Bush/Plame "interview" -- legal ramifications

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

Bush, not under oath, was interviewed by Fitzgerald et al today for 70 minutes.

Without his being sworn, Bush's "testimony" would be close to useless in any subsequent legal proceeding.

So I'm wondering. Might today's session lead to an official Bush visit to the grand jury at a future date?

[H2O Man]

1. Not true.

While he cannot be tried for perjury based on today's interview, it does provide for possible "inconsistent statements." It has great value for further legal proceedings.

[lancdem]

4. Exactly

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

6. but "inconsistency" for a perjury rap has to be under oath

In other words, you've got to be under oath twice to obtain a charge of perjury. ("Are you lying now under oath, or did you lie the first time you were put under oath?")

[H2O Man]

12. This is why I said

that it couldn't be used for a perjury charge. An "inconsistent statement" is not limited to something given under oath. Let's look at another example: Scott Peterson gave many interviews to the news media. The DA now can use any one where he gives an inconsistent statement, although they were not under oath. Again, exactly as I said the first time, this interview was of great value.

[lancdem]

13. And remember all the public statements

where Bush said he knew nothing about the leak. Hmmm...

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

15. H20Man and lancdem:

I'm basically in agreement with you. I realize the inconsistent statements may be useful. But I wonder in what way.

As for the inconsistencies, those would seem to be more of a political than criminal liability for Bush. If he remains unindicted but subsequently changes his story anyway, he'd have to accept the political consequences of lying but might avoid legal jeopardy.

In a criminal case, you'd want the inconsistencies on the record so as to impeach the credibility of the witness (Bush). But by that point, you're talking about the president of the United States actually testifying at trial! Is it possible that Fitzgerald is really trying to set up such a situation?

[H2O Man]

16. Right ....

and then, after meeting with this attorney, bush started answering press conference questions about the issue with terse, "You'll have to ask the attorneys (also: investigators)." From lying and denying to the old "no comment"!!!

[stepnw1f]

2. I believe so...

however, will Bush Respect the U.S. Court System.

[lancdem]

3. It's not useless

A source I talked to said there are constitutional reasons neither Bush nor Cheney were called before the grand jury. He's not being let off the hook, believe me. The source said Bush's interview is a signal the investigation will be wrapping up and indictments will be issued very soon.

[Southsideirish]

5. Too bad Fitzgerald is a Republican. I just don't trust them.

[lancdem]

10. Keep in mind

he brought down the Repuke governor in Illinois. BTW, if there weren't going to be indictments, Fitzgerald would've shut down the grand jury awhile ago.

[merh]

7. It is a federal crime to lie to federal authorities during questioning.

A false statement made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent can fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The maximum penalty is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00916.htm

[Booster]

8. i.e., Martha Stewart..

It would be lovely irony if Bush gets caught under the same rules that caught Martha - I think even Martha would laugh at that.

[nixonwasbetterthanW]

9. thank you, merh ...

... my picture is becoming much less murky.

Now I'm wondering how much James Sharp Esq. shared his knowledge of this law with his client.

[merh]

11. you are welcome -

IMHO most sociopaths don't ever think they are lying when they spin their version of the truth. A lawyer can not do anything more than warn his client that if he lies, he could face charges under the section. * has no respect for the laws, not U.S. laws or international laws, as is evident from his administration. No lawyer can adequately represent him because he is above the law and has no respect for the law, thus no respect for his lawyer.

[rhino47]

14. To catch him in more lies nt

[DeepModem Mom]

17. kick