Smear Boat Liars signed AFFIDAVITS. Can you say perjury?

[MikeG]

[goclark]

1. I can say it but can the Bushco coarts

[judge_smales]

2. Wonder if there's any

527 $$ to pursue that? Really would be sweet to see them all in court, stepping on each others faces to be the first to sing to the Feds.

[jeff30997]

3. Perjury. Big time perjury.

[rocktivity]

4. I'm more interested in who WROTE the affidavits

I think it's kind of funny that they're never referred to as "statements," that is, as thing they actually said, as opposed to agreed to, and then signed.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Padraig18]

5. No, you can't.

They were never filed in connection with a legal matter, or a legislative/administrative proceeding, so it's not 'perjury'.

[MikeG]

7. I stand corrected - false swearing in Pa. at least. - see section (b)

§ 4903. False swearing.
(a) False swearing in official matters.--A person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree if:

the falsification occurs in an official proceeding; or
the falsification is intended to mislead a public servant in performing his official function.

(b) Other false swearing.--A person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree, if the statement is one which is required by law to be sworn or affirmed before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths.

(c) Perjury provisions applicable.-- Section 4902(c) through (f) of this title (relating to perjury) applies to this section.

[Padraig18]

10. "... if the statement is one which is required by law to be sworn or ..."

That's the sticking point: the Swift Boat affidavits weren't required to be sworn.

:hi:

[MikeG]

14. I wonder what in what state the affidavits were taken?

That would determine the standard.

Texas could be tougher.

[Padraig18]

16. It all comes down to the law of the particular jurisdiction.

:)

[SidDithers]

17. I disagree, MikeG...

f the statement is one which is required by law to be sworn or affirmed before a notary or other person authorized to administer oaths.

There was no law requiring the statement to be sworn. Speculation was that it was sworn for 2 reasons:

1) PR value. Everyone says "Look, it's a sworn affadavit, it must be true". That's not the case at all.

2) Regnery publishing, or the authors, might have requested the sworn statements as cover for the Unfit to Command book. That way they could say that they practiced due diligence when writing/publishing the book, and that they did not knowingly put falsehoods into the book. They have sworn affadavits from their sources, so they believed the claims to be true when they wrote/published the book.

Sid

[fob]

19. We can get the Notary though, and if that person feels heat...

There is a post here about o'neill posting on the bluebus website, in that post there is a footnote referring to a "notarized statement of Larry Thurlow". I didn't look back to see which statement was notarized but if it's a lie, can the Notary be in trouble? Normally I would not approve of going after the lowest guy on the pole, but in this case you gotta start flipping the small frye over on the bigger targets. Who knows maybe the Notary will turn out to be o'neill's grandma and he'll come clean about his lies.

[SidDithers]

6. Good thread about this yesterday...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=636290

Beaconness says it much better, but what I gathered from the thread was:

They can lie in as many affadavits as much they want, without any consequence. It's only when the affadavit is filed in conjunction with a legal proceeding that they've committed perjury. An affadavit that doesn't go anywhere is just a piece of paper.

Sid

Edit spelling

[MikeG]

8. They can be prosecuted in Pa. - see my above post.

[SidDithers]

18. You could be right...

I'm not a lawyer, just regurgitating what was said in yesterday's thread. I don't think they were required by law to swear the affadavit, so I'm not sure that b) applies.

:toast: to you anyway!

Sid

[Sparkly]

9. Could they be sued for defamation of character?

Slander/libel?

[MikeG]

11. The plaintiff would have to prove malice.

Because Kerry is a public figure.

Reckless disregard for truth and falsity.

Hard to do.

[Padraig18]

12. Possible, but unlikely.

I do some reporting, and public figures like Sen. Kerry are unlikely to prevail in a defamation action of any kind...

[Sparkly]

15. What if Rassmann sued?

Would new affidavits need to be sworn regarding such a suit, or would the ones they've already signed then become part of the record for the lawsuit?

Just curious.

[zbdent]

13. You mean, like W's sworn affidavit where he said he never met

with the parties involved in the funeral home scandals in Texas?

Yeah, that never really took off . . .

Only time they were able to do something like that was when they holed Monica Lewinsky up in the hotel room with Ken Starr and threatened her mother . . .