Why was Clinton questioned under Oath before Grand Jury but not Bush*?

[Toots]

Why is it Bush* refuses ever to be under Oath? What is it he is hiding? Cheney also. Why are they above the law. Every other citizen including previous Presidents had to swear an Oath to tell the truth. Why is Bush* considered special? Is there a right wing answer to this?

[bryant69]

1. The right wing answer to that is

To change the subject as quickly as possible. With some muttering about how the Starr investigation was instigated by Louis Freeh; it's his fault, not the Republicans.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BOSSHOG]

2. bush's base knows he is not smart enough to avoid the

PERJURY TRAP so they make every effort to protect him. As we now know, when it comes to a republican president the buck stops anywhere but the oval office. Have another drink george.

[marbuc]

10. But perjury is not a REAL crime right?

:sarcasm:

[BOSSHOG]

13. It depends on what political party you are affiliated with

Its somewhere in the constitution (or the bible). Check with your local conservative mind control office.

[MADem]

26. Only a crime when a blow job is involved

Screwing the nation royally, in good Xtian missionary position, is just hunky-dory, though.

[liberal N proud]

3. Because bu$h knew that he couldn't testify under oath for it would

incriminate him.

[Loonman]

4. Bush is too stupid to handle a hard grilling

Cheney is just too arrogant.

[KittyWampus]

5. Nominated As "Best DU Question O'The Day" Thread

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Doesn't matter: Lying to Grand Jury is Obstruction of Justice.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. What Clinton did was very important to the country.

Bj's are against national security don'tcha know?

[jojo54]

8. Under Oath, they would have to tell the truth.

Something that none of this administration know how to do.......the words "truth, liberty and justice for all" are not in their vocabulary.

[bowens43]

9. Bush wanted to avoid an indictment for perjury.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. But why are he and Cheney allowed to get away with not testifying

under oath. I'm sure Clinton didn't want to take that route, did he? Seems he wasn't allowed to get away with it. So why are ** and Cheney allowed too?

[yodermon]

35. moot.

They can still be nailed for Obstruction if Fitz can prove they lied when he questioned them.

[maine_raptor]

11. Would have had a problem with the Oath

Too many words, too hard to remember to repeat it back.

[leftofthedial]

12. the repukes are higher on the food chain of real power in Murka

and now own all branches of "government" AND the media.

[IdaBriggs]

14. Actually, he did testify with a criminal attorney by his side.

So did Cheney. That was back in 2003, wasn't it? :)

[Justice]

16. Interviewed, but not under oath

But Martha Stewart went to jail because of what she said in interviews - and she wasn't under oath.

Were Cheney and Bush essentially given Miranda warnings? Ie, told that anything they said could be used against them? If they were - then essentially it is the same as taking an oath.

[turbo_satan]

17. Because the bible would burst into flames if * swore on it (n/t)

[Marr]

18. He testified alongside Cheney as well, didn't he?

[underpants]

21. No. The 9/11 Commission interviewed them but they were not under oath

Bush said"I don't testify" to Tim Russert...then the polls said that people wanted him to testify so he came out and declared that he WOULD talk to them...not so behind the scenes they were negotiating to keep a bible out of the room and W's hand off it......W goes fishing.....negotiations end with an agreement-W will talk to the 9/11 Commission but not under oath and only if Dick can sit beside him....

Result-nothing really other than a really awkward quote IN the Commission's final report (W makes a joke about how the 9/11 pilots remind him of when he flew an interceptor for the Texas Air National Guard ( cricket chirp cricket chirp).....

[Marr]

23. There you go- I had the two "visits" confused.

Thanks for the information.

[tinrobot]

22. That was for 9/11

This is a different case.

[geek tragedy]

19. There were no direct allegations of misconduct against Bush. Still,

if he lied to investigators, that's still obstruction of justice.

[kestrel91316]

20. Because the RW believes (but won't publicly say so) that Bush

is the Second Coming of Christ. He gets a pass on EVERYTHING.

[Quixote1818]

24. It will be interesting if Bush did lie to the Grand Jury

They wouldn't be able to get him on perjury but it would be a public relations disaster.

[RobertSeattle]

25. It would have violated Bush Cheney Admin 101

1. Never testify under oath.
2. Never admit a mistake.
3. Attack all critics
4. Loytalty to Bush/Cheney trumps Constitution.

[pacalo]

27. Don't you know this point was surely noted by Fitzgerald.

I wonder how he views spoiled rich brats who have had everything in life handed to them & think they're above the law.

[Lasher]

28. Very simple

Clinton was questioned under oath because Republicans controlled Congress.

Neither Bush nor Cheney had to testify under oath because Republicans control Congress.

[toymachines]

29. Honor.

And Clinton had respect for the country and its principles.

[KharmaTrain]

30. He Didn't Testify To The Grand Jury

Just investigators. This was done with a personal, not White House, lawyer present, that made me very curious at the time.

Also, an important fact many here are forgetting. Until December, 2003, the investigation was almost strictly an FBI matter with Asskroft supervising. Much of the testimony taken then seems to be in conflict with the statements that have been drawn forth since Mr. Fitzgerald took over the investigation.

Stay tuned...

[Skidmore]

32. Do we know which personal lawyer?

Was Harriet possibly that personal lawyer?

[KharmaTrain]

34. Check The John Dean Post Abov e

It really has a nice handle on this.

It appears mr. booooosh had to seperate himself as an individual as himself as a member of the government by bringing in a personal laywer. This also keeps him from having to face difficult constitutional court challenges (which the executive almost always loses), if he chose to use his White House counsel.

Instead of Harriet representing him, I'm more interested if Harriet was questioned or compelled to testify.

[Rob H.]

33. Here's the reason he had outside counsel

Bush looked into hiring a non-government attorney because--and the irony is just deilcious, imo--hiring an outside attorney is required for Bush to maintain lawyer-client privilege. Bush wouldn't have enjoyed the same level of privilege had he chosen a White House lawyer. The person who "decimated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers and their clients"? Kenneth Starr.

John Dean wrote an article in June 2004 about this very subject for Findlaw.com. Enjoy. :)


Edited to add the last three paragraphs from the article linked above. Some pretty interesting stuff.

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law -- opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."

That may not stop Bush from trying to invoke executive privilege, however - or at least from talking to his attorney about the option. As I have discussed in one of my prior columns, Vice President Dick Cheney has tried to avoid invoking it in implausible circumstances - in the case that is now before the U.S .Supreme Court. Rather he claims he is beyond the need for the privilege, and simply cannot be sued.

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.

Also edited to add these paragraphs from this story at Rawstory.com. The lawyer Bush hired, James Sharp, was involved as a lawyer in Iran-Contra and possibly Watergate. He sounds like a real piece of work, which is probably why Bush chose him.

Sharp long has cloaked himself in secrecy, even taking the unusual move of paying to have his address and telephone number removed from the major Martindale legal directory. He was an assistant district attorney before he came to Washington and has a history of taking on cases with political implications.

Sharp’s highest profile client was Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, a major figure in the Iran-Contra scandal who helped Lt. Col. Oliver North accumulate untaxed wealth in overseas accounts.

--snippage--

And, as the White House refuses to confirm Sharp’s identity, some speculate that he might also have been the Jim Sharp who served as an attorney to Jeb Magruder, a player in the Watergate scandal. It’s possible, one blogger notes, since James E. Sharp, born in 1940, would have been 33 at the time.

If it is the same case, Sharp was accused of sneaky dealing there, too: A recent book by Tony Lukas — “Nightmare” — has Sharp telling a Watergate defendant that he’ll let him confess all first to get a plea deal, then subsequently scheduling an appointment for his client, Jeb Magruder, to get his deal first.

[ComerPerro]

31. Same answer. The Republicans knew he would lie

[arikara]

36. Didn't Cheney and the chimp

insist on testifying together (so they could keep their stories straight?)

[Danger Duck]

37. A serious answer

Bush isn't going to testify because he is not the target of the investigation, whereas, Clinton was. Also, Clinton was not questioned in front of a Grand Jury, he was questioned in private, on video tape. It may have been shown to a grand Jury, but he did testify in private.

I imagine that Bush is avoiding being put under Oath and giving testimony because there is a negative presumption associated with this, that you have done something wrong. You come off as a liar, obstructor, or other. It's not a bad thought or strategy. And the distinction between talking and testifying is substantial. Besides, the right got Clinton on a perjury charge, mostly beause they caught him off guard with the Monica questioning during the Paula Jones investigation.

Now, if CLinton isn't quick enough on his feet to get around that hole in the road, Bush must know he shouldn't go anywher esworn testimony. He probably makes three conttradictory statements before breakfast without realizing it.

[melissinha]

38. Cause Chimpy refused to do so under oath

If that isn't an admission of guilt, don't know what is.