I have a HUGE question about the pre-war intel on Iraq.

Is there such a thing as "exculpatory" intelligence that the WH and the rest of the Bush administration withheld from the Congress and the people?

In court cases the failure to reveal exculpatory evidence is a legal no-no.

If the Bushcos failed to reveal the intel that questioned or may have even seriously doubted the WMD intel should that be an impeachable offense? Doesn't that qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors?

I would rather go to their trial than a world series.

For better or worse, I think that's the working definition. The Senate has to figure it out once they get a bill of impeachment.

and it's a good one: If a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence from a defendant, that can throw his whole case against that defendant.

But no, this situation doesn't have those clear rules, as does the criminal law.

BUT... I'm no expert on what high crimes and misdemeanors (for the purposes of presidential impeachment) consist of, and I think that their cooking the intelligence just might qualify as treason. I sure hope so.

Statements or entries generally

(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.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

by someone who knows more than a little about it (John Dean):

"Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

evidence or info. Anyway, please keep this kicked or recommended so that it can attract the attention of someone who might be able to pursue this further. Thanks.

"deliberate misuse of national security data".

However, the president isn't on trial so legal due process is irrelevant.

There were hundreds of inspectors that could check out anything anywhere and they found nothing and there was no reason they could not keep on looking or track down any lead the US might furnish from all its satellites and spies. And if the US wanted thousands of inspectors, there was no stopping that either if the coins were put to the task.

All this talk of bad intelligence is bullshit. Remember WarCriminal's statement of "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" long before 9/11.

Besides that the massive bombing campaign that started 10 months before the invasion seems to be overlooked too and that was war too.

all of the legal wrangling going on there. Clinton made cases for executive priviledge and national security when he had to, too. In the normal course of running a country, or even a city, a lot of leeway is allowed.

Impeachment is a political process, not really a legal one, and the normal rules of evidence and law don't exactly apply. Public official s are pretty well shielded from prosecution when doing things normally considered as performing their duties in office. and Presidents are assumed to be very cagey with information.

Now, impeachment being a political thing, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that if there were an impeachment, lies about the war would be considered far worse than lies about a blue dress or missing minutes on a tape-- if they could show evidence that lies were in fact told.

in this regard? Here's the part I mean:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

It's especially Section 3(b) that looks problematical for the president as far as I can see. And it makes his comments regarding how the congress "had the same intel" irrelevant, because the congress said in this legislation authorizing the war that it was up to the president to make sure that going to war was done for the specific reasons outlined, which he alone was to determine.

What I wonder is if he made the report to the congress, as specified above, knowing that the information specified in the report was invalid (in other words, lying), if that constitutes an impeachable offense. Or, even if he himself did not know, but relied on people who lied to him, would that be impeachable, seeing that the war authorization made him responsible for making the determination?

Even if they voted to give Bush the power to use force (if necessary), they were misled and should be angry as hell and ready to establish a legacy that this kind of shit will never happen again to the US. But NOoooooooooooooooooooo!!!

...about how the President didn't use the authority of the resolution properly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10154103/
<snip>
MR. RUSSERT: And yet it's important that we put things in historical context. Senator Biden, you were on the show in August of 2002 talking about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. You concluded your statement by saying, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power." A month later you voted for a resolution authorizing just that. In hindsight, knowing everything you know now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, was your vote a mistake?

SEN. BIDEN: It was a mistake. It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly. And I brought along that whole quote. I knew you'd ask me this. I said, "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability. There's a real debate on how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or it's a matter of less than that. We don't know enough now." That was the rest of my quote. So I never argued that there was an imminent threat. We gave the president the authority to unite the world to isolate Saddam. And the fact of the matter is, we went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan.

MR. RUSSERT: If there was a vote today, you would vote no?

SEN. BIDEN: I--with this president, absolutely I would vote no, based on the way in which they've handled it. <unsnip>

I was happy to hear him say he would have voted no.

There has to a rapid, truthful, verifiable response to these idiots everytime they open their lying mouths.

anticipating some of the questions and having his own quotes handy. So that was good. You're very right; they all should do that. Maybe they ought to head on over to Free Republic for a bit before they are interviewed, just to see what they might be asked! LOL