Why didn't Fitz supeona Bush?

[Kelvin Mace]

And ask him flat out, under oath, if Rove told him about outing Plame?

We now know he knew, because he chewed Rove out over it.

The idea of His Chimperial Majesty appearing before a grand jury, sans lawyers, sans Cheney, sans Condi, sans Rove and being asked very rude questions would be the ultimate miracle of Fitzmas.

[MADem]

1. He has been questioned, but not under oath

Maybe he's already caught in a big fat lie.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Well, it would be hard for the Chimp's lawyers to

claim he shouldn't testify. We have the Paula Jones precedent, you know, and this is MUCH more serious than Paula.

We now have reason to believe that Bush has material knowledge of the events that DIRECTLY relate to perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the 1917 Espionage Act. There is NO way he could get out of testifying.

[MADem]

4. Wonder if Harriet sat in on that exchange? Bet she did! nt

[Kelvin Mace]

6. I would be passing out subpoenas

like Halloween candy at this point.

[EST]

3. Yeah!

The "oath" isn't particularly necessary when lieing to the grand jury is an invitation to get your peepee whacked, right?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

5. lmao @ peepee whacked! n/t

[renate]

7. is lying to the GJ when not under oath still perjury?

I guess my question is: is there a legal definition of perjury that doesn't require that the person was under oath when he/she lied?

The situation was so bizarre--two lead players, neither under oath, testifying together.... the normal rules of swearing to tell the truth and then being presumed to tell the truth were flouted before Bush and Cheney even sat down.

[EST]

8. So true.

Bucheny were testifying as witnesses-not at that point, targets. As I understand it, lying as a witness is kind of like lying when you've been granted immunity--your ass is grass.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. I never understood the reason for that

Why allow them to testify withouit being placed under oath?

[Justice Is Comin]

10. When Fitzgerald grilled Bush,

he had members of his team with him. They would be able to testify as witnesses to everything he said. Also Bush had his lawyer there.

I said before, Bush's nuts are right in the cracker.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Ah, but if I understand the rules correctly

if he were called before the grand jury, no lawyers are allowed. He would be COMPLETELY on his own. I think Fitz would eat him alive since it would the first time ANYONE dared question him without deference to his "exalted" position.

Bush would either completely implicate himself and his gang, or crack and become violent.

[mattclearing]

12. Because he didn't need to.

All Fitzgerald needs is someone else to implicate him.

He has been flying below the radar for so long because he has not signaled his intentions.

Subpoenaing the President is a big effing signal of intent. In his situation, Fitzgerald would not want to do this unless it was absolutely necessary...it would make his case front page news before all the pieces are in place.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. But now that the case is almost in place, why not?

It is obvious that Bush is incapable of answering questions without his puppet masters. The idea of Bush sitting in the dock with no lawyer and no turdblossom to tell him what to say is delicious.

There is enough evidence out there now that Bush knows about a crime Fitz is investigating. I am not talking about Bush as a target, but as a witness.

Of course, once he was on the stand he would be subject to ALL sorts of questions about Iraq AND Plame. His only hope would be to plead the Fifth, which would eventually be made public.

Fitz has got to know by now that the entire White House is completely dirty.

I think Fitz would get him to spill LOTS of damning information that would sink the GOP for the next 100 years.

[mattclearing]

16. I agree with your subject.

That may be his last move. But chances are, he already has enough witness testimony and documents to put the President away. Putting him on the stand would only add a likely perjury charge.

[yodermon]

17. But even though shrub* was not under oath,

supposing he DID lie when Fitzgerald questioned him,
and Fitz can prove it
.. isn't that still Obstruction of Justice?

[mattclearing]

19. Interesting thought. I don't know how obstruction works. n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Actually, it would be

Obstruction is when you do ANYTHING which impedes an investigation. EVen if not under oath, lying would constitute obstruction.

[Jose Diablo]

13. He's a target n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Oh, that WOULD be a Merry Fitzmas!

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. Yes, very often a Grand Jury

will not call a target to testify. You get to testify after you've been indicted.

[blogslut]

18. sans lawyer? not quite...

* did have a lawyer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

His name is Jim Sharp

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Yes, but if he was called to testify

by the grand jury, lawyers are not permitted. He was interviewed by Fitz, which is not the same as being called to tesify.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Yeah, put that sucker under oath!

[caledesi]

24. Put * under oath in front of GJ. The end. Checkmate. nt

[lovuian]

25. He doesn't have to he already has testified!!!

and he's made his statement to the grandjury and he lied to them!!!

He is sooo cooked!!!