Bush broke 5 Federal laws in Medicare coverup

[sMiLeYz]

National Review

An April 26 Congressional Research Service memorandum determined that the Bush Administration's cover-up of Foster's estimates may have violated at least five federal laws:

1) 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 1912; Treasury and General Government Appropriations, 2003)

As Lloyd-LaFollette, the Congressional Right to Know Act, reads: "The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied."

2) 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) (Whistleblower Protection Act).

As the law clearly states: "This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the withholding of information from the Congress or the taking of any personnel action against an employee who discloses information to the Congress."

The CRS paper, by Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell, amplifies this point: "[E]xecutive agencies and their officers do not have the right to prevent or prohibit their officers or employees, either individually or in association, from presenting information to the United States Congress, its Members or committees, concerning relevant public policy issues."

3) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements).

CRS explains: "In addition to criminalizing the giving of knowingly false information to the committees or offices of Congress, the statute also makes criminal the affirmative act of withholding by a 'scheme, trick or device' from such entities, pursuant to such investigation or review, material information which one has an obligation to provide."

4) 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstructing a congressional inquiry).

According to CRS: "[A]ctions which purposefully result in the transmission of knowingly false information to the United States Congress, and actions involving the intentional and active prevention of the communication of accurate information to the Congress and derogation of federal law or responsibilities, might in certain circumstances involve activities which constitute violations of federal criminal provisions."

5) 42 USC § 1317 [H. Conf. Rpt. 105 - 217, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 837 (1997)]

As CRS puts it: "Specifically, the position of Chief Actuary itself has been intentionally given a degree of independence from direct executive control by providing in law for removal only 'for cause,' and by requiring in law that the Actuary exercise 'professional standards of actuarial independence' in carrying out his functions."

BUSH IS ON A ROLL! WHOOOHOOO! YOU GO GET 'EM TIGER!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Repost.

CkG

 

[BugsBunny1078]

The President is above the law.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Repost.

CkG

any comments?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Bush certainly acts like he believes he is above the law. It will be interesting to see how these multiple cases of alleged corruption (and worse) regarding the Administration come out.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Repost.

CkG

My thread wasn't cad approved though, so lets go with this one 🙂

Thoughts cad? Or are you going to run away from these threads? 🙂

 

[Infohawk]

If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

(I've followed the threads Cad starts and I think he only likes positive threadsm, like ones about Iraqi schoolchildren. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem like he likes to address "bad news." But maybe I'm wrong about him?)

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

Non-sequiter. I suggest you read the sentence again and/or look up the word "if".

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

Non-sequiter. I suggest you read the sentence again and/or look up the word "if".

Say it IS true. Does that mean you dont want anything to happen to him? Impeached means continuing your term and staying in office, right? 😉

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

Non-sequiter. I suggest you read the sentence again and/or look up the word "if".

Say it IS true. Does that mean you dont want anything to happen to him? Impeached means continuing your term and staying in office, right? 😉

Say what is true? That he broke the law? Then I think he should be impeached and kicked out of office.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

Non-sequiter. I suggest you read the sentence again and/or look up the word "if".

Say it IS true. Does that mean you dont want anything to happen to him? Impeached means continuing your term and staying in office, right? 😉

Say what is true? That he broke the law? Then I think he should be impeached and kicked out of office.

But I thought being impeached meant staying in office and getting more blowjobs? :shocked:

 

[arsbanned]

Bush gets blowjobs? I highly doubt it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If he's breaking the law he should be impeached.

So you believe that nothing should happen to him?

Non-sequiter. I suggest you read the sentence again and/or look up the word "if".

Say it IS true. Does that mean you dont want anything to happen to him? Impeached means continuing your term and staying in office, right? 😉

Say what is true? That he broke the law? Then I think he should be impeached and kicked out of office.

But I thought being impeached meant staying in office and getting more blowjobs? :shocked:

Here's how it works