The thing is, it’s really too late in the term to realistically impeach Bush or his administration. He does have to have broken some law in order to bring charges, and as Bricker, damn his lovely eyes, so rightly points out, lying is not against the law. But isn’t there some kind of law against abusing the public trust in office?
I was kidding but US Politics ends up with one side playing Marquis of Queensbury while the other plays Street-Fighter. I like the old Roman Republic way when as soon as power-holders became private citizens they could be held accountable for their crimes. Crimes being whatever a jury found you guilty of. Such as blatantly misleading the country into a war, which is one of the things they tried to get Caesar on with his whole ‘look - scary, scary Gauls’ thing.
There are things the powerful have to be held accountable for regardless if by screwing up your eyes and defining black as white they can be said to be able to do what the hell they like on one vague pretext or another.
Personally I think it’s perfectly clear that as C in C the Prez needs to be as relaxed and unstressed as possible and anything that furthers this cause is by definition legal and therefore technically impossible to lie about and even challenging the Presidential Wang’s Prerogative is both a sign that the Terrorists Have Already Won and High Treason.
If that Wang was attached to a Republican no hair would remain unspit, I mean un-split, on this board to argue it so.
Lying to law enforcement or when under oath are crimes, but not the only federal crimes involving lies or deception. The “False Statements Statute,” 18 U.S.C. 1001, criminalizes making any false or ficticious document within the jurisdiction of any of the three federal branches, and former federal prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega wrote an book called United States v. George W. Bush et al that was a hypothetical indictment of the President and his senior advisors with violating 18 U.S.C. 371, Conspiracy to Commit offense or Defraud the United States. The letter would also appear to violate 15. U.S.C. 413b, which prohibits the President from conducting covert activity intended to influence United States political process, public opinion, policies, or media. If the story of the letter was true, the President could hypothetically be charged, with a very heavy emphasis on “hypothetically.”
Channeling and paraphrasing the Keyboard Warriors -
‘Gasp! You can’t say that. You can’t even hint at a crime unless you - yes you there in the corner - you, have total and 100% indisputable proof of guilt and can post it on this board this very instant.’
It’s well known that that is how justice and the law operates.
Well summarized indeed! After all, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ isn’t just true in courtrooms, but on the SDMB as well. Until they’re proven guilty, we Dopers have no business hinting at the possibility that they might have violated the least of the statutes, because they’re, y’know, innocent.
I don’t know what we’re thinking sometimes.
All I can put it down to is my completely irrational hatred at being duped into wars of choice on the basis of totally made up shit and my naive belief that somehow taking an oath to defend the constitution somehow meant the slippery frakker is, you know, permanently under oath and therefore shouldn’t lie to, cheat or in any way intentionally mislead the electorate.
Well, the OP said:
I assume you understand that if a “crime” doesn’t “technically” violate a “statute” then there’s not going to be a trial.
Um… 15 USC 413 ??
I can’t find that, and it doesn’t look like it’s a crime, which should be in Title 18. There’s no 18 USC 413, either.
So - huh?
Stories like these cause such a partisan shout-fest that the facts tend to get obscured. I’m a bit unclear on even the basics.
-
Did this letter exist? It seems that it was leaked to a British journalist, and I have seen video of a British journalist discussing its contents back in (I think) 2004. Did he actually show it to anyone at the time, or did he just talk about it?
-
Does this letter exist? Where’s this letter now? Can we see it? If not, why not?
-
Has the letter been proven to be a forgery? Who proved it? Who forged it?
-
Was this Habbush guy really in the most wanted “deck of cards” while in fact we knew where he was and were paying him $5 million to be there? Why were we paying him? Why did we pretend he was wanted?
I’d really appreciate it if anyone can shed some light on these questions, or even explain why they can’t be answered.
And
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 413b
(f) Prohibition on covert actions intended to influence United States political processes, etc.
No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.
Is that a statute? Genuine UK national question because it looks like one to me.
Edit to help Bricker with the googlery thing
It’s actually 50 USC 413b (f) (I think the 15 was put in accidentally because it’s in chapter 15 of Part 50). It says:
“Covert action” is defined in (e) as:
And sub-section f is an unqualified absolute. No exceptions that I can see.
Whoops - yes, what he said. Title 50, chapter 15.
Just so you know, when you cite the US Code, the usual method is TitleUSCSection(subsection). So it would be 50USC413b. You don’t generally include chapter numbers unless you’re referring to the entire chapter. So, you might say, for instance “Look at Title 50, Chapter 15, which deals with covert actions and national security”, but that’s generally it.
OK, I can answer at least two of these. The letter definitely exists, because they’re busy denying from the rooftops that it was a forgery. This is Tahir Jalil Habbush-al-Takriti. We (the Brits, actually) were paying him because he was a top guy in Iraqi intelligence, and we could. If Suskind is to be believed, intially we were paying him for information and later we were essentially paying him to keep his mouth shut.
Suskind states that he has tapes of several of the people who are now denying that they forged or ordered forgery stating that that they participated in this. He believes that they’ve been threatened with “never working in this business again” types of threats. He says that Habbush was paid $5 Million. He’s a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of the Woodward stature, not a Joe’s Fly-By-Night Reporter. So no, we don’t have proof. But it’s looking like a pretty good bet.
Thank you, I do seem to recall hearing something along those lines back in law school.
Just glad to help.
This must be what pravnik meant. It’s 50 USC § 413b.
Yes, that’s indeed a statute. But it’s not a criminal statute, and I’m not finding any penalty associated with violating it. There may well be a general federal crime associated with violating 50 USC 413b – I just don’t know it.
See, pravnik? That’s how you do it.
(Apologies to bystanders, but pravnik is a lawyer ('though I remember him as a poster when he was still in law school, which is a kinda-scary reminder of how long I’ve been here…) and thus I feel justified in needling him over the typo/brain-fart type of event this was…)
Its just the sort of thing that makes debates amongst lawyers so endlessly fascinating. Barkeep, a tequila and bongwater, please. A double.