Poor William's Journal

June 19, 2004

People vs. Bush

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERNMOST DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES  )    Case No. CRIM-E-04-1079 XYZ/EJ
OF AMERICA                   )
                             )       TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
            vs.              )         JURY TRIAL
                             )
GEORGE W. BUSH               )
                             )
-----------------------------)
  
  Opening Statement by the Defense
  
  May it please the court; ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

We all know that George W. Bush shot and fatally wounded John Kerry at the start of their only public debate of the 2004 presidential campaign. Tens of millions of Americans saw this occur on nationwide television. As the evidence will show, however, my client is not guilty of murder. It is clear that he shot Mr. Kerry in justifiable self-defense.

You will know this because of the testimony of the witnesses in this case. As the head of the Navy Service Record Branch will testify, Mr. Kerry is known to have killed other human beings, and he has carried and used lethal weapons on numerous occasions. The Secret Service Chief will tell you that although Mr. Kerry passed through a metal detector inspection station without incident, and although he had no personal knowledge that Mr. Kerry was carrying a weapon, based on intelligence from reliable informants and the ease with which weapons can be concealed, he had informed the President that it was a "slam dunk" that Kerry was armed and dangerous. The fact that Mr. Kerry was later found to be carrying no such weapons is not conclusive. The United States of America is a very large country (larger than the State of Texas) and the possibility exists that such weapons may yet be found.

You will also hear that Kerry posed a clear and present danger to the personal security and well-being of the President. It is undisputed that on numerous occasions Mr. Kerry threatened to take away Mr. Bush's livelihood and "send him back to Texas." Mr. Kerry has been heard to accuse the President of misleading the country, bungling his job, dishonesty, complacency in the face of a grave threat, fiscal irresponsibility, and poor leadership. Furthermore, it will be shown that Mr. Kerry has repeatedly threatened Mr. Bush, his friends, and family, by stating his intention to repeal tax cuts and other benefits that they had been granted, thus depriving them of valuable income and property.

It is undisputed that Mr. Kerry has a history of taking strong public stands against the policies of the President and the Congress of the United States when the country was at war in a foreign land. In fact, the evidence will show that he once was president of a prominent organization that sought to undermine the United States war effort, and participated in a demonstration where he and other members of the armed forces were seen to throw away their awards, which were part of the military uniform. Furthermore, Kerry is known to have close ties and relationships with the Democratic Party, which is known to be hostile, and is seeking to overthrow the current government. It was therefore entirely reasonable for Mr. Bush to have believed that Mr. Kerry, because of his previous seditious activities and current criticisms, posed a grave threat to the national security of the country in a time of war and great peril.

The testimony of the Attorney General and of the President's personal counsel will establish that they had both advised him that he was above the law when issues of national security were involved. This advice, taken together with the sworn duties of the President and his sincerely held beliefs that the policies of his opponent would take the nation down the wrong path, impelled him to act as he did. Indeed, numerous polls taken at the time of the debates will establish that there was a reasonable likelihood that Mr. Kerry might have prevailed in the upcoming presidential election. Given these possibilities, the evidence will be that my client had no choice but to act preemptively.

Finally, you will hear testimony from the lips of the President himself, and from noted religious leaders (including famous TV evangelists) as to their sincere belief that it was the will of God that Mr. Bush continue as President of the United States. Thus, for Mr. Bush to have acted other than as he did would have been contrary to the will of God, and to His divine purpose.

For these reasons, and in keeping with the Christian conscience of this nation and its system of justice, you will have no choice but to find my client, George W. Bush, not guilty.

BACK to Journal Main Page