So, Fits spent 70 minutes talking to bush...

[cynatnite]

This from Will Pitt's interview with Joe Wilson. I highly recommend watching this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5113883&mesg_id=5113883

My question is, even though bush wasn't under oath and he lied to Fitz, can he be charged?

A while back on the west coast a father and son got in some trouble with the FBI, I believe it was, for lying to them. I don't know if they were under oath, but the impression I got was that it was from the interviews.

I can't imagine bush being truthful to Fitz.

[shockingelk]

1. Sure, it's a crime to give false info to an investigation

There would be no use conducting an investigation that is OK to lie to sometimes.

[ArbustoBuster]

3. Isn't that how they got Martha Stewart?

[soothsayer]

9. yep! never got charged with any of the stock stuff

[tuvor]

2. I was wondering the same thing.

It's an investigation. AN INVESTIGATION. So why would bush demand not to be under oath, and what does Fitzgerald actually gain by acquiescing?

[tiptoe]

4. From a recent Joe Conason article: "And if he lied, then he need not have

been under oath to have committed a crime."

Rove's Nightmare
...
On Oct. 24, 2003, the Washington Post reported that Rove and McClellan, among dozens of others, had submitted to FBI interrogation about the leaks. Two months later, the Post quoted administration officials saying that Rove had been among the very first people to be interviewed by the FBI in pursuit of information about the case.

Back then, Rove might well have assumed that the case would be buried without any undue inconvenience to him. The president had publicly predicted, after all, that the perpetrators of the leak were unlikely to be identified. There was no reason, at the outset, to think that an independent-minded prosecutor would take over from Ashcroft a few months later.

If Rove told the FBI agents the same story that he and McClellan were telling the press, then he might have set himself up for a felony charge of lying to a federal law enforcement official. And if he lied, then he need not have been under oath to have committed a crime.
...

[shockingelk]

5. Important though: a sitting president cannot be indicted unless ...

... first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Not necessarily

There is nothing in the Constitution that says anyone, including the President, can not be indicted.

[me b zola]

6. I just want to say that tiptoe rocks!!!!

:applause: :yourock: :woohoo::applause:

[slybacon9]

7. Obstruction of Justice.

Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice.

Sorry. It sounded so nice i had to say it twice (times 16).



aka.... lying/treason

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. What did Martha Stewart go to prison for? Lying to the Feds while not

under oath.

[Toots]

11. The President swore an Oath upon entering office which should suffice

:shrug: Or maybe he didn't mean it when he raised his hand and repeated the Oath of Office.