choie
(899 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:40 PM
Original message |
|
I can dream, can't I?
Let's stipulate that most likely Bush (and probably Cheney)has been aware all this time that Rove was the leaker in the plame investigation. Now, when Bush went in front of the Grand Jury in the Plame case, he must have been asked if he knew who had outed her or even more specifically, whether he knew if Rove had done it. If Bush testified that he didn't know - wouldn't this be perjury?:evilgrin:
|
Tesla
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You have a mouth, USE IT!!
Let's start the 2008 election, NOW!!!
|
unschooler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:42 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It's only perjury if the opposing party controls the Congress. |
evlbstrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Perjury is perjury. Professional prosecutors see it that way. Welome to DU!
|
unschooler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Thanks for the welcome! You are correct of course, |
|
but where is this professional prosecutor going to come from?
|
evlbstrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. Fitzgerald, the one going after Rove, for one. |
|
Really, not everyone in the Justice Department, or other departments, for that matter, is a political appointee. The government is made up by far of professionals who take their work very seriously.
|
unschooler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Hmmm.... That's very encouraging! |
Fiona
(993 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message |
3. When was Bush put under oath before a Grand Jury? |
Sanity Claws
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:50 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Bush went in front of the grand jury? |
|
Really? that's news to me.
|
choie
(899 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. am i wrong? I was sure that he testified |
Sanity Claws
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I also don't think that anyone in the administration has spoken to the grand jury yet. I think certain ones, like Rove, did speak to Fitzgerald while he was still investigating.
|
Son of California
(467 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
maybe we don't have the votes in the Senate yet to get Bush on perjury, but we might have enough after the mid-term elections. There are Republicans in the Senate who will support an investigation if enough evidence starts to surface, or -even better!- if they feel strong pressure from their constituents. Either way, the best thing we can do is keep this in the public eye.
|
evlbstrd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-12-05 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Again, it doesn't take Congress to bring a perjury charge. |
|
It takes a prosecutor and a grand jury. It takes the House to impeach and the Senate to convict. Welcome to DU!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:54 AM
Response to Original message |