Fitzgerald interviews with Bush/Cheney were not under oath. Wonder why!!!!

[APPLE314]

Isn't outing a CIA agent grounds for treason, or at least a medium high crime and/or misdemeanor?

You have to wonder how many other agents were outed, by inference.

[goclark]

1. Are we sure Fitz is really on our side?

[fooj]

4. Yes. I'd bet $ on it.

Peace.

[fooj]

2. Little Lord Pissypants said it himself.

This is a serious charge. BTW- We're talking about a CRIMINAL ACTION.

That's the first thing that he has gotten right in FIVE years! LOL!!!

Welcome to DU!

[Ilsa]

12. No, he didn't just say it, he was bragging about it.

He had that nasty condescending tone in his voice that made me want to throw a brick at my tv.

[mike_c]

3. I said in another thread that Karl Rove's worst nightmare...

...begins with the words "Raise your right hand and repeat after me...."

[MaineYooper]

8. ... and when you're done, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Conyers, and

Majority Leader Reid would like a few words with you.

[Warpy]

5. They weren't under oath because lying under oath is a

ticket to hay-ell, Jebus don't like that stuff even when guys keeps saying how much they love him.

They also knew that perjury is what has taken down other officials. They arrogantly believed they were above all laws but that one. Now they have that arch legal cretin Gonzales working overtime to justify violating national security law like he justified trashing 100 years of respect for the Geneva Conventions.

Whether or not they get away with it depends largely upon their own party and how much the Koolaid drinkers are willing to swallow in the name of rich men's tax cuts.

[goclark]

7. But they made Clinton LIE under oath about a dress

[0007]

17. Alberto Gonzales wasn't under oath either, right Mr. Spector?

The Koolaid has all been drunk. Not a drop left!

[bullimiami]

6. time for new subpoenas. under oath this time. they have lied to him

already.

[napi21]

9. Lying to a Fed officer is still a crime.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html

1001. Statements or entries generally


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

[NYC]

13. Thank you for that information.

I've saved it along with this:


chill_wind Donating Member (132 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr-06-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. James E. Sharp - John Dean 2004- in Findlaw

Edited on Thu Apr-06-06 01:53 PM by chill_wind
on the significance of private counsel:


(....)

This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bush explained his action by saying, "This is a criminal matter. It's a serious matter," but he gave no further specifics. White House officials, too, would not say exactly what prompted Bush to seek the outside advice, or whether he had been asked to appear before the grand jury.

Nonetheless, Bush's action, in itself, says a great deal. In this column, I will analyze what its implications may be.

(....)


analysis at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=860958&mesg_id=861438

[glitch]

14. Thank you - I have a feeling this will need to be a constant reminder in

the next few days/weeks/months. Perhaps DU can tack it to the top of each forum.

[Jersey Devil]

16. Thank you - the same law that sent Martha Stewart to jail

This has been overlooked in the discussion of Bush's lies. Whether under oath or not, lying to a federal officer is a crime.

[greenbriar]

10. president leaker says " I dddooonn't testifha

id be happy to conversate with am

[longship]

11. Lying to an investigator is a felony

Regardless of whether you are under oath or not.

At least as far as I know. Lie to a cop some time and see what it gets you.

[glitch]

15. Or a customs officer. nt

[AtomicKitten]

18. the Republicans learned a lession during their witchhunt of Clinton

It was his lying under oath in a deposition that snapped the door shut of the trap set for him, and these crooks aren't going to make that same mistake.

However, I believe Fitz is meticulously building a case, and in D.C. shit flows uphill. Plea bargaining in the hunt for bigger fish may yield a long overdue reckoning.

[Scout1071]

19. From day one I have said that getting them under oath was the key.

And it still needs to happen.