I got the figures from a video by Democracy today, but my memory was selective. I checked their site,http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6 because a clipper thinkingblue has a clip on the same topic-I was going to post the video, and thought there may have been other clippers including you who got ahead of me. I had the number wrong by 100, but the ratio stayed about the same. 105 of 106 prosecutions. Only one loss.
Still, I'm not too well versed on prosecution workload
Seems there is unlikely to be a better man for the job.
If anyone can nail him according to the law as it stands it will be Bugliosi. The least he will do is continue to make it harder to ignore the carcass under the carpet.
A ...

I got the figures from a video by Democracy today, but my memory was selective. I checked their site,http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6 because a clipper thinkingblue has a clip on the same topic-I was going to post the video, and thought there may have been other clippers including you who got ahead of me. I had the number wrong by 100, but the ratio stayed about the same. 105 of 106 prosecutions. Only one loss.
Still, I'm not too well versed on prosecution workload
Seems there is unlikely to be a better man for the job.
If anyone can nail him according to the law as it stands it will be Bugliosi. The least he will do is continue to make it harder to ignore the carcass under the carpet.
A conviction would lead us to two 'allegedly' unlikely alternatives.
A) There is a Conspiracy, or
B) The Accused was 'Mastermind' and sole architect of the enterprise
As far as the legal definition of conspiracy is concerned, Two people talking about committing a Felony (or misdemeanor?). are guilty of conspiracy.
See it on the news all of the time..even on Fox

I was wondering who got away, and found this site which looks for inconsistencies in Bugliosis' book, not to absolve GWB, but pointing to elements beyond Bush which the book ignores.
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reclaiming-history-from-vince-bugliosi.html, but I didn't see that mentioned
There is a bit about the relationship between the office of president and the CIA (GB Sr once lead the CIA)
Which may be of interest.
Another thing which is not directly related, was a reference to a bill going through the house
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811
Looks like a bill for a paper trail of the vote.
that's been put on the calender, for a vote by the house....

I was wondering who got away, and found this site which looks for inconsistencies in Bugliosis' book, not to absolve GWB, but pointing to elements beyond Bush which the book ignores.
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/reclaiming-history-from-vince-bugliosi.html, but I didn't see that mentioned
There is a bit about the relationship between the office of president and the CIA (GB Sr once lead the CIA)
Which may be of interest.
Another thing which is not directly related, was a reference to a bill going through the house
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811
Looks like a bill for a paper trail of the vote.
that's been put on the calender, for a vote by the house. I don't know enough about house rules to know if that means the calender is in 2007,08, or 09
While it's only vaguely relevant to the clip, they both look like the kinds of sites that you would find interesting.- but GWB was elected wasn't he? At least once? It's a shame you can't trace votes that have fallen off the back of a truck into a swamp.