If the Prez lies in the State of the Union, is it a crime?

[chequita guevara]

The President is required by the Constitution to give a State of the Union address.

Article 2, section 3

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

Presumably the Framers intended for the President to be truthful, but in any event, it is against Federal law to lie to Congress.

So, the next question is, did the Prez lie during the last state of the union, specifically re: the alleged attempt of Iraq to buy uranium from Niger. That depands on whether you believe the he knew the information was false.

From Salon:

on Sunday, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV wrote in the New York Times that the CIA sent him to Niger in 2002 to assess the validity of the alleged uranium sale. Wilson wrote that he'd quickly determined the reports were false and that his findings were forwarded to Vice President **** Cheney.

The ambassador's NYT piece.

There can be no doubt that Cheney would have passed that information on to the President. So Bush knew he was lying when when he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

Obviously, a Republican Congress, especially one as venal as this one, isn't going to take the President to task for this. Thought it's possible that if the Democrats could borrow a backbone, that the few remaining memebers of the Republican Party with any integrity would stand with them.

The question is: does this meet the test of a high crime and misdemeanor? Well, it's perjury, the same crime of which Clinton was impeached.

Does the seriousness of the lie matter? Is a lie about infidelity more serious than a lie which is calculated to bring about a war?

[Sava]

He should be impeached... but won't for 2 reasons.

1. Repug's hold majorities in Congress.
2. Repug's are hypocrits.

[chequita guevara]

I see a flaw in my logic. The Prez isn't swearing to the truth before the state of the union address. On the other hand, he swears to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.

[Japher]

consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

Seems to be to 'his' discretion. Yet, if he is asked a direct question, and knowingly lied, impeach him

[Sava]

Personally, I think Cheney needs to go before Dubya...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Seems to be to 'his' discretion. Yet, if he is asked a direct question, and knowingly lied, impeach him

This part of the phrase, to me, means that it's at his discretion as to what bills or policies should be taken up by Congress, not that he has the discretion to lie to Congress or even withhold information from Congress; i.e. this is what's wrong with the country, and IMO this is what we should do to fix it.

[Japher]

Well, it can be interpreted many ways.

Sava, cheney is already gone, at least in the head

Maybe the ol' fool forgot about the report and never told Bush

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara There can be no doubt that Cheney would have passed that information on to the President. So Bush knew he was lying when when he said that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

Well, there is room for some doubt. First off, Cheney might not hae mentioned it in order to allow plausible deniability. Second, there's the possibility that Wilson is trying to cover his ass if he (or the intelligence services) made (yet another) major blunder. However, it does look, more and more, like Bush knew he was using intelligence that wasn't substantiated.

However, either way, there's certainly something fishy going on with the intelligence services - either they made a major blunder by not recognizing the forgeries, or if they did by not informing the president, or if they did, by not earlier informing the members of the intelligence committes of congress as well as the congressional leaders (and maybe the people of the US, as well?) of the blatent use of incorrect intelligence info in the President's case.

Either way, there should be an investigation/reform in the intelligence community to make sure thee blunders don't keep repeating, as well as an investigation into whether the Pres knowingly lies or not.

[Sava]

Sava, cheney is already gone, at least in the head

Nah, I believe Cheney to be part of the 'brains' of this operation. I also think Cheney has more of a connection to the falsified Niger report.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
However, either way, there's certainly something fishy going on with the intelligence services - either they made a major blunder by not recognizing the forgeries, or if they did by not informing the president, or if they did, by not earlier informing the members of the intelligence committes of congress as well as the congressional leaders (and maybe the people of the US, as well?) of the blatent use of incorrect intelligence info in the President's case.

You know that there is a new organization of intelligence agents that is basically saying, the Administration lied. I think they're tired of taking the blame for so-called intelligence failures when they provide the information and the higher ups either ignore it or outright lie about it.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You know that there is a new organization of intelligence agents that is basically saying, the Administration lied. I think they're tired of taking the blame for so-called intelligence failures when they provide the information and the higher ups either ignore it or outright lie about it.

Then maybe next time, they won't wait 6 months before going forward.

[Sava]

If the Pres didn't lie, then we have a major intelligence problem, and some people need to be fired. Mainly, everyone who allowed that report to be used in the SOTU address.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This part of the phrase, to me, means that it's at his discretion as to what bills or policies should be taken up by Congress, not that he has the discretion to lie to Congress or even withhold information from Congress; i.e. this is what's wrong with the country, and IMO this is what we should do to fix it.

Separation of Powers doctrine has generally taken the view that the President doesn't have to inform the Congress of everything the Executive branch does, and outside of sworn testimony, it isn't a crime to lie to Congress.

In fact, it's done by every administration, every budget, ever since there have been classified activities or projects in the Federal budgets.



Edan - it doesn't work that way. Intel agencies are Executive agencies, and they properly report up their chain of command. They (operative level people) do not directly inform Congress of anything, unless (a) specifically summoned by Congress, and (b) cleared by the Agency head and lead counsel (in case there's a legal or constitutional issue with the request).

The fault lies with the Intel committees in both houses not pushing on the Agency heads for detailed briefings, It's the job of the Intel committees to provide oversight and to initiate whatever congressional actions (if any) are appropriate. It's not their job to sit around and let the press do their work for them, or to wait for squealers.

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Edan - it doesn't work that way.

Well, I think it's clear that whichever way it's supposed to work, it hasn't been, and something needs to be done to rectify it. (And even if it's not the way things work, it could well have been the moral duty to inform someone in congress (a la deep throat) if the individual thought that the president was abusing his power.)

(And why is it ok to start blabing about it now? That the evidence had been forged was publically known for like 4 or 5 months)

[MichaeltheGreat]

The reason it's ok to blab now is that there are congressional and other inquiries about the subject matter.

Blabbing about something which is public knowledge is a bit different from blabbing about something which still isn't public knowledge.

[Edan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Blabbing about something which is public knowledge is a bit different from blabbing about something which still isn't public knowledge.

But it had been public knowledge for some time (since before the war, at least).

[Q Classic]

because if you blabbed before, you would be demoralizing our troops in iraq who were liberating those poor infi-- civilians over there. you'd've been a traitor.

of course, blabbing about it now still makes you a traitor according to the high goddess and judge of all that is moral and right, ann coulter, you damn treasonous evil rooting-against-america in-love-with-saddam-and-those-snooty-frenchies traitorous repugnant demonic liberal!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the President lies in the State of the Union it isn't impeachable. Not required to tell the whole truth in a SoU address. I would not be suprised at all to know that other President's have told a few lies in other SoU addresses.

[Gatekeeper]

Ah, the 1990s. Life was so care-free back then, we even impeached a president for lying about his sexual infidelities.

Gatekeeper

[Andrew1999]

I think there are a lot of people in the Administration that are vulnerable though. Powell, Rumsfeld, and Tenet testify before Congress all the time.

[Q Classic]

i feel sorry for powell. if it's true that he didn't want to present that evidence before the un...

[Edan]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i feel sorry for powell. if it's true that he didn't want to present that evidence before the un...

If he knew it was false and went ahead anyway, I don't feel sorry for him.

[Sava]

I would not be suprised at all to know that other President's have told a few lies in other SoU addresses.

the old "everyone's doing it, so its okay" excuse...

[Q Classic]

If he knew it was false and went ahead anyway, I don't feel sorry for him.

true, he could have resigned... but i don't think he really had much choice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the old "everyone's doing it, so its okay" excuse

Damn straight .

[el freako]

Well remember that could also apply to Mr Hussain's attempts to aquire WMD.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

If he knew it was false and went ahead anyway, I don't feel sorry for him.

true, he could have resigned... but i don't think he really had much choice.

If he knew the info was false, he could have refused to make the case. Do you think Bush would have fired him over that? And risk weakening his case and risk making the use of false info public?

[Q Classic]

If he knew the info was false, he could have refused to make the case. Do you think Bush would have fired him over that? And risk weakening his case and risk making the use of false info public?

that i'm not too certain about, honestly. but if powell went with grave reservations, i do think he deserves my pity.
he'd've also lost some of my respect for him...

[GePap]

Actually, as far as the specific piece of news concerned, the supposed Iraqi attempt to aquire Uranium from Niger, which the president mentioned specificly in his state of the Union even after intel passed along to Cheney info that the documents that claim were based on were false, Powell did NOT include that claim in his presentation to the UN: so as far as Niger uranium is concerned, Powell never made that claim in public: Bush was more than willing to though, which just perpetuates my much gretaer respect for Powell than Bush.

[Nubclear]

"The coalition did not go to war under the pretense of weapons of mass murder (sic)." - Rummy.

"There will be those who try to rewrite history." - Bushie.

Both horrible liars. Both convincing the American public.