Remember how W. refused to speak to Fitzgerald's investigators under oath?

[skip fox]

He said he was maintaining the separation of powers or the authority of the office of the President or some such, but he was actullay shamelessly misdirecting a Federal investigaion while avoiding perjury!!!

Talk about conscious foreknowledge in regards to lying to prosecutors and investigators!!!!

(Isn't this what might be getting Moussaoui the death penalty?)

[Shine]

1. Well, I'm just shocked!

shocked, I tell you!


:D




:sarcasm:

[Beelzebud]

2. Bush took an oath to uphold the office. Is that meaningless?

[Seen the light]

3. I fail to see how that's going to help him if this proves to be true

Would this not still fall under obstruction of justice?

[salin]

4. obstruction of justice... depends on the 'definition of leak'...

ripe irony, eh?

[AndyA]

5. This is Nixon's Watergate redux.

The details are different, but the stench is the same.

IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH

[yodermon]

6. If so, he's a moron.

Well we already knew that. But the point is, lying to investigators is still a felony even if yer not under oath. D'oh!

[skip fox]

9. Well, that's the question, isn't it? If not, we could do well to emphasize

his foreknowledge in lying to investigators parallels all the other lies he's told (to initiate a needless war, to spy on Americans, to support the teaching of creationism in schools, to ignore global warming, etc.).


But . . . I really hope you're right. The least that could be said, depending on what he told investigaotrs, is that he attempted to impede their investigation. And did so with foreknowledge (shown by the fact that he wouldn't estify under oath).

[Democrats_win]

7. Until now it´s been subtle. Now we know. They´re traitors.

[kitkat65]

8. Nothing subtle about anything they've done, really.

[The Magistrate]

10. It Remains A Crime, My Friend

To lie to a Federal investigator, even when not under oath....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[skip fox]

11. I'm all for you, as they say, but the investigators' notes as to

the interview carry much less weight (at the least) than they would under oath.

I think the move he made by refusing to be interviewed under oath (if present revelations prove to be the case and if what he said is what we expect) can be scene as damning. (Trying to shore up the case.)

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Tell That To Martha Stewart

She was NOT under oath. She did not get convicted and go to jail for: Perjury, Conspiracy, or Insider Trading.

She went to jail for LYING TO INVESTIGATORS. Would appear to carry a great deal of weight. No?
The Professor

[skip fox]

16. I see and hope you're right, I'm just adding the fact to the case that

refusing to be under oath and hiring a private attorney indicates he WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY mislead the investigation. This realization makes the case even stronger.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. We Agree

We're on the same page. Just wanted to make sure you know that one can truly GO TO JAIL by lying to federal investigators, even if not under oath. So, this is NOT a light thing that can be avoided by refusing to be put under oath.

In fact, it looks more suspicious, as i think you implied.
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Multipost

..

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Stupid Triple Posts

.

[Garbo 2004]

17. Also, Libby is charged with lying to fed investigators. Don''t have be

under oath to be charged with making false statements to the Feds.

[NYC]

12. Read this post about Bush hiring a criminal lawyer.

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

chill_wind Donating Member (129 posts) 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.

[Vidar]

13. Probably swore the oath on "My Pet Goat".

[Supersedeas]

15. * and Condi have a thing about no speaking while under oath