Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
APPLE314 Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:53 PM
Original message
Fitzgerald interviews with Bush/Cheney were not under oath. Wonder why!!!!
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are we sure Fitz is really on our side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes. I'd bet $ on it.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I said in another thread that Karl Rove's worst nightmare...
...begins with the words "Raise your right hand and repeat after me...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineYooper Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. ... and when you're done, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Conyers, and
Majority Leader Reid would like a few words with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. But they made Clinton LIE under oath about a dress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Alberto Gonzales wasn't under oath either, right Mr. Spector?
The Koolaid has all been drunk. Not a drop left!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. time for new subpoenas. under oath this time. they have lied to him
already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenbriar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. president leaker says " I dddooonn't testifha
id be happy to conversate with am
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Or a customs officer. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. From day one I have said that getting them under oath was the key.
And it still needs to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) 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 Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC