In Case You Blinked: 2 Yale, 1 Harvard Alum Dispatch George W. Bush's War Crime Trial In 32 Minutes In Case You Blinked: 2 Yale, 1 Harvard Alum Dispatch George W. Bush's War Crime Trial In 32 Minutes
By Martin Hill
Dec. 21, 2016


In case you missed it, nine days ago three ivy-league black-robed villains dispatched the matter of George W. Bush's and company's war crimes in a mere 32 minutes.

The federal civil lawsuit Saleh v. Bush is brought by an Iraqi woman, Sundus Shaker Saleh, against former President George W. Bush as well as Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Ms. Saleh is a single mother of three from Iraq who had to flee her country, and alleges that the planning and execution of the Iraq war was illegal.

The case was dismissed in 2014 but the plaintiff appeal was heard in San Francisco's Ninth Circuit Court on December 12th. The three-judge appellate panel was comprised of Judges Andrew David Hurwitz, a 69-year-old Yale grad and Obama apointee; Susan P. Graber, a 67-year-old Yale Law School grad and Bill Clinton appointee; and Richard Franklin Boulware II, a 48-year-old black Harvard Law School grad who was also appointed by Obama.

Here are their photos. from left to right: Hurwitz, Graber and Boulware.

The lawyer representing the plaintiff is Inder Comar, his Twitter page is here , and his website is He took the case pro bono.

I was (un)fortunate enough to have caught the entire hearing.

The most stunning thing about the whole hearing is that it did not grant the proper respect to the gravity of the matter. This is supposedly a war crimes trial, for a war which has caused the death of untold millions of people, along with endless suffering, destruction, and misery.

Are there any others out there who are old-time Ron Paul supporters, who in the early 2000's, after learning the truth about 9/11, and watching this war, all the torture, the lies, the sophisticated deceptions, the murders, rapes, droning, the blowback, the police state here at home... did ANYONE even ever join the leftie hippies for anti-war protests back then? Sure, we disagreed with them on most things but they cared and were right about the war... I for one had hoped that one day, just maybe, George W. Bush and his gaggle of arch-criminal neocon buddies would face some kind of consequences.

So frankly, watching this shit made me sick. I was actually surprised at how angry it made me. I actually recorded the whole thing live as it aired because I didnt know if it would disappear after the live-steaming. I recorded the final two minutes with my commentary live, you can watch that video here: BLACK-ROBED VILLAINS!!.

It was 32 minutes in length. The three judges heard oral arguments from three lawyers; first up was the plaintiff's attorney Inder Comar. They were pretty tough on him and seemed to scoff at his argument, repeatedly asking basically why, if the defendants were conducting their jobs as federal employees in the scope of their employment, why are they not protected under existing law.

The black judge on the right even asks, (paraphrasing here) "If Wolfowitz is walking down some stairs to plot an illegal war and trips and falls down and gets injured, is he covered under workers comp? Was he acting in the scope of his employment or not?"

Comar seems a bit befuddled by such an absurd question, and stammers a bit. He keeps citing case law, but the female judge asks him to just explain his case to them in plain language, which I found interesting.

Up next was another lawyer with an amicus brief arguing also on the side of the plaintiff. Lastly was the attorney for the United States. Surprisingly. the court seemed to grill him quite extensively and after hearing all his arguments, asked, is there ANYTHING that federal employees could do that wouldn't be excused under immunity laws? (Such as, a motivation of personal financial enrichment or personal revenge "for what they did to George H.W. Bush."

The man replied, "Maybe," but added that financial gain was not cited as a motive by the plaintiffs in this case.

The U.S. lawyer argued that simply having a personal motivation for war on the half of the defendants would not meet the standards in this case.

The court then allowed Comar to give a brief closing argument and adjourned, The hearing was completed, and they left for the day. They did not rule at this time, they will do that in writing.

Wow, 32 minutes is all our 'justice system' grants for a war with untold millions of deaths and consequences of Biblical proportions. Amazing.

The thing I found most surprising and interesting is that the judges wanted them to talk in 'plain language'.

When you think about the enormity of this situation, here someone is calling into question a case of war with millions killed and they are given 32 minutes for the proceedings. I've seen TRAFFIC TICKET and small claims trials where the hearing or appeal lasts longer than that. They seemed to have a predetermined decision and seemed very cavalier about the whole thing. I guess Americans are numb to this whole war thing. It's like its not real, and the rulers are simply above reproach.

The court's docket calender notes: "Sundus Saleh v. George Bush - Sundus Saleh appeals the district court's dismissal of Saleh's diversity putative class action brought against former President Bush and Bush administration officials alleging that they broke the law when they engaged in war with Iraq. [3:13-cv-01124-JST]."

Watch the video here:

Here is the original version, in which the audio.seems to sound better. Go to 1:07:33 (one hour, and 7 minutes & 33 seconds) where this hearing begins.

The press release about the lawsuit against Bush stated,

San Francisco, Calif. — December 12, 2016 was a historic day, marking the first time that a U.S. court heard argument related to the actions of senior Bush-era officials who were responsible for the planning and waging of the Iraq War.

Circuit court judges Andrew Hurwitz and Susan Graber and District Court judge Richard Boulware (sitting by designation on the 9th Circuit), heard argument that the immunity granted to former President George W. Bush and other officials by the federal district court related to their conduct in waging the Iraq War should be overturned. This immunity was provided in December 2014, resulting in the current appeal.

The judges spent most of oral argument focusing on the nature of the domestic immunity, questioning both counsel for the Iraqi plaintiff, Sundus Saleh, as well as counsel for the United States about where immunity ends for government officials.

The judges will issue their opinion as to whether the immunity should be overturned in the coming weeks.


Visit for the latest daily news. Mike Rivero also has a great 3-hour daily radio show which I listen to. Very informative.

You can find the most recent articles from here.

To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.

NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.

Featured Articles From


Front-Row Protester Disrupts Trump's Michigan Speech with "ISRAEL DID 9/11! FIVE JEWS ARRESTED ON 9/11 IN NEW JERSEY, NOT MUSLIMS." Donald Trump Responds To "ISRAEL DID 9/11" Protester With "He's A Trump Guy, He's very committed, Got a lot of energy, He's on our side" (!!!)

Trump's Response To "Israel Did 9/11" Front-Row Heckler Is Almost More Interesting Than The Heckle Itself TV News Footage Of Martin Hill Being Escorted Out By Secret Service While Trump Stops His Speech To Watch & Repeatedly Tells Them "Don't Hurt Him, Be Very Nice..."

HERE IS THE CLOSE-UP VERSION. GO TO MINUTE 20. Trump says that the "Israel Did 9/11' Protester is "A Trump Guy, He's On Our Side, He's Very Committed, he's Got a lot of energy."

Here is the wide-shot footage from the back of the room. If you watch starting at around minute 20, That's when I interrupt him, and he responds to me. Then a few minutes later, he stops his speech again to watch the Secret Service take me out, and he is referring to me when he says: [21:18] Oh! Don't hurt him. Don't hurt him. Be very nice. Be very nice. Yep. Be nice to him. Don't hurt him. See how nice I'm being? I'm only doing it for them, you know that (points to the media) Don't hurt him! (21:34) Tell me, ... I love you too, maam.. Look. Is there more fun than a Trump rally? (21:48) Is there more fun?


Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise,,,,, Economic Policy Journal,, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association,,, WorldNetDaily,,,,, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show,, Pasadena Weekly,, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640,, Redlands Daily Facts,, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report,,,,, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze,,, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer,, From The Trenches World Report, and many others. Archives can be found at and DontWakeMeUp.Org.

FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.
Tweets by @LibertyFight

comments powered by Disqus