Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why didn't Fitz supeona Bush?

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
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:18 PM
Original message
Why didn't Fitz supeona Bush?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. He has been questioned, but not under oath
Maybe he's already caught in a big fat lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Wonder if Harriet sat in on that exchange? Bet she did! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I would be passing out subpoenas
like Halloween candy at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yeah!
The "oath" isn't particularly necessary when lieing to the grand jury is an invitation to get your peepee whacked, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoBushSpokenHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. lmao @ peepee whacked! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I never understood the reason for that
Why allow them to testify withouit being placed under oath?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Interesting thought. I don't know how obstruction works. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Actually, it would be
Obstruction is when you do ANYTHING which impedes an investigation. EVen if not under oath, lying would constitute obstruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. He's a target n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Oh, that WOULD be a Merry Fitzmas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Yes, very often a Grand Jury
will not call a target to testify. You get to testify after you've been indicted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
18. sans lawyer? not quite...
* did have a lawyer...

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

His name is Jim Sharp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. Yeah, put that sucker under oath!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
24. Put * under oath in front of GJ. The end. Checkmate. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
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!!!
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 Mon Oct 20th 2014, 08:09 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