Perjury

[Call me Deacon Blues]

This has probably already been discussed, but IF Rove was indeed the leaker (almost certainly true), and IF he told Bush early on (something that has been reported), and IF Bush denied this fact when he was questioned by Fitzgerald in the Oval Office on June 24, 2004, then he has committed perjury just as surely as Bill Clinton did when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Of course, in Clinton's case, he was protecting his marriage. In Bush's case, he was protecting a traitor, which is by definition, treason itself.

Impeachment, anyone?

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Bush was not under oath

I agree that would be a lame defense, but he and his handlers would use it if they had to; and it may be all they'll have.

[Jacobin]

2. Doesn't matter. If you lie to the FBI or a federal prosecutor

(they had an interview), its a federal crime. Ask Jim Brown, former insurance commissioner of Louisiana. He got 18 months in Club Fed for supposedly lying to an FBI agent....in an interview, NOT under oath.

Of course, a sitting president can't be indicted. He can only be impeached, which won't happen with the junta in control of congress

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Which means they are couting on their rigged voting machines to

to help them keep control of the nation. They'll put up one puppet after another.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. You're right and you're wrong

If you lie to the FBI or a federal prosecutor . . . its a federal crime.

I believe you're right about that. I said it would be a lame defense, just like saying Joe Wilson's wife isn't naming her.

(A) sitting president can't be indicted.

Why not? Show me in the Constitution where it says that or even implies it.

Members of Congress have immunity from arrest and prosecution while Congress is in session, but the Constitution says nothing about putting a sitting president through the same wringer. Clinton made similar arguments during the Whitewater investigations, but, if anybody is wondering, I thought no more of that argument when it came from Clinton than I did when it came from Nixon.

Nixon and his lawyers argued that congressional immunity implied presidential immunity. That is complete horsepucky.

The reason members of Congress have immunity is to prevent the president or other members of the executive branch from charging them with anything imaginable and maybe even not so imaginable and then using that as leverage to get the Congressman to act a certain way. It is an issue of balance of power. That logic does not apply to members of the executive branch being prosecuted.

If a federal prosecutor presents evidence to a grand jury that the president has committed a crime and the grand jury agrees that it warrants an indictment, then there is nothing to stop it from going forward.

There can be no doubt that the president will fight it in court, arguing that a sitting president cannot be indicted and prosecuted. Of course, Congress can make the matter moot by seeing to it that the criminal suspect is no longer a sitting president.