http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1356

I haven't seen much from Dean campaign regarding the evolving �It was
only 16 words, get over it already.� scandal. I think inserting that the
inclusion of this particular sentance in the State of the Union Address,
(SOTU), demonstrates indictable crimes were committed by the gang at the
White House. I also think that a Special Proscecutor needs to be
appointed because Ashcroft will never do anything about it.

George Tenent's non-apology made a few things clear:

1. The CIA tried to get the infamous 16 words out of the State of the
Union Address, but;

2. Un-named others insisted that it be inserted;

3. The 16 words were known to be, uhm, dubious by the CIA; and,

4. By golly, George was really, really, really sorry that he didn't argue
hard enough to have this obvious tripe removed.

That said, one thing that hasn't been touched on here is how Tenent's
statement leaves Bush & Co. open to criminal proscecution. 

Bush presenting dubious/fictious information to Congress in the SOTU was
a felony. Go to: U.S. Code Search and look up 18 USC Sec. 1001. It says,
in part, and with emphasis added: 

(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. 

(deleted material) 

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative
branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to - 

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter
related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or
employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law,
rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or
officer within the legislative branch; . . . 

The Constitution mandates the President deliver a State of the Union
Address, �from time to time.� The President may, at his choosing, deliver
the information orally, but he must deliver it to Congress in writing as
well. Ergo, the SOTU is �a document required by law, rule, or regulation
to be submitted to the Congress.� as defined in paragraph 18 USC Sec.
1001 (c)1. Therefore, Bush's lies in the SOTU are felony violations of 18
USC Sec. 1001. 

Tenant's statement implies there was a group of un-named others who
worked tirelessly to include such, uhm, fictitious, information in the
SOTO in violation of 18 USC Sec. 1001. Which, of course, is a violation
of 18 USC Sec. 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United
States. And the fact that Tenant knew this, or suspected it, concealed
it, and did �not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or
other person in civil or military authority under the United States.�
leaves him and his un-named co-conspirators liable for prosecution for
misprision of felony, 18 USC Sec. 4. 

---
Trippi:
Questions about who put the 16 words in the speech have finally been
answered by Bush himself. 

See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56336-2003Jul14.html?nav=hp
top_tb

He said: _Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when
they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was
cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn�t have put it in the speech._ 


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to