June 2004 bush Was Interviewed by Fitz and Was NOT Under Oath

[leftchick]

How does that affect what was exposed today? Can he still be chaged with something?
please?

Bush Interviewed About CIA Leak
President Not Under Oath in Discussing Release of Covert Officer's Name
By Susan Schmidt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3668-2004Jun24.html

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 25, 2004; Page A02


President Bush was interviewed for more than an hour yesterday by a special prosecutor investigating whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA officer last summer.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and several assistants questioned the president for about 70 minutes in the Oval Office yesterday morning. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the substance of the interview but said Bush, who was accompanied by a private lawyer, was not placed under oath.

Fitzgerald's session with Bush comes amid a flurry of recent interviews and subpoenas from investigators who have operated in almost complete secrecy for six months, giving little outward indication of where the probe is headed. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales testified on June 18 before a grand jury taking testimony in the case, and it was revealed in early June that prosecutors had interviewed Vice President Cheney.

[Beelzebud]

1. Bush took an oath to uphold his office. He's been sworn in since 2000

[leftchick]

2. yeah well

he has broken that oath and the constitution many times since then. :(

[On the Road]

3. Isn't Lying to a Prosecutor Still a Crime

even if no oath was taken? That's pretty much what Martha Stewart did, isn't it?

[leftchick]

6. That is what I would think

but if that is the case, why not take the oath in the first place?

[sinkingfeeling]

14. That's what they got Martha Stewart for.

[blm]

4. Bush is ALWAYS under oath - he took it at the inauguration.

.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Isn't it a sad state of affairs that

"conservatives" would only contemplate holding a president accountable if he were testifying under oath. Bottom line, bush's base is saying that since he wasn't under oath it doesn't matter if he was lying. Christian values indeed.

[XemaSab]

8. Depends on what the definition of IS is...

:eyes:

[lldu]

7. Yeah, but wasn't shrubs sitting on VP's lap during this grilling? NT

[leftchick]

9. that was a different "grilling"

that was for the Sept. 11 commission. They had to testify together for that to keep their stories straight.

[Solly Mack]

10. well, according to Starr, a president can be held for perjury

for statements he makes in the news paper - when he is most certainly not under oath to "tell the truth"

So, if we go by what Starr was claiming about Clinton....then certainly any statements made to a special prosecutor are biding - under oath or not

just saying

[leftchick]

16. cool!

I needed to hear what an authority like Starr would think!

;)

[Solly Mack]

17. lol Well, I figure if we go by what the GOP was pushing then

then anything and everything can be used against Bush now

course,the GOP probably see things differently now

[EarlG]

11. Lying to federal investigators?

Obstruction of justice? I don't think you have to be under oath to commit those crimes (unlike perjury). But I'm not sure.

[spanone]

12. So one can assume OUR PRESIDENT LIED.

[npincus]

13. Martha Stewart was prosecuted for lying to FBI investigators

and she was not under oath at the time.

[pdxmom]

15. Lying to prosecutor in the course of an investigation is, without

a doubt, a crime. Title 18 U.S. Code 1001:

"...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 an materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;...

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves internation or domestic terrorism, imprisoned not more than 8 years or both."

[H2O Man]

18. Good question.

Easily answered by looking at Scooter. When he lied to investigators while not under oath, he was charged with obstruction of justice. When he lied to the grand jury while under oath, he was charged with perjury.

[leftchick]

19. thank you!

No matter what that crazy DC attorney said about the leaking of CIA info by the prez being legal. HE LIED ABOUT IT! It reminds me of a LIAR from 30 years ago in the same office.

Things are great H2O Man!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

20. That is the key.

The leaking was likely not illegal, but it can be used to damage the administration politically. We should not underestimate the power of that. If he did lie (and I have great faith in Jason Leopold's reporting), then it becomes the Watergate moment.

More, this has opened the door to an opportunity we should take full advantage of. Cheney is the most vulnerable right now. We should be demanding that the House investigate his role.