the failed experiment that it is? you elect these self-serving vermin, grow disenchanted with their predetermined failure, and then attempt to have them imprisoned or thrown our on their ears. you do it over and over again, as if expecting a different result each time. isn't that a prime indication of insanity? is this entire country mad or are you all just angry that you have handed your power over to imbeciles? all over the world it's the same damn thing, people placing their faith in idiots and then acting surprised when it all comes crashing down around them. i suppose it's easier than investing any real power in the people themselves and accepting responsibility for the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

you elect these self-serving vermin

---

i will have to agree with what u say about a major fix to the system.
However! however, as it is a known FACT Bush was elected not by the people but by the system. no1 can deny that!

and there are some idiots who will ignore all the facts and certain other idiots who keep falling in the same ditch over n over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

however, as it is a known FACT Bush was elected not by the people but by the system. no1 can deny that!

---

here we go, the big "however". let's avoid taking any responsibility and blame the system. who the hell do you think put that system there in the first place? who is it that allows the big machine to keep on growing, consuming our wealth and our freedoms as it grows?

or are we amongst the "bush stole the election" crowd? there are a million rationalizations to deflect blame and you know perfectly well that they're all a stinking pile. we are all ultimately responsible for allowing these systems to remain in place and for demanding that government give us more and more of what we aren't really entitled to. we want all the perks without any of the onus and we aren't satisfied until we all have it all.

on individual basis u cant blame everyone, many were opposed to it and made their fullest efforts to make their voice heard and things changed, thats why i blame the system and this includes their blind supporters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

on individual basis u cant blame everyone, many were opposed to it and made their fullest efforts to make their voice heard and things changed, thats why i blame the system and this includes their blind supporters

---

oh god.. get over it

Bush had 47.87% of the popular vote in 2000
Gore had 48.38% of the popular vote in 2000
Nader had 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000

The republican party got 271 electoral votes
The democrat party got 266 electoral votes..

Even if you take away the 25 electoral votes from florida it doesn't change the fact that... get this.. wait for it

THE RACE WAS A FRIGGIN CLOSE RACE

You're saying no one voted for him.. well apparently almost the same amount of people for Bush that voted for Gore.

Keep in mind we are a republic, we were never founded as a democracy. And as such we have representatives whose votes count more than the popular vote. There have been 4 other times in history where a president won the electoral college but did not win the popular vote.

I supposed these were all conspiracy also?

Get over it, it's not like Gore was winning by a landslide. I don't particularly care for Bush but I'm not out there crying either; he won the way the system was setup for a person to win.. through the electoral college.

And you're pushing your own bias and agenda onto other people by saying

Quote:

---

on individual basis u cant blame everyone, many were opposed to it and made their fullest efforts to make their voice heard and things changed, thats why i blame the system and this includes their blind supporters

---

Apparently nearly 50% of the people were for Bush.. as were nearly 50% for Gore.

If you want to blame someone.. then blame our founding fathers who gave us our freedom.

When you are thinking about what type of person you are voting for president.. you should really be thinking about what type of person you are going to vote into your state government.. you should think about what senators you want to vote for.. what representatives you want to vote for. These are the things that you should consider.

Vote like minded people into office on those levels and you will have people that will vote for the candidate you wish as well.

Voting is more than just voting at the presidential level.

Here is a good article on the election process. I feel that the majority of people who complain that Bush "stole" the election don't really understand it.

Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college

I'm glad Daihashi and delusionofnormality are here to put some common sense into this thread.

What a ridiculous notion to get votes. I dunno, how about instead of pandering to a crowd who hates a lame duck president how about we get our priorities straight and focus on the real issues.

Maybe b/c Charlotte Dennett is just as crooked as any other politician. Wasting time and resources for something so stupid is insane. She should be tarred and feathered 1776 style.

This seems like a big grandstanding ploy that has no basis in reality.

If they want to try Bush, they'll have to do it in The Hague, not Vermont! It's not going to happen either way, so it's a bogus issue if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

However! however, as it is a known FACT Bush was elected not by the people but by the system. no1 can deny that!

---

Hasn't the same thing happened as of late with Clinton/Obama? I thought this would have been a dead issue with the dems now.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Hasn't the same thing happened as of late with Clinton/Obama? I thought this would have been a dead issue with the dems now.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

zzzzzzing!!!:jointsmile:
whiskeytango

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

on individual basis u cant blame everyone, many were opposed to it and made their fullest efforts to make their voice heard and things changed, that's why i blame the system and this includes their blind supporters

---

oh how my heart bleeds for those who strive to make their voices heard amidst the corruption (can you feel the sarcasm and derision dripping from every word i write?). excuse me while i tune my violin. while the partisans are playing their silly games and standing in the rain for a chance to boo their rivals, they are merely playing their part in the perpetuation of a broken system. the blindness encompasses both sides of the aisle, as well as each individual who claims "i've done my part".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

What a ridiculous notion to get votes. I dunno, how about instead of pandering to a crowd who hates a lame duck president how about we get our priorities straight and focus on the real issues.

---

i find it quite apt that when you look up the term pandering the first definition you read is - To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer. the orgasmic displays of approval for the expressed hatred of the opposition are particularly sexual in nature and absent of the deliberation you would hope would accompany a thoughtful discussion of the running of the country. while the left engages in its orgiastic game of laying the woes of the world at the feet of the present administration, they are countered by an equally absurd display of nationalistic glee from the right. the game goes on and absolutely nothing is done about what really ails the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

If they want to try Bush, they'll have to do it in The Hague, not Vermont! It's not going to happen either way, so it's a bogus issue if you ask me.

---

of course it won't happen. to try one petty tyrant for his imagined crimes, they would have to indict every government for their real crimes. they would be forced to admit that the true cause of government is to enslave its people or be seen as the hypocrites they are.