Even the President Can't Lie to a U.S. Attorney

[leveymg]

The Freepers seem to still think this is about the President's power to declassify. That's not the issue here. It's about a lie.

Some months ago, the President talked to Fitz about the Plame case. Bush said he didn't know about the efforts of his underlings to discredit Wilson. We now learn that Dubya ordered his men to leak classified CIA documents to do just that. That's called Obstruction of Justice.

Even a Freeper can understand that.

Case closed.

[maxsolomon]

1. nyah nyah i'm not listening!

he wasnt under oath when he lied to Fitz, so it doesn't count.

[clmbohdem]

5. Oh yes it does, you can't lie to the FBI

Purgury is when you lie under oath.

[elehhhhna]

22. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. By GW? Whooda'thunkit?

[eleny]

7. then it's time t get him under oath about all this

[Az_lefty]

38. They put Clinton under oath, they can do the same for the chimp

[BIgJohn83]

46. Love Dr. Thompson's words! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

8. As if that matters....

[Inland]

11. Still a crime to mislead investigators.

That's why Moussaui is going to be killed, BTW.

[savemefromdumbya]

14. so Moussaui is going to be killed and Bush isn't?

[Inland]

18. I think that's an accurate prediction. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Like Martha Stewart

She wasn't under oath. She went to jail for misleading investigators. Not perjury. Not for insider trading. Not for conspiracy. For lying to investigators, and she wasn't under oath. This is EXACTLY what Bush did. EXACTLY!
The Professor

[WePurrsevere]

43. Exactly, he doesn't have to be under oath to have what he did be ILLEGAL

If it was a crime for Martha it's a crime for Bush... no one is above the law and we are still a country of laws. (Gee didn't I hear that when the Repukes were going after then President Clinton?)

Just add another drop to the ocean of BushCo's crimes.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Darn It

The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Triple Darn It

The Professor

[Inland]

35. I see five replies to a post, and I think I've set the world on fire.

But no. It's The Professor and a computer with a hiccup.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Quit Laughing At Me!

I can't help it! I've tried everything i know how to do. Stupid thing keeps multiple posting anyway. Guess i'm not that computer savvy.
The Professor

[Inland]

44. I think it's actually the system.

It does it for periods of time, and when it happens to me, it seems to be happening to others too.

It's just disappointing, that's all.

[fooj]

33. Bingo!

The treasonous, rat bastard is neutered. Permanently.

:P

[AuntiBush]

25. OH Snap!

Putting away my exciting thoughts of the return of sanity in our one-time wonderful democracy, civil liberties, Bill of Rights return and pasting back of the Constitution.

[maxsolomon]

47. i was channelling freeper

and forgot to use the :sarcasm:

the constant RW saw about clinton was that he LIED UNDER OATH, that it didn't matter WHAT they were hounding him for. only that he broke the law & no one was above it.

the tune has changed since 98, has it not?

mark these words well: the idiot will NEVER go under oath in front of Fitz. he understands 1 thing: POWER. and power doesn't put itself in a corner.

[DanCa]

2. But but

Dubya didn't lie about a blue dress. I guess we now know whats really important in Freeperville.

[marylanddem]

3. Very well said. Thanks.

[WI_DEM]

4. If Bush lied under oath he should face impeachment the same

as Clinton--except, of course, this is a much more serious situation than Clinton's sex life.

[marylanddem]

10. Could obstruction of justice be a charge even if not under oath?

[NYC]

12. I think so.

But I'm not certain. I don't want to get your hopes up, but when I thought about Bush lying while not under oath, I thought that meant it would be obstruction of justice instead of perjury.

Let's hope.

[marylanddem]

13. Thanks - and yes, let's hope...

[NYC]

26. Look at post #15 by Inland.

This is what it says:
Response to Reply #9

15. It's a separate crime to mislead investigators.

I'm not sure of the elements, but intentionally misleading in a criminal investigation is a crime, under oath or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
But the complaint alleges that Safavian lied about his contacts with Abramoff on three occasions after his initial false pledge to the GSA ethics officer. The first was during a 2003 investigation by GSA's inspector general, who was responding to an anonymous tipster's hotline complaint; the second was in a March 17, 2005, letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and the third was during an FBI interview on May 26, 2005.

P.S. The link in this post is no good because I copied the truncated link from Inland's post. Use Inland's post #15 to get to the article.

:) I'm hopeful.

[seemslikeadream]

21. bush and cheney will be under oath when

they're called to testify at Libby's trial

[AuntiBush]

27. Awww...

Ok... makes sense.

[elehhhhna]

32. YES.

[leftchick]

37. I don't think he was under oath

I believe both he and cheney had chats with their lawyers present with no oaths taken.

[EFerrari]

41. Oath of office? n/t

[dogday]

45. That's what I am thinking n/t

[Seen the light]

6. K & R

This needs to be seen by every Freeper. I can't wait to see what one has to say about that, if they decide to answer it at all.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Was he under oath though? Talking to Fitz..does that mean he's

automatically under oath? Did he testify before the GJ? If so, was he put under oath? If not, I'm sure Gonzales has a million excuses of why he never broke the law and nothing he said was said under oath. That's how they operate.

[Inland]

15. It's a separate crime to mislead investigators.

I'm not sure of the elements, but intentionally misleading in a criminal investigation is a crime, under oath or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901859.html
But the complaint alleges that Safavian lied about his contacts with Abramoff on three occasions after his initial false pledge to the GSA ethics officer. The first was during a 2003 investigation by GSA's inspector general, who was responding to an anonymous tipster's hotline complaint; the second was in a March 17, 2005, letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and the third was during an FBI interview on May 26, 2005.

[dogday]

17. I don't think he was, but I think the oath of the President

requires him to be truthful if I am not mistaken......

[ken_g]

16. According to Orin Hatch though,

when the President breaks the law, the law becomes unconstitutional. So, yeah....

[dogday]

19. Orin "The Hatchet" Hatch would let him

take a dump in the middle of the Senate and call it a law....

[AllegroRondo]

20. I dont think he was under oath

one of the 'deals' was that Bush would testify to Fitz, but ONLY if he could go with Cheney at the same time, and ONLY if they were not under oath.

[Virginia Dare]

28. It makes sense now...

Cheney talks him into meeting with Fitz together, so that he can cover his own ass while he hangs Bush's to the wind.

:think:

[AuntiBush]

23. Wasn't it 1 Lie

in how they got Clinton? About the dress, or whatever... 1 lie, granted a BLOW JOB. Gawd knows that jeopardized Nat'l Security :sarcasm: but still one big fat AND evil lie.

[berni_mccoy]

24. Well, you have to prove he lied...

Which is easy to do with logic as I've done here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x860800

[slide to the left]

34. Wait a second

Isn't lying what Clinton was impeached for? Huh, I wonder if the haters of lying that impeached up a storm are going to come out of the woodwork for this. Nope, no semen involved. If Bush got a blowjob from Plame this would be a different story.

[pdxmom]

36. U.S. Attorney, my behind. He stood out there and lied to the US PEOPLE

and should be held accountable for that. Pretending like he had no clue where this all came from, that he was supporting and behind an investigation, saying that he would fire whoever was the leaker, and all the while HE and his puppetmaster were the guilty parties.

I expect accountability.

[skip fox]

40. Let's hope you're right. But to shore up the case, showing that he

knowingly and wilfully mislead a federal investigation, let's emphasize as well the fact that he refused to talk to Fitzgerald under oath and had hired a private attorney prior to his meeting.

Therefore he WILLINGLY and KNOWNINGLY mislead a federal criminal investigation.

[countryjake]

42. The news channels are trying their darnedest to make that distinction...

I just did a quick scan of the cable channels and they're definitely putting forward that this is "political" rather than legal.

Unbelievable! Well, not really.

[lovuian]

48. Bush Knew and he told me to Leak Hail Leaker in Chief