Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4881)	11/3/2005 5:01:48 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541490

Let me pose a wild hypothetical to you -- suppose, and this is the wild part -- suppose that it turns out that Bush knowingly lied about the existence of Iraqi WMD in the State of the Union address. in order to drum up support for the war. Would you not be persuaded that this was an impeachable offense? Politics being what they are, we'll never find ourselves at so clear a juncture. Still, why does the argument bother you so much? I mean, if there's absolutely nothing to it, why not just ignore it or laugh it off?

To: TimF who wrote (4881)	11/3/2005 5:01:50 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541490

Your argument is a better attempt to demonstrate that honesty and a fair degree of accuracy is an important implicit requirement from the constitution. It totally fails as an attempt to state that it is an explicit requirement. Some could say that you are debating what the meaning of “is”, is. As has been discussed earlier here, making false statements to Congress is a crime. a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both…. Message 21831480 It doesn’t matter if the particular statement in question is accurate. Rather …Putting aside whether the Code Section applies to the SOTU, we still have an affirmative statement that “the British government has learned…” Certainly the Administration can argue – and have argued – that the statement was true in the abstract. However, if the Administration had information that – notwithstanding the fact that the British Government believed it – the information was false, then communicating in such a manner without the caveat it becomes under (a)(2) a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation. It is not the statement per se that is false, but the representation. I defer to the lawyers, but I think the common law is quite clear on 'intent to deceive.' Message 21831749 In regard to this particular code section: …Could Bush, and his aides, be stonewalling because it is a crime to give false information to Congress? It wasn't a crime in President Polk's day. Today, it is a felony under the false statements statute. This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. It is little used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bramblet that the statute could be used to prosecute a Congressman who made a false statement to the Clerk of the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives, for Congress comes under the term "department" as used in the statutes. Two members of the Bush administration, Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law the hard way, during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress, as did Robert McFarlane. (Both were subsequently pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.) Poindexter and Oliver North fought the charges, and won on an unrelated legal technicality. Later, one of McFarlane's lawyers, Peter W. Morgan, wrote a law journal article about using the false statements statute to prosecute executive officials appearing before Congress. Morgan was troubled by the breadth of the law. It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law's breadth and has chosen not to change it. Maybe presciently, Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches "misrepresentations in a president's state of the union address." To which I would add, a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress, which involved others at the Bush White House, could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government…. writ.news.findlaw.com These legal professionals argue that the False Statements statute applies to the SOTU. Does it? Obviously, its never been tested but its not an unreasonable position. Now you may choose to reject the foregoing because it was written by John Dean, certainly not well-like by most conservatives. However, his argument flows (as he notes) in part from those made by Peter Morgan (The Appearance of Impropriety) which he later developed with Glenn Reynolds and published in book form. Neither Morgan nor Reynolds is a doe-eyed liberal. In fact, Reynolds is the “Instapundit” blogger. instapundit.com ww