[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Not true.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001
[/QUOTE]
Only if it was done as part of
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I don’t believe it is. It’s illegal to lie to Congress or any other “competent tribunal, officer, or person” if you’re under oath (18 USC 1621), but not otherwise.
If you were going to bring any federal charges against him, they’d be either war crimes (18 USC 2441) or conspiracy to commit torture (18 USC 2340), but the board’s been over those enough times…
[/QUOTE]
See cite above. You cannot make a “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” to the “executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.”
This article says that North could have been charged with “making false statements to a government agency” even though those false statements were not made under oath. So it appears it is possible. But I wonder if it is just a charge that applies narrowly to some government employees in certain circumstances and if the President would be covered by it.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Only if it was done as part of
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.
[/QUOTE]
Was Congress investigating and reviewing the intelligence?
The real problem I see is that I don’t know did Bush personally ever made a false statement to Congress.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
From the interview I heard, there is no emotional appeal being made as any kind of argument for a murder charge. That’s probably just to fill more pages in a book, and make it more likely to be read by the general public, who seem to crave the “gory details” as it were.
[/QUOTE]
Could the family of any solider who died in service during a president’s term sue said president for wrongful death in civil court?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Was Congress investigating and reviewing the intelligence?
The real problem I see is that I don’t know did Bush personally ever made a false statement to Congress.
[/QUOTE]
Bugliosi specifies a statement Bush made that “Saddam is an imminent threat to the US,” which was made several weeks after he had been told by every US intelligence agency (something like 17 of them), that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. Those specific words were deleted from the “white pages” that Bush showed to Congress. There was some other stuff that Bugliosi says he can prove Bush lied about too (not was mistaken or “got bad intelligence,” but actually, knowing lied about waht the intellegence stated).
I’m not trying to make Bugliosi’s case for him, just reporting what he claims he can do.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The very fact that his thesis relies so strongly on outrage is evidence of the legal weakness of his case. He needs the reader to be so furious at the terrible deaths that he wants someone to pay, and isn’t particular about the legal niceties in getting that someone to pay.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t trying to instill a sense of outrage in the jury a common part of every prosecutor’s job?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Bugliosi specifies a statement Bush made that “Saddam is an imminent threat to the US,” which was made several weeks after he had been told by every US intelligence agency (something like 17 of them), that Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. Those specific words were deleted from the “white pages” that Bush showed to Congress. There was some other stuff that Bugliosi says he can prove Bush lied about too (not was mistaken or “got bad intelligence,” but actually, knowing lied about waht the intellegence stated).
I’m not trying to make Bugliosi’s case for him, just reporting what he claims he can do.
[/QUOTE]
Did Bush show these papers to Congress? It seems more likely it would have been done through the DoD or CIA.
Who was the “Saddam is an imminent threat to the US” statement made to? Was it just in a speech?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Did Bush show these papers to Congress? It seems more likely it would have been done through the DoD or CIA.
[/quote]
Yes, he showed the doctored papers to Congress (according to Bugliosi anway).
I believe he said it in a State of the Union Address (which is technically an address to Congress).
I just bought the book at amazon.
Anyone else?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I believe he said it in a State of the Union Address (which is technically an address to Congress).
[/QUOTE]
Right, but it’s not “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.”
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Pardon a GQ hijack, but can a president be impeached after he is out of office?
[/QUOTE]
Given that the only “punishment” available under impeachment is removal from office, it would be rather pointless.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Given that the only “punishment” available under impeachment is removal from office, it would be rather pointless.
[/QUOTE]
I think he might also lose his pension.
“It is not that hard to get an indictment…” It is in Texas.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
He actually laid out a very precise legal argument, void of any emotion, that he thinks can legitimately be used by any prosecutor’s office in any state where a slain soldier resided (should they have the balls to do it).
[/QUOTE]
The problewm with his “precise legal argument” is that, in kindest terms, it’s an extraordinarily novel legal theory.
If a prosecutor charges you with murder because your “negative energy” caused someone with cancer not to recover, he could make a “precise legal argument” just as easily. He could say, in the usual language of a murder indictment, that you caused the death of Joe Blow in such-and-so county, on or about such and so date, in the usual fashion of indictments. But it would not (we ferevently hope) pass the test of any trial judge letting it go to trial, and if a crazy trial judge did, it would be dismissed on appeal, because we don’t recognize, as a matter of law, the efficacy of “negative energy” as a casuative element of death.
This claim is pretty close. To accept the idea that a President’s lie to Congress in order to obtain authorization to start a war creates criminal liability for any deaths that occur in that war is on par with the “negative energy” claim: it’s never been done, and it won’t ever be done, because it doesn’t comport with general principles of causation and criminal liability.
The defenses that exist to this approach are legion. But the bottom line is that the President has a constitutional, non-justicible privilege to wage war without criminal liability for deaths.
Now, let’s assume that in my “negative energy” example, a wave of insanity swepy over the prosecutor, the trial judge, and judges up the appellate chain, such that they all decided to sign off on the “negative energy” prosecution. If that happened, I suppose we could imagine that the “negative energy” prosecution would be successful, and that a conviction and jail time would ensue.
Equally, if we imagine that prosecutors, judges, and the like took leave of their senses, someone could charge and convict Bush for murder. But that’s a ridiculous “what if.” It simply won’t ever happen, for the same reason that the “negative energy” prosecution won’t ever happen – it’s too far a departure from how the system works.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Could the family of any solider who died in service during a president’s term sue said president for wrongful death in civil court?
[/QUOTE]
Not successfully.
Are you really interested in the legal reasons for this? I mean, this is a thread discussing the indictment of the President for the deaths of soldiers on a battlefield in a war he prosecuted, so I really don’t know how interested anyone is in actual legal-type facts.
The law is that a President has absolute immunity for any acts conducted in his official capacity as President. No one can sue him for these acts.
OK?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But, you seee, that’s really irrelevant to a legal charge of murder. You don’t need the emotional agony of reading heartbroken parents’ stories. It’s obvious that soldiers died; the fact that families are upset might be relevant at sentencing, but it’s not a fact that would require cumulative proof at trial.
The very fact that his thesis relies so strongly on outrage is evidence of the legal weakness of his case. He needs the reader to be so furious at the terrible deaths that he wants someone to pay, and isn’t particular about the legal niceties in getting that someone to pay.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a book–not a legal brief*. He wants people to buy the damn thing, right? Of course there is emotional heart-tugging and whatnot. $$$$$, and all that rot.
*unless I missed something and VB is trying to sell an actual legal brief as popular entertainment.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The thread title is the title of a new book by the well known L.A. County prosecutor and author, Vincent Bugliosi. I heaed Bugliosi on a local radio interview yesterday talking about this book, and he isn’t kidding with the title. He believes that he has made a legal case for the literal prosecution of Bush for murder in any state which has lost soldiers in Iraq.
Bugliosi has said the he’s faced a virtual media blackout in trying to promote this book, Bugliosi has promoted several other books on these same media outlets he claims are now shutting him out. He is a perenniel best seeling author and an experienced, knowledgable professional as a guest. I guess the title of this book scares them away.
I haven’t read this book yet, and I’d like to get some kind of opinions about it before I do – especially the opinions of legal professionals. I’ve never thought of Bugliosi as a crackpot. As far as I know, he has a good reputation as a prosecutor. He’s not generally thought of as a wingnut. So how out to lunch is this book? Does anyone know if it has any merit?
In the interview I heard yesterday, Bugliosi implied that a lot of his case rested on Bush’s alleged manipulation and even outright falsification of intelligence reports (such as literally deleting the words, “Iraq is not an imminent threat” in the reports he showed to Congress).
What’s going on here. Has Vince gone insane or is there a case to be made here?
Bugliosi’s website for the book
[/QUOTE]
Well, since Congress agreed with him, then no, there is no case, regardless of the partisan composition of Congress at the time. If they voted for war, then they voted for war.
I know, but the admin TRICKED them all with glossy layouts of mobile chemical units!!
Then why did the 2006 version of a Democrat-owned Congress vote for more of the same?
I’m dying to know.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Pardons don’t require a conviction. See Nixon. I’m just not convinced that an executive can pardon himself. 'Course, Bush could pardon Cheney, resign on the 19th of January, and then Cheney pardon Bush. …
[/QUOTE]
Per
an 8-0 decision.
Unless there’s been a case between then and now changing any of this it’s seems clear.
Issue all the pardons ya want history can only read their acceptance as an admission of guilt.
(unless somehow I’m reading this all wrong, which I strongly doubt)
CMC +fnord!
IANAL but I often play one on the intarwebs, 'specially when the real lawyers drop the ball!