Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Bugliosi and Dershowitz on Good Morning America 7/9/01

Expand Messages
  • aleien@jps.net
    Looking Back at Election 2000 Two Attorneys/Authors Review Supreme Court s Role in Presidential Election 2000 N E W Y O R K, July 9 — The Supreme Court s
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 10, 2001
      Looking Back at Election 2000
      Two Attorneys/Authors Review Supreme Court's Role in Presidential
      Election 2000



      N E W Y O R K, July 9 — The Supreme Court's decision in Bush vs.
      Gore confounded some critics in the field of law. Two of them, Alan
      Dershowitz, author of Supreme Injustice and Vincent Bugliosi, author
      of The Betrayal of America, tell ABCNEWS' Charlie Gibson what they
      think about the Court's handling of the historic case.




      The following is an uncorrected, unedited transcipt of Charles
      Gibson's interview with Alan Dershowitz and Vincent Bugliosi on
      ABCNEWS' Good Morning America.
      ABCNEWS' CHARLES GIBSON: As everyone knows, the Supreme Court's term
      recently ended, and it is a term that will always be remembered for
      one case, and really one case only, Bush vs. Gore, the case that
      decided the American presidency. Two new books compare that decision,
      in their words, to a "hijacking" and a "betrayal." Alan Dershowitz,
      author of "Supreme Injustice" is joining us here in New York this
      morning. And Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Betrayal of America."
      And they both do join us now. I'm trying to think as I looked at
      these books of a punch you guys pulled. I don't think there was one
      anywhere. You say the court cheated the country, stole the election.
      You compare them to white collar criminals. You call them the
      felonious five, The majority in this case and you say some acted for
      personal gain. That's strong stuff, so back it up.

      ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, AUTHOR SUPREME INJUSTICE: First of all, it is an
      obligation of lawyers to tell the truth. And many lawyers around the
      country are saying what Vince and I are saying. We just published it.
      We've had the guts to put it down and prove it. On this show, the
      morning after the election, I promised your viewers, that I would not
      let go of this because to me this was most outrageous and
      disappointing decision and in "Supreme Injustice" I went through 500
      opinions of these justices and I proved conclusively that if the shoe
      had been on the other foot, if Gore had been ahead by a few hundred
      votes and Bush needed the recount, these five justices would have
      ruled the other way. That's the most serious accusation you can make
      against justices. It violates their oath of office to administer
      justice with regard to person. And I prove it by documentary evidence
      in this Supreme Injustice.

      GIBSON: You say either way they were going to give this to Bush.
      Whether Gore had been ahead or whether Bush had been ahead.

      DERSHOWITZ: The constant was Bush wins. The variable was the law. And
      that's what I prove in Supreme Injustice.

      VINCENT BUGLIOSI, AUTHOR THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICA: Well Charlie, a
      preferatory remark. I will stake my prosecutorial reputation on the
      fact that within the pages of this book, The Betrayal of America,
      which is out in trade paperback now. And incidentally, next Sunday
      night number four on the New York--on the New York Times best seller
      list.

      GIBSON: OK, we mentioned the book.

      BUGLIOSI: I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that these five
      justices deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush. In
      the process they committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes
      in American history. And because of what they did in a fair and just
      world, they belong behind bars as much as any white collar criminal
      who ever lived. I'll just give you some of the evidence. How do you
      defend these people when they themselves in so many words confessed
      to the crime? Molly Ivans and Gerry Spence were powerful forwards to
      the book. Spence is considered to be the leading defense attorney in
      the country. How would Spence defend these people when they
      themselves, by necessary implication, confessed to the crime? If you
      give me 30 seconds, I'll explain how. They confessed to the crime by
      saying that their ruling, that different standards to count votes in
      Florida violated equal protection clause only applied, they said, to
      Bush v. Gore, not to other cases. But if their ruling set forth a
      valid legal principle good enough for Bush v. Gore, why wouldn't it
      be good enough for other cases? This is the first time, let me finish
      …

      GIBSON: Right. Yeah.

      BUGLIOSI: …this is the first time in the two hundred and ten year
      history of the court that the court limited its ruling to the case
      before it saying that it did not constitute legal precedent for any
      other case. And this fact alone clearly and unequivocally shows that
      these five justices were up to no good. That they knew their ruling
      was bogus and fraudulent, because let me tell you Charlie, if their
      ruling was based on the law there is no reason under the moon why
      they would have said that it did not apply to other cases.

      GIBSON: But someone--someone had to bring this to an end. We were on
      the cusp of Constitutional crises in this country.

      DERSHOWITZ: I don't believe that. I don't believe that.

      GIBSON: Pragmatism demanded that someone say enough, and someone had
      to validate it that way we're going. Otherwise we could have had two
      slates of electors in front of the Congress.

      DERSHOWITZ: That's exactly what the Constitution intended. Throw it
      into the House of Representatives. Scalia, more than anyone would say
      the framers of our Constitution had a method for resolving this.
      Madison said everybody but the Supreme Court should be involved in
      deciding a presidential election. And that's why Vince and I, who,
      you know, he's a prosecutor, I'm a defense attorney, we issue a
      challenge here today to any two lawyers in America to defend the
      Supreme Court. We will but the the Supreme Court on trial. He will
      cross-examine, I will do the closing arguments, let people come
      forward …

      GIBSON: I'd love to do the debate on this air. I think it would be
      fascinating.

      DERSHOWITZ: … let people--but nobody is coming forward to defend
      these people. People are defending them public because they are
      currying favor.

      GIBSON: You say they stole the election. If it had gone to the House
      of Representatives the states there would balance in Republican, the
      House was Republican, it would have gone to Bush anyway.

      DERSHOWITZ: The issue is not who would have won or lost the election,
      the issue is what the Supreme Court did. A hijacking occurs when you
      divert the airline, or even if it lands at its intended place. I'm
      not, in this book, arguing who would have won the election. In three
      years we can undo that. I'm arguing that the institution of the
      Supreme court has been forever been tainted by the supreme injustice
      that it inflicted on us. We trusted that institution to be above
      politics and these five justices acted like five Chicago political
      hacks in simply deciding who they wanted to see president.
      Manipulating the law, distorting the law and a lot of lawyers are
      saying this, they're just not saying it publicly. That's why in
      Supreme Injustice and in Vincent's book, we prove the case beyond any
      doubt.

      BUGLIOSI: Charlie, they showed they were up to good no three days
      earlier. December the ninth, Saturday morning 8:00, Bush's lead had
      shrunk over Gore's to 154 votes. The recount started. Two o' clock in
      the afternoon Scalia steps in with an emergency order, and this is
      what he said, I'm not making this up, you can't make up stuff like
      this it's just too far out. And he said, `we've got to stop this
      recount because if it continues, it could cause, quote: irreputable
      harm to George Bush" unquote. So even though the election had not yet
      been decided, the unbelievable Scalia was pre-supposing that Bush had
      won the election, indeed had a right to win it, and any recount that
      showed that Gore had won would cause irreparable harm to George Bush.
      Now I want to hypothetically do a reversal of roles. Gore's ahead.
      Saturday morning December 9, 8:00 by a 154 votes. Would Scalia have
      interviewed? Who is Scalia? He is not a typical conservative
      Republican, he's a right wing ideologue of the Rush Limbaugh school.
      It is absolutely inconceivable that Scalia would have stepped in and
      said, listen to this now, and said we've got to stop this recount
      because if it continues it could cause irreparable harm to Al Gore.
      That would not have happened. that could not have happened, and
      anyone who can tell me with a straight look on their face that Scalia
      would have done for Gore what he did for Bush, I will personally
      nominate that person for an Academy Award. And I want to say this...

      GIBSON: But now …

      BUGLIOSI: … and I want to make this point here because lawyers are
      buying in to what Al and I are saying. A national legal organization
      has written me a letter, I've since talked to them, that they're
      going to be using--thinking of using The Betrayal of America as a
      legal …

      GIBSON: All right

      BUGLIOSI: … as a legal basis, let me say, as a legal basis to ask the
      House Judiciary Committee to initiate impeachment proceedings against
      these five justices.

      GIBSON: Mr. Dershowitz, final word.

      DERSHOWITZ: I disagree. I disagree. I don't agree with impeachment.
      Impeachment just like in the Clinton case requires high crimes and
      misdemeanors, Supreme Injustice I proved they acted corruptly not
      criminally.

      GIBSON: How? All right.

      DERSHOWITZ: And I prove it by demonstrating that they were
      inconsistent with their prior opinions.

      BUGLIOSI: I disagree with Alan on that. I disagree. I say they're
      criminals and belong behind bars and they should be impeached. They
      should be impeached.

      DERSHOWITZ: Read both of our books and decide for yourselves.

      GIBSON: Strong stuff. We'll be back. Thank you both for being here.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.