Yeah, you're missing pretty much everything you mentioned. lol. But go back and read our exchanges regarding what needs to be proved for first degree murder (based on your own posts). That horse is dead.
No I'm not. And no it isn't. I pointed out that you were misreading the statute and you never responded. Here's a refresher for your memory:
Quote from: Beach Bum on June 10, 2008, 03:38:16 PM
We just have to agree to disagree. The way I read this and the way it is worded, "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought" is murder. "Murder" is then divided into first degree and second degree in the same passage based on the conduct listed in the passage.
There's nothing to agree to disagree about.
First degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
That's it for the Bush case. End of discussion.
All those other instantiations of criminal killing that follow the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER are NOT first degree murder. There is some element of malice aforethought missing.
The murder statute attributes that intent to the criminal to make the laundry list of killings murder in the first degree for policy reasons.
It [the statute] wouldn't list the various forms of conduct that amount to first degree murder and then say "[a]ny other murder is murder in the second degree."
The 'various forms of conduct' to which you refer are additions to the first degree murder definition. Those types of killings are included, for policy reasons, with first degree murder. Without inclusion in the statute, those 'various forms of conduct' would not be first degree murder b/c malice aforethought is not present in some manner.
Look up the Felony Murder rule and then look at "or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children;"....
The policy decision is that b/c the felonies are inherently dangerous, any killing done in the perpetration of those felonies automatically imputes malice aforethought/first degree murder to the killer. Same with 'black heart' definition where unintended people are killed by the killer.
Can we proceed on to the evidence now?
________________________
________________________
________________________
____________
See?
I wrote the Bush responses in this thread based on how you would have answered. Keep in mind that a judge would have directed you to answer the question posed instead parroting "everybody thought Iraq had WMDs" time and again.
Sounds like we have different definitions of relevancy.
I doubt it: Relevancy is the tendency of any fact offered as evidence in a lawsuit to prove or disprove the truth of a point in issue. How does the assertion that 'everybody believed Iraq had WMDs' prove or disprove whether Iraq was about to attack the US or not (imminency)?
What's a "directed verdict"? I would put this in different colored font, but I don't know how. 
Whatever Bush said was consistent with what the world believed about Saddam and, importantly, what Congress believed when it authorized the president to start the war in his discretion.
In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgment of acquittal for the defendant. It means Bugliosi loses b/c he failed to offer the minimum evidence sufficient to support the charge.
What specific "lie" are you talking about?
LIE #1. Was Hussein an imminent threat to the USA? No. Bush lied to Congress and the American people when he made that claim so that he could get their support for the invasion of Iraq.
Evidence:
1. Iraq was wasted by the Desert Storm, US sanctions, & Weapons Inspections. 10-15-2001 Colin Powell said, “Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They’re sad. They’re contained…” Proof of Iraq’s decrepit state was shown in the fact that Iraq fell to Coalition Forces in three weeks.
2. It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”; Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”; “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.” Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”; “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
Talk about hyperbole.
3. Bush stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden to concentrate on Hussein. The president abandoned the pursuit of OBL—the one man most responsible for the 3000 deaths on 9/11, the one he promised to bring back “dead or alive”. That is circumstantial evidence that his passion for invading Iraq was so strong that he would be much more likely to lie to the American people about Hussein being an imminent threat to the US.
4. October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”
The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq. That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours. Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US.
Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002. The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.
Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”
When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.
On 10-4-2002, Bush issued a White Paper RESTATING the information in the 10-01-2002 NIE changing the language to make mere opinions into rock solid facts and to add words showing the US homeland was a target. That’s big-time deception.
