|
|
. Mr. Bush, It Is A Crime To Make False Statements To Congress If there is a major terrorist attack sometime next year prior to the elections, making George Bush Junior once again our much admired Warrior Leader, guaranteeing his reelection, this would not surprise too many Americans. Craig B Hulet? 08/07/03: I am not about to rehash the fact that Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address misled, lied or deceived the entire world on a number of accounts to make his very personal case for war with Iraq. (Never mind that any pre-emptive attack against any other nation-state is illegal and a crime under international law.) The list of deceptions and lies is long and it is well known. He and many members of his circle of friends made the same false statements on many other occasions as well. Mr. Bush and the media are simply trying to ignore it to death as the public has a very short attention span. Mr. Bush and his coterie of neo-conservatives are stonewalling because, to put it simply so that even a neo-con can understand, it is a crime to give false information to Congress. It is a felony under the False Statements Statute: S. Code as of: 01/22/02 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; 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. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (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; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001".)This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. The State of the Union address is given to Congress and the public gets to hear it on TV and radio. But the point isn’t so much that Bush lied or deceived "us" as that he lied to Congress! The statute is rarely used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in U.S. V. Bramblett 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. Congress comes under the term "department" as used in the statutes. See the statute excerpt at the end of this piece.* (Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=348&page=503", ) The past Bush Senior administration found this out the hard way. Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams and Robert McFarlane pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress. (Both were pardoned by the gracious President George Bush Junior.)
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. Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches "misrepresentations in a president’s State of the Union address." Some coincidence given where we stand today with Bush Junior. If Mr. Bush continues to evade the issues himself he may discover it is also a crime to commit a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress. Others at the Bush White House are complicit and could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government. This may only apply to those within the Executive Branch that gained by the lies the several appointees told, such as Halliburton Brown & Root and Mr. Cheney. These are legal questions which need to addressed in any case. The statute reads as follows:
(Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371") Can Mr. Bush be impeached? That would require an act of will the present two Houses of Congress have shown an entire lack of. Indeed, this Congress has about the backbone of that of Weimar Germany’s Parliament during the glorious years from 1933 through 1935. The Democratic presidential hopefuls is the saddest pack of dowdies we have seen in a long time. Not one of them will say to Mr. Bush and his cabal "bring ‘em on." I can well envision an act of terrorism on the American soil sometime next year, prior to the elections, or an escalation of the present two wars, or yet another war against another evil regime so as to guarantee Mr. Bush’s reelection. If there is a major terrorist attack sometime next year prior to the elections, making George Bush Junior once again our much admired Warrior Leader, guaranteeing his reelection, this would not surprise too many Americans. Should Mr. Bush demand Congress allow him to run for another third term at his second term’s finale because of the ongoing national state of emergency (Roosevelt remember?) would they acquiesce? I think...maybe. (End 8/5/03) _______________________________________________ Craig B Hulet was Special Assistant to Congressman Jack Metcalf (Ret.) and is the author of The Hydra of Carnage: Bush’s Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law -- An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire, 2002. He is periodically a consultant to ATF&E US Department of Justice, Homeland Security. www.kcandassociates.org e-mail address cali@localaccess.com Mr. Hulet can be reached through his publicist for speaking engagements at kathy@theartfulnuance.com or 360-288-2652 ________________________________________________ * U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BRAMBLETT, 348 U.S. 503 (1955) 348 U.S. 503 UNITED STATES v. BRAMBLETT. The Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives is a "department or agency" of the United States within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which forbids the willful falsification of a material fact "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States." Pp. 503-510.
(The balance of the statute can be viewed at: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=348&page=503", )
Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest
|
||||||||
