If Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, should he go to jail?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation covers various opinions on whether or not former President Bush should face legal consequences for potential lies and fraud committed during his time in office. Some participants argue that he should face imprisonment, while others believe he has already been politically ruined and disgraced. The conversation also touches on former President Clinton's actions and whether or not he should have faced punishment for his lies, as well as bringing up the topic of potential lies and deceit in relation to the Iraq War. Some participants also discuss the importance of character in a president and the potential complicity of Congress in these actions.

If he lied, should Bush do time?

  • Go directly to jail.

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • Only ruined and disgraced

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • Other. Please explain

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
  • #36
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The question is not did he do the right thing; this implies all sorts of moral judgements that could be argued ad infinitum. The question is, did he do a legal thing...or did he crap all over the US Constitution in order to preserve freedom?


If you don't want to wander into justification and moral judgements then I guess you shouldn't make comments like this:

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

my confidence is so high that any Bush will do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons that I can barely consider that this war may have been justified.

But, since you did, I will stick with my opinion.

Originally posted by Kat

I might be inclined to say that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but then again those mass grave sites everyones been tripping on were probably all just a bad dream anyway, well at least somebodies bad dream eh?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by kat
If you don't want to wander into justification and moral judgements then I guess you shouldn't make comments like this:

I was indicating that in spite of my personal feelings about the Bushes, I still try to remain objective - to allow for the possibility that Bush was doing the right thing. Of course, this moral interpretation will take some time. We may well make things worse than it was before this whole thing is over...if it is ever over.

However, the question was a legal one. In spite of any feelings about right or wrong, there is a real possibility that Bush was complicit is one the worst cases of abuse of presidential power in US history. He may be guilty of high crimes. If so, the question was, should he be held accountable for his actions like the rest of us? The US Constitution must come before foreign policy concerns or we are fighting for nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
I don't think it matters a single bit if Bush did the right thing or not(and we know he didn't). What matters is, if we allow the president to make up reasons for actions, and hope it turnsout ok after teh fact, how long will it be until he or someone else uses that same credulity to do something more purely heinous?
 
  • #39
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think it matters a single bit if Bush did the right thing or not(and we know he didn't).
Is this a collective "we" or a royal "we"? because this royal "we" and a majority of collective "we's" disagree.
What matters is, if we allow the president to make up reasons for actions, and hope it turnsout ok after teh fact, how long will it be until he or someone else uses that same credulity to do something more purely heinous?

I agree in part, but first let's prove that the reasons were "made up" and not either 1. undiscovered and 2. misinformed. Secondly, we need to recognize that Bush and in his administration were not alone, many world leaders and intelligence experts have believed Iraq possessed these types of weapons or was in the process of making them, including Chiraq, Blix, Clinton and numerous Democratic Senators. Also, this is why we have a system of checks and balances, which brings in the complicity of congress...I would also point out that several democratic senators who supported the october bill authorizing the use of force said that they received the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media.
 
  • #41
The administration was surely guilty of misrepresentation. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274 [Broken]

Enjoy the link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
Originally posted by Zero
'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media.

1. Which media is that Zero? I need to get a good laugh at the type of media you think I might be plugged into.
2. Do you have a world survey showing that the majority of the world does not agree it's a good thing to have Saddam gone?
3. Does the majority of the world have a good track record on knowing what is best for those who might have joined the corpses laying across Iraq in mass graves, do they speak for those who have loved ones lying in mass graves, do they speak for the oppressed, do they speak for the tortured?
4. In the end, what will matter is what the Iraqi's will think, any guesses at that at this point would be premature, or should the world usurp their voices just as Saddam has done?

5. Why don't you address the second part of my post, just to keep the thread on topic. mmmkay?
 
  • #43
1) at this point, the mainstream mediea is mostly right-wing, especially when it comes time to murder brown people(war)

2)that ISN'T THE POINT! you should really stop thinking that Saddam being gone is the issue...because it isn't at all.

3)Again, irrelevant to the issue.

4)Three in a row irrelevant.

5) This is partially addressed in the link I posted.


You should really try to stay on the topic.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Zero
1) at this point, the mainstream mediea is mostly right-wing, especially when it comes time to murder brown people(war)
I'm sorry but "the mainstream media" doesn't tell me much. I don't watch T.V...I access multiple online sources, government documents from several countries, direct information from family members scattered across the middle east and from several U.N supervisors. So, please stop with the main stream right wing media influence b.s., there's no relevency to that and my opinions. As for ignoring the murdering of "brown people", Many of my family members, in fact even my children are "brown people" actually, I think correctly that would be "olive people"...In this regard the west has always been colored blind, even those who equate themselves to be human rights activists. Where's the lefts outrage at events in other parts of the world involving "brown" people, or do they only care about certain brown people who are of certain religous/or political backgrounds?

2)that ISN'T THE POINT! you should really stop thinking that Saddam being gone is the issue...because it isn't at all.
It's always been MY point, it was the entire basis on which I based my very reserved support on the war upon. It will continue to be MY point, even if it doesn't fit into your view of important benefits. I find it odd that you claim the right ignores the deaths of these people, and then claim that their deaths are irrelevant all in the same post.



You should really try to stay on the topic.
Lol, then address the second paragraph of my post above. You are the one who ignored the relevant portion of my response~:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Originally posted by kat
It's always been MY point, it was the entire basis on which I based my very reserved support on the war upon. It will continue to be MY point, even if it doesn't fit into your view of important benefits. I find it odd that you claim the right ignores the deaths of these people, and then claim that their deaths are irrelevant all in the same post.

No way. I guess the best way to describe it is this: removing Saddam from power may have been the most wonderful human accomplishment of the last 5 years. Nevertheless, if the stated reasons and goals are lies, then what can we honestly say about the future of Iraq? Being marginally better than Saddam in some areas, and throwing away the secular government and women's rights in the process, is absolutely no cause to cheer. If Bush and Co. just wanted oil, and a forward military base from which to attack Iran, then the good of Saddam's removal is irrelevant.

In other words, it isn't enough to say "Saddam's gone, so the ends justify the means'...not when so far the end seems to have been the removal a Saddam, with no thought to any future but cheap oil and attacking Iran.



Lol, then address the second paragraph of my post above. You are the one who ignored the relevant portion of my response~:wink:

We're several posts ahead...which part am I ignoring, again?
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Zero
'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media.
As opposed to their own anti-american medias...
...what can we honestly say about the future of Iraq? Being marginally better than Saddam in some areas, and throwing away the secular government and women's rights in the process, is absolutely no cause to cheer. If Bush and Co. just wanted oil, and a forward military base from which to attack Iran, then the good of Saddam's removal is irrelevant.
Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by russ_watters
nor do we need it for a forward base

This is the one that I wonder about. We sure do now hold a strategic position - right in the middle of the middle east. I have often wondered; given the threat of terrorism, could this be the true motive? We can now strike at will, anytime, anywhere in the middle east.
 
  • #48
Originally posted by russ_watters
As opposed to their own anti-american medias... Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.

Uh huh...telling an uncomfortable truth is now defined as 'anti-american'...



And, again, no end justifies lying...especially when the ends themselves were lied about.
 
  • #49
Zero-This is the poor ignored paragraph (below), but in re-reading it, it is not as clear as I would like it to be. I would like to point out that it seems to me that much of what Bush has said, and much of what has been quoted are usually only bit's taken without the entire context and hides the ambiguousness of his speach. So, when we are speaking in a legal sense, ambiguous speach in which peaple interpret to the extent they might be inclined to hear, would probably not be accepted in a court of law as fraud, there's a very good article about Bush's speach patterns and ambiguous speach on the spincity site. I don't have the link on the comp. I am on but I will drop the URL here when I am on the other computer.
The other issue that appears to be lost in the leftwing vs. rightwing of it all is the weight that falls upon congress, and in what manner are they guilty when they allow and support presidential actions either directly or indirectly?
Lastly, I really have absolutely zero faith in any media source at this point. If I can't see the full transcript of a conversation, interview or judicial hearing I don't feel I can give it full creditability. I don't care whether the source is right or left they all appear to be on a sensationist journalistic polito opinionitist kick all the while ignoring the truth and facts. So I really am not interested in links that give me little blurbs of he said she said to support an argument. They are just not credible IMO, not the BBC, not the Washington post, not CNN.. none of them appear to be reporting unbiased facts.


Originally posted by kat

I agree in part, but first let's prove that the reasons were "made up" and not either 1. undiscovered and 2. misinformed. Secondly, we need to recognize that Bush and in his administration were not alone, many world leaders and intelligence experts have believed Iraq possessed these types of weapons or was in the process of making them, including Chiraq, Blix, Clinton and numerous Democratic Senators. Also, this is why we have a system of checks and balances, which brings in the complicity of congress...I would also point out that several democratic senators who supported the october bill authorizing the use of force said that they received the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Originally posted by russ_watters
Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.

I don't know that you have my view penned exactly as it is. I don't know what the future holds for Iraq. I don't know Bush's intentions, how could I? I don't believe it's the intent to turn Iraq into a 1980's Iran, I don't see how that is profitable to him or any of his administration, not to mention the American public but I'm not reading the depth of his mind, nor do I fool myself that he is above reproach honest and good hearted. You don't get to the white house or capitol hill and be effective if your pure of heart and soul. So, let's not fool ourselves but let's not proclaim darkness and the worst of evils either. At least not unless your willing to bundle the whole bunch of them up together for the last century and be honest about the whole mess of crookedness.
As for why "we" attacked Iraq, I know what I supported primarily and I could list all of the secondary benefits to the primary. As for the administration, including all of those who voted to support the use of force, be it democratic or republican, I would assume that they also had a long list. I'm also sure that they prioritized importance. So to say AHA! they invaded for this or this or this ignores the reality of how any large organization would approach these sort of things, be it a corporate buyout, hostile takeover or change of regime.
As for the ends and whether they will be justified, it's not yours, mine or Zero's right to usurp the voices of those who pay for the ends to decide. We'll have to wait until they can speak for themselves without the media distortion, without fear of oppression and as that will only come in time saying anything about the ends is just talk for talks sake.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is an if then question. I am not asserting that Bush lied.

If a fraud was perpetrated by Bush and some of his administration, on the people and Congress of this country, and the world in general, should he do time, or should he only be ruined and disgraced politically?

The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!
 
  • #52


Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

on the contrary, it is very much open to opinion (four pages of opinions, in fact). it is against the law for the president to lie if that lie was responsible for the needless deaths of many people.
 
  • #53


Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

Did you bother to read the criminal code that I posted. It clearly states the the law applies to anyone for any reason.. Please provide some evidence for your position as I did mine.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is the one that I wonder about. We sure do now hold a strategic position - right in the middle of the middle east. I have often wondered; given the threat of terrorism, could this be the true motive? We can now strike at will, anytime, anywhere in the middle east.
How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.
I don't know that you have my view penned exactly as it is...
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, kat. I was hoping you'd clarify. :wink:
Originally posted by Zero
telling an uncomfortable truth is now defined as 'anti-american'...
Are you saying you seriously believe foreign medias don't ever lie or slant their stories to be anti-US? Bagdhad Bob was always truthful?
And, again, no end justifies lying..
Really? Haven't you ever take an ethics course? Or even simply THOUGHT about this issue? I can think of quite a few where it is easy to see the ends justifying the means. The typical example is what if you had a Jew in your house in 1938 in Germany and a Nazi knocked on your door asking if you had any Jews in the house? Do you lie and save your friend or tell the truth and send him to his death?

I have a real life example as well - a friend of my mother was taken to a concentration camp at age 12 or so. There they sorted the people by among other things age to determine who went to a work camp and who to a death camp. Being an early bloomer, her parents were able to lie to the Germans and tell them she was 16 (I'm not sure of the exact ages here). She lived instead of dying.

Have any kids? Always tell them the truth? Quantum mechanics? SANTA??
 
  • #55
Originally posted by russ_watters
How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.

Ah, but we sure had to kiss some butts didn't we. And we surely did not get the kind of access desired. Turkey never did let us in. Then we have Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, all unfriendly or potentially so; and of course our friends the Saudis - 15 of which were 9/11 terrorist. If access was not an issue, then why did we spend so much time negotiating with so many countries. Additionally, if some of these guys were to turn on us, access could be much more of an issue. But not anymore. We now have strategic control of the entire middle east. The irony of this is that even I've got to love it! I may have moral or ethical objections to one thing or another, but it hard to argue with the military position we have; in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Of course, things could still get real ugly...again. And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place.
Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by russ_watters
Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.

This is really what I meant. This, in addition to our [the military industrial complex] arms sales, the artificial borders that resulted from the world wars, and finally, our political role and the influence that we impose on the area. Much of this really goes back to Israel, but our oil interests also go back to the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Did anyone watch the Jim Lehrer News hour on PBS tonight? They showed Bush on Polish TV stating that we had found WMDs. This related to the alleged chemical trucks that checked out completely clean. This guy knows no limits! He has no regard for the truth; unlike Clinton.
 
  • #59
Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts [Broken]

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts [Broken]

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.

"There is evidence of exaggeration not just by administration leaders," he said, "but by the intelligence community which are subject to review . . . to see whether they're objective and accurate so that we can in the future rely on our intelligence."

Hmmm. Now who has close ties to the intelligence community? Let me see...could it beeeee...daddy? How conviiieeeeeenent.

All in all, I really thought this report favors Bush more than not. However, it would seem that as a best case scenario, the imminent threat and the WMDs that "we know are around Tikrit" [as per Rummy], were really assumptions based on weak information that is up to ten years old. Gee, I don't feel lied to. IS this a lie? Wait, what is the meaning of IS? Boy politics gets complicated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.
 
  • #62
Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses. Conspiracy and fraud against the US make Clinton look like a boy scout.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.


If he knowingly lied, US law calls for up to 20 years of jail time.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(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;
(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.


Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme
or artifice with the intent -
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall,subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section,

shall be fined not more than 1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Yes the constitution is just another liberal left wing agenda. Considering that you consider fraud and conspiracy by King George as pro-American, I can see why you don’t understand the argument. It is this kind of blind patriotism that defiles the very principles upon which this country was based. Clinton was an embarrasing shame. Bush is dangerous, an insult, and a disgrace. I would rather have a brilliant scoundrel for president than a dimwitted zealot.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses.
"Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations.

The fact that your entire post is completely wrong makes your source pretty obvious.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by russ_watters
"Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught.
You didn't answer the question. Established by whom? If I don't agree and a lot of other people don't agree, then it is very much still up for debate.

And clear isn't always clear. Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception. But clearly that doesn't happen. There is a reason for that.

Also, the law with regard to foreign citizens are more complicated (even worse if they are government officals). Best not to go into that.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations.
Link? Maybe Ganshauk needs to copy my sig.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Originally posted by russ_watters
Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception.

My new signature?

Not for any deception, for committing fraud against the US. If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does?
 
  • #68
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does?
Ivan, that's exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).
 
  • #69
Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, that's exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).

First, I am sure that these laws are used to convict people on a regular basis. These ARE the primary US laws relating to Fraud and Conspiracy. Also, people from Watergate did go to jail on just such charges. You make it sound as if there is no law because it is so plainly stated otherwise. If you lie to the government about your taxes you can go to jail. If you lie about your ID you can to jail. Conspiracy to defraud in a money scheme lands you in jail. Presenting false evidence to congress can land you in jail. There is precedence. How many examples should I give?
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is precedence. How many examples should I give?
One would be fine. Can you provide one example of a politician being jailed for something he claimed in a political speach?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
Back
Top