Quote:
Originally Posted by GigiBowman
Vincent Bugliosi before HJC for Bush Impeachment
|
His argument is baseless. The crux of his argument is "fraud."
For all civil and criminal prosecutions, there are "elements of proof." Those are the things you have to prove in order to get a conviction on a specific charge or a finding of guilty in civil prosecution.
For example, one of the several elements of proof for burglary is that it took place during the hours of darkness. As a prosecutor, you'd have to get the tables from the US Naval Observatory that show sunrise and sunset for the latitude and longitude where the crime occurred and prove that it took place after sunset. If you can't prove that, you can't get a conviction on burglary.
For fraud, the elements of proof are that
(a) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact,
(b) which is material to the transaction at hand,
(c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity, or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that knowledge may be inferred,
(d) with the intent of misleading another into relying upon it,
(e) justifiable reliance upon the representation or concealment, and
(f) a resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance.
The key to understanding is the operand, "where there is a
duty to disclose.
No president has a legal or constitutional duty or obligation to disclose to the American people or to Congress material facts relating to military operational plans, matters of national security, information classified as vital to national security or US geo-political/military strategy.
In fact, such a duty would be contrary to a president's duties and obligations under the US Constitution and public laws, resulting in a violation of the US Constitution and/or such public laws.
Bush had a reason to invade Iraq. Whatever the reason, he's under no obligation nor is he legally or constitutionally compelled to tell you the
real reason. It's sufficient that a number of high ranking and powerful senators and representatives of both the Democrat and Republican parties agreed with the Bush Administration's reasoning.
Some of you don't understand that all congresspersons are not privy to all information at all times. Rank and seniority does have its privileges, and in Congress, that includes being kept "in the loop" with respect to matters of national security.
Most of you seemed to have missed the connection when Nancy Pelosi did a complete about face after she was elevated from garden-variety congressperson to Speak of the House, a very important and powerful position, which required taking her into confidence and informing her of things she hadn't been made privy to while she was a lowly congressperson.
Once she learned the real reasons for invading Iraq, she wasn't about to do something stupid that would damage her or the Democrat Party. That's why she backed off.