Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BUSH LIED - He Knew It Was Karl All Along --->>>

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:52 AM
Original message
BUSH LIED - He Knew It Was Karl All Along --->>>
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 09:24 AM by Stephanie

He's been lying about this for two years. The question is, did he lie to FITZ? And if he did, what are the consequences?




October 19, 2005:

Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak.

***

None of these sources offered additional specifics of what Bush and Rove discussed in conversations beginning shortly after the Justice Department informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched into the leak of CIA agent Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html






Sept. 30, 2003:

"I don't know of anyone in my administration who has leaked," Mr. Bush told reporters in Chicago. But, he added, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."

The president added, "There's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. We've had leaks from the executive branch and leaks from the legislative branch. I want to know who the leakers are."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main...






October 7, 2003

Q Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case? And what do you make of Sharon's comment that Israel will strike its enemies at any place, any time?

THE PRESIDENT: This is the dual question. (Laughter.) I'm trying to figure out if I want to answer either of them, since you violated a major rule. (Laughter.) At least it's not a cell phone. (Laughter.)

Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/2003100...





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. If true, bush* is clearly a CO-CONSPIRATOR......IMPEACH NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. Yes
If he did lie to Fitzgerald about knowing about Karl Rove than it'd show me he was involved somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. But was sex involved?
If sex wasn't involved, Americans might shrug it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Karl would do Anything for George.
Anything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. And * knows that, which is why he's loyal to KKKarl
See, it's all about dedication and loyalty and friendship. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. But will George do anything for Karl?
We shall see....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Bush screws the American people everyday. Does that count? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I think so.
And we have a bloody stain on a red, white, and blue flag to prove it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. Leaking from the executive branch
Hmm, wouldn't that somehow include this subhuman himself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
6. I am looking for the exact quote when he said
that "we'll never find out who the leakers are".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. found it, thanks!
He lied and lied and lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. Here you go. He actually skirted the issue.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 01:23 PM by Straight Shooter
October 7, 2003:

Q: Mr. putzident, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to -- after it was already out -- actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson's wife "fair game." Are you asking your staff if anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?

The putzident: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.

But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will -- were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they'll come to the bottom of this, and we'll find out the truth. And that will be -- that's a good thing for this administration.


http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/10/wh100703.html

edit: oops, there's more:

Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. As far as I can find Bush spoke with Fitzgerald
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 09:15 AM by Caution
but was not placed under oath

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3668-2004Jun2...

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and several assistants questioned the president for about 70 minutes in the Oval Office yesterday morning. A White House spokesman declined to comment on the substance of the interview but said Bush, who was accompanied by a private lawyer, was not placed under oath.


I couldn't find any information about a deposition provided by Bush.

This only would get him off the hook for perjury. He could still be in trouble for Obstruction of Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. So it's not considered a deposition if it's not under oath?
He was interviewed by Fitz - but he can't be caught on perjury since he wasn't under oath? Weasel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. no. a deposition is a signed written testimony
as opposed to verbal testimony given under oath. Both would leave one open to perjury if one lied. However Bush was just "interviewed"

He could still be charged with lying to a federal official, obstruction of justice, and being a part of the overall conspiracy.

If you have knowledge of a criminal conspiracy and don't come forward, an argument can be made that you are then part of the conspiracy. And yes people have gone to prison for just this in the past and will do so in the future.

While we can dream about this, I sincerely doubt that Fitzgerald would even consider indicting Bush. Best case he is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Okay, I changed my questions. But "obstruction of justice" sounds good!
I'll take that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
27. A sitting president has to be impeached first
He's currently the top law enforcement officer in the US. Sick joke, huh?

He has to be removed from office prior to criminal proceedings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. That works for me.
Let's impeach him remove him, then try him and ____ him. Well, you know what they do to traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. I think W needs some "aggressive interrogation" first
Have the CIA fly him where we send those "enemy combatants" for a chat first.

Better yet, have a fountain of Jim Beam outside his cell. Close enough to smell, but just a little bit out of reach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. Lying to federal investigators is a crime....
is it not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. Why is he never under oath???
Aah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Remember this? This was re: the 9/11 Commission:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"RUSSERT: Will you testify before the commission?

BUSH: This commission? You know, I don't testify. I mean, I will be glad to visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayctravis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. I think technically the President is *always* under oath.
When he's sworn in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corbett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. Similar To His 9/11 Testimony In That Respect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
12. Lying is such an UGLY word...
perhaps he had a lot on his mind, and just forgot...

or PERHAPS, he had to cover things up for NATIONAL SECURITY. After all, there's a war on. Yeah, that's probably it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. The sound of turning Aspen leaves is deafening n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Right? Who's leaking this? Someone way inside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. "turning Aspen leaves"
Is this a coded reference to a meeting in Aspen? Did any of the players in this comedy of errors have a face-to-face there at the time of the leak? Anybody know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. See the quote in Underpants sig below
It's from a cryptic note Libby sent to Miller in jail. There's been endless speculation on the meaning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Sig line
:dilemma:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
18. Bush lied? You're kidding. He seems like such an honest man.
I can't read any more. Please tell me it didn't involve something serious like a blow job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
22. "everything we know the investigators will find out"
mull that quote over for a moment - "everything we know the investigators will find out"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Well he got that right anyway
Sometimes he can't stop himself from speaking the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. my point was that he didn't say "we will tell the investigators"
it's that the investigator will "find out".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. I see.
Well he's an asshat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
23. Isn't this a crime?
If someone knows about treason (i.e. Rove) but does nothing about it, they become a co-conspirator to treason. I believe that's a felony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
30. But he wasn't questioned under oath--and that is undoubtedly WHY
he refused to be questioned under oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. That doesn't protect him, though. See talkingpointsmemo.com today
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

What did the putzident tell Patrick Fitzgerald? As a number of lawyers and former prosecutors have informed me this morning, not being under oath does not get putzident bush out of legal jeopardy if he didn't tell the truth.

Okay, so Marshall doesn't use the term "putzident." Otherwise, the quote is accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
33. This is the best news of the day...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
34. This is a big leaked story-it's not about ROVE but BUSH
Bush KNEW. He knew about the leak, he lied about it and continues to lie. HEY Bush lovers-how to you defend this liar? Not only is he incompetent in everything he touches-he lies every time he breathes.

OH YEAH. It was about bringing integrity back to the office of the White House.

To quote Dr. Phil: "How's that workin' out fer ya?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatriotGames Donating Member (896 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
39. Busted. So Busted. How is O'Reilly going to spin this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
42. Um..... ..... ...... ........ DUH? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
43. See also this thread - Olbermann reported on the Daily News story tonight
and there is much more too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Thread title: MSNBC/Olbermann tonight: the huge Plame leak case news re *s involvement

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC