Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, February 09, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama won caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state and moved ahead in the Louisiana primary Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In the GOP, Sen. John McCain flunked his first ballot test since becoming the Republican nominee-in-waiting. He lost Kansas caucuses to Mike Huckabee, gaining less than 24 percent of the vote.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

What did you expect? Both the Huckster and the citizens of Kansas believe the Flintstones is a documentary.

Huckster could pick the Phelps "God hates Fags" dude as his running mate.

click your heels together three times and you'll be back home.
where's toto?

the juggernaut that is the huckabee campaign is on a roll now, huh?

Yeehaawww! A squirrel in every fryin' pan!

Kansas picks Obama and Huckaberry? That is a weird combo.

Poor conservatives. 4 months ago the mouthpieces of the Republican party were wailing against Huckabee as a liberal RINO. Now they're forced to vote for him as the "protest" vote.

The best/worst part is the poor victims card they have started playing.

"Oh poor poor us, the conservatives are being marginalized by the Republican party..its just sooo unfaiiiirrrrr"

Deal with it Sparky. Since Bush 1 the the libertarians and paleo-cons have been marginalized. You've stepped up and claimed the past 7 years as your own baby, now you have to deal with the consequences.

Not that Huckabee or Mccain make me feel any better in my former party's skin, it just feels good to watch Hannity/Limbaugh squirm.

Obama campaign claims "irregularities" in Louisiana

Good God, is it possible for Liberals to lose anymore without crying and talking about how the election was stolen? Maybe you just didn't get as many votes as the other candidate...

Now if he loses he's got his excuse all ready and out there...

I think Louisiana may be the one state that gives Illinois a run for its money when it comes to a history of "politcal irregularities".

Not that I'm giving any credence to his claim just yet, but I wouldn't exactly be surprised if "iregularites" happened.....

Remember this is the state whose 4 term Governor is currently serving 10 years in prison for racketeering. Governor Edwards had once joked with reporters: "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy".

Grand Theft Primary

Might not an alternative hypothesis to the one of a free, fair, and honest vote explain the numbers somewhat better? Let's say, for instance, that the vote was rigged and the desired outcome was to keep Hillary firmly in the race in the face of the apparently much greater popularity of her opponent. Let us suggest, further, that the voting machines in some jurisdictions are more difficult to rig than in others, and caucuses are the most difficult of all to rig.

www.dcdave.com

Nebraska and Washington to Obama.

Is it unusual that Obama has dominated every caucus? There must be an explanation for that.

Wobbie. Shhhhh!

Maybe Obama wins the caucuses because they are public, and HRC doesn't have an opportunity to intercede via her buddies at Diebold.

Maybe Obama wins the caucuses because they are public, and HRC doesn't have an opportunity to intercede via her buddies at Diebold.

Posted by moder8

Or the "Bradley Effect" plays better in a primary enviroment then a Caucus....

The hidden effect of race? Possibly. I just don't trust the Clinton machine. Too calculated. Too manipulative. Too shifty.

Is it unusual that Obama has dominated every caucus? There must be an explanation for that.

Obama's running one hell of an organization.

What did you expect? Both the Huckster and the citizens of Kansas believe the Flintstones is a documentary.

Posted by reznwerks


That made me LOL

I heard speech today by Obama about how he will help young Americans with money for college, etc. but they must also give back to the nation by doing community service in veterans' homes, helping in their neighborhoods, and other needed services. Sounded like a fair and good idea to me.

help young Americans with money for college, etc. but they must also give back to the nation

Heard that somewhere before, oh it was from that guy that got impeached.

Cheers,
Walt

Conservatives are furious over McCain. Don't be too surprised if Huckabee is not staying in the race because he wants to be McCain's VP (which is the opinion currently in the media) but instead he's staying in to actually win the Republican nomination. It ain't over yet!

Right Chris. A Peace Corps at home and abroad.

Well, at least ONE Hussein seems to be on the rise.

Obama's running one hell of an organization.

Posted by rcade at 2008-02-09 08:54 PM | Rep


He sure is. But being the new kid on the block I'd sure be interested in knowing who's behind giving Obama the big bucks and the professional expertise to run his campaign. I'm not saying it's not on the up and up but I always follow who's behind the money and their motive for giving the money. Does anyone know who Obama's big backers are?

Huckabee wins. Good. Someone needed to slow down McCain and his "Straight BS Express."

Does anyone know who Obama's big backers are?

CNN, MSNBC, DR, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Socialist Party of America.

Cheers,
Walt

Does anyone know who Obama's big backers are?

Yeah, people making online donations of $25-$50.

32 million in January? I don't remember. Better ratio of small online donations versus big donor than Clinton.

Good God, is it possible for Liberals to lose anymore without crying and talking about how the election was stolen? Maybe you just didn't get as many votes as the other candidate...

Now if he loses he's got his excuse all ready and out there...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2008-02-09 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rube, I seem to remember your party sucking it's thumb and wetting it's diaper when it LOST both the house and senate.

How quickly you forget. It was pleasure to remind you.

"Does anyone know who Obama's big backers are?"


CAIR is one of them.

Heard that somewhere before, oh it was from that guy that got impeached.

Cheers,
Walt

Posted by Walt at 2008-02-09 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh yeah, the guy that the repubs impeached for lying about his private life.

The same repubs who cheer for a man who lied to go to war in Iraq, costing over 4000 soldiers lives.

.....but Clintons blowjob is still a much more serious issue, right?

Obama's running one hell of an organization.

Posted by rcade


Well, let's hope he can carry this popularity to more than one election in November. If he beats McCain but loses Congress, this is a failure. He will get zero done for 2 to 4 years.

The only Dem win, no matter the candidate, is getting the White House and Congress for the first time in 14 years. America is depending heavily on this election. My $1,800 economy stimulating check needs some hope.

.....but Clintons blowjob is still a much more serious issue, right?

Yawnnnnnnn.

weak

What did you expect? Both the Huckster and the citizens of Kansas believe the Flintstones is a documentary.

Do you think they are dumbasses for voting for Obama?

"He sure is. But being the new kid on the block I'd sure be interested in knowing who's behind giving Obama the big bucks and the professional expertise to run his campaign. I'm not saying it's not on the up and up but I always follow who's behind the money and their motive for giving the money. Does anyone know who Obama's big backers are?"

Posted by CalifChris


then there is this disturbing "story" by Tarpley ~ author of the legendary free online bio of GW's dad...Wes ~ myspace profile:

Webster Tarpley's Blurbs
About me:
Webster Griffin Tarpley is an erudite researcher, historian, commentator and exposer of state and covert-ops illuminoid mafia pranksters. Please take no offence if I do not reply or add you - I am busy and I can hardly work the buttons in this place. My website is
www.tarpley.net Don't spend all your time down the discotheque. Activism is back - we are ALL change if we want it: get active or get radio-active. "A new world... if you can handle it..." - Col. Phillip[ Corso. Foreign technology desk and Pentagon comms. 1943-79. Exopolitics and 9 are the key to transformation. Get Active or get Radio-Active !


profile.myspace.com

Obama Campaign Linked
To Chechen Terrorism
Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror
Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski
'One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life'
By Webster G. Tarpley
2-3-8

"I am glad [Brzezinski] is a "former" national security adviser. Hatred cannot drive foreign policy." Russian UN ambassador (now Foreign Minister) Sergei Lavrov, Charlie Rose program, March 25, 1999

"How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?" -- Pravda.ru


If the American public were generally aware that the "foreign minister" of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by at least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in Washington DC, they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is the "foreign minister" of a terrorist group specializing in killing women and children first in a hospital, then in a school, and later defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington DC with a lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for at the expense of the US taxpayers, with State Department checks signed by Condoleeza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that this ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current all expenses paid, taxpayer-funded lifestyle by a man who is the main image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, their view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the presidency might well undergo a radical change.


www.rense.com

?

.....but Clintons blowjob is still a much more serious issue, right?

Yawnnnnnnn.

weak

Posted by eberly at 2008-02-09 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Please address the rest of my post. I'd like you to defend your position, if you will.

Oh yeah, the guy that the repubs impeached for lying about his private life.

The same repubs who cheer for a man who lied to go to war in Iraq, costing over 4000 soldiers lives.


Sorry.

He lied. He was asked questions and he chose to lie. Clinton chose his actions also. I agree that it was over insignificant actions............yet he lied.

Repubs cheering? what do you mean?

Hmmmm Obama against Huckabee?

That would be too easy! Unless, Steve Colbert gets to really run for VP....then I might have to reconsider my options here...but I don't think Colbert would have the power to influence like Darth Cheney did/does.

Still Obama would crush them like the fruits they are. Huckabee would still be the divider and Obama is the Uniter!

Even McCain doesn't have much hope against the American Dream being embodied by Obama IMHO.


Regardless...Go Obama Go! This is awesome stuff so far.

Obama 08!

CNN just called Louisiana for Obama.

GREAT DAY IN THE MORNING! Sorry, just am so happy right now.

Obama's speeches are so eloquent they are downright Pat Paulsonesque.

Would just like to point out that Matt Drudge is obviously asleep, his headlines have been the same for hours, while our own Rcade has been on top of things by the minute. Lets hear it for Rogers being so on the minute.

"Would just like to point out that Matt Drudge is obviously asleep, his headlines have been the same for hours"

I think he just changed them.


Eberly,

You are overlooking the obvious difference....When cliton LIED, he was under oath and therefore committing a FELONY. He then told others to lie, thus suborning perjury, ANOTHER FELONY.

Bush made statements that he believed to be true at the time that were based upon conflicting intelligence. He chose which to believe and went forward. Was he wrong...apparently. Did he lie...no. If he did, was it a FELONY, no.

"Bush made statements that he believed to be true at the time..."

Did he? When one reexamines the trumped up "evidence" that Powell took to the UN, it more than makes one go hmmmmmmm.

"If he did, was it a FELONY, no."

Hiding behind the letter of the law doesn't mitigate the damage done to the country. Should we compare the two situations?

Lets hear it for Rogers being so on the minute.

sssllluuurrrppp!!!

Bush made statements that he believed to be true at the time that were based upon conflicting intelligence.

Bush made statements he chose to make based on one side of the intelligence he chose to use. He did so to promote his agenda without regard to his own words to the nation - that war would be the last resort. I suppose it was only a little white lie. Nearly harmless, except for the thousands dead, the tens of thousands wounded, the trillion dollar deficit and the devaluation of both the US$ and US influence.

When cliton LIED, he was under oath and therefore committing a FELONY. He then told others to lie, thus suborning perjury, ANOTHER FELONY.

Has George ever testified about anything under oath, while he was the president? Why have so many in his administration received a pass from testifying under oath? Seems like a pretty good way to stay out of trouble! They can mislead all they like, as long as they aren't sworn in, right?

Oh, and never mind that Clinton's illegal deed was over a personal issue, while Bush's deceptions were actually related too management of this country.

This Democrat race is the weirdest of my lifetime. Seems like you guys are headed to a brokered convention. And when was the last time a convention was in any way interesting? 1972 maybe?

OBAMA? NEBRASKA? Either hell is freezing over or there is something to global warming...

I tell you what, if the superdelegates fuck this up and go with the establishment candidate, Hillary, not only will the dems lose the presidential race, they could very well end up losing their majority in Congress. There is a groundswell for Obama and if the Clintons try to undermine the voice of the people for their own political gain then they will divide their party.

The candidate with the most states and the most pledged delegates should win the nomination.

Tax, that might be two different people though: what do you do if Obama wins the most states, but Hillary has the most pledged delegates?

Hit post too soon. Apologies.

What if, in the end, it works out the way it has thus far? Where Hillary and Obama are basically tied, unless you include Florida and Michigan, which went for Clinton? But where Clinton has won slightly more votes and the bigger states, but fewer delegates and fewer states?

You guys have a serious problem. I'm not happy with McCain, but the way the Repubs have it set up, it avoids these kinds of train wrecks--our delegate system is more of a winner-take-all proposition, and reality tends to set in a lot more quickly.

Sorry.

He lied. He was asked questions and he chose to lie. Clinton chose his actions also. I agree that it was over insignificant actions............yet he lied.

Repubs cheering? what do you mean?

Posted by eberly at 2008-02-09 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

So tell me then, which is more serious? You chose to weigh in with your 'Yaaaawn' comment. You addressed the Clinton part, not how about Bush's lies?

Are you saying that you're not pro-war?

You guys have a serious problem. I'm not happy with McCain, but the way the Repubs have it set up, it avoids these kinds of train wrecks--our delegate system is more of a winner-take-all proposition, and reality tends to set in a lot more quickly.

Posted by rightisright at 2008-02-10 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

You really think that the 'winner take all' is a better way to go?

I'm no fan of these 'super delegates' but I think people's votes should count. The winner-take-all system effectively disposes of votes.

where is the spin from corky?

where is the spin from corky?

On his/her thumb.


OBAMA? NEBRASKA? Either hell is freezing over or there is something to global warming...

Posted by AuntieSocial


I was at the Sarpy County (NE) caucus today and it was fucking nuts. They expected a few hundred today and got a few thousand. The parking lot was so packed that they (local law enforcement) had to turn people away from the polling for safety reasons.

The county north of us had to delcare a state of emergency because of polling place overcrowding.

Once our caucus site managed to make more declaration forms, the caucus started 2 hours later than it was supposed to and it was obvious that Hillary's supporters were WEAK in number compared to Obama's.

Proud to say I was caucusing for Obama. It was clear that alot of people there were inspired. Lots of spontaneous cheering.

Besides having to stand in line in 20 degree weather for 20 minutes just to get in the building, it was an experience I wouldn't trade.


Common,

Bush did not lie. Even those trying to make the point say: "Bush made statements he chose to make based on one side of the intelligence he chose to use."

By definition that is not a lie. It is being wrong. We choose to believe one side over another every day for whatever reason. Juries do it anytime they are impanelled. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong...but do you believe that everyone that makes the wrong choice between two competing stories is LYING? If so, please tell me how the person KNEW the statement that was made was false at the time the person made it, if it was supported with some evidence?

"This Democrat race is the weirdest of my lifetime. Seems like you guys are headed to a brokered convention. And when was the last time a convention was in any way interesting? 1972 maybe?"

If the definition of "brokered convention" is one where any particular candidate does not have enough delegate votes to secure the nomination on the first ballot then this seems to be the answer to RightisRight's question:

The last time a convention went beyond the first ballot for the top spot on a ticket was in 1952, when it took three ballots for Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson to win the Democratic nomination. Republicans went three ballots in 1948 to give New York Gov. Tom Dewey the nomination over Ohio Sen. Robert Taft.
The 1960 and 1968 Democratic Party conventions appear to have included "wheeling-and-dealing" to secure enough votes before the first ballot, so those might be considered "brokered" as well.

Finally, regarding the 1976 GOP convention (from the same article referenced above):
The last truly contested convention was 1976, when Republicans gathered in Kansas City. Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan fought President Gerald Ford all the way through the primaries. Ford had just enough delegates to win entering the convention. Reagan worked hard to woo some away; Ford worked equally hard to keep them. Ultimately, Ford won by a slender margin on the first ballot of delegates.
Hans

A Citizen
Bush did not lie. Even those trying to make the point say: "Bush made statements he chose to make based on one side of the intelligence he chose to use."
Having two sides to choose from did not excuse the choice. When your experts in nuclear energy tell you there is no way the tubes can be used for that purpose, and your missle experts tell you the tubes are a match for the missiles he is making. Them you get a report from those with NO EXPERTISE that says could so. What do you call that.

please tell me how the person KNEW the statement that was made was false at the time the person made it, if it was supported with some evidence?

The yellow cake was a lie. The mobile biological trucks were identified when Scott Ritter was in Iraq (he left in 1998) and he was all over the place saying so. At least JFK's SOS had pictures CP had drawings and not very good ones at that.


MMike,

Relying on data to make a choice does not make the choice a lie if the data is bad. If the Yellow Cake was a "lie" my question is when did Bush know that it was absolutely not true.

Bottom line, Bush did not lie...he made some bad choices. Cliton knew damned well that what he said was untrue at the time he said it. (In the business we call that mens rea.) He then told others not to tell the truth. (This is often called actus reus.) Both of these were in agreement on Cliton. No one can show both of these with Bush.

A Citizen

That's an excuse, your word playing now. He had the correct information and chose not to use it so he could build a case for war.

...your experts in nuclear energy tell you there is no way the tubes can be used for that purpose, and your missle experts tell you the tubes are a match for the missiles he is making.

Just because there is a differing opinion does not give credence to that information.

Looking for an answer to fit your needs with no basis in fact= is a lie period.

His job as CIC was not to be led by his personal beliefs/vendetta against SH.


The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If a Lie to a grand jury = impeachment
What does a lie getting the US into war=?

MMike,

As I have said and you have failed to refute...Bush did not lie. He acted on bad information.

In answer to your question: Assuming for argument sake that Bush did lie to get us into war...it is not treason, it was not bribery, so tell me what US law might have been violated.

Only going with information that goes along with what You want to say while ignoring what information says that goes directly against what You want to convey is a Lie of ommission which A_Citizen is still a Lie. I don't know why You bushites have so much trouble admitting the truth that Dubya has gotten this Country into an Illegal War and You are just as responsible for it by Your support of it. You guys just do not have the fucking balls to admit it that is all.

Larry Mohr

Lies Dubya used

1.) the 16 words in the SOTU
2.)Links to AL Qaeda
3.)Aluminum Tubes
4) many more A_Citizen !!!!!!!! How much more do You need???

Larry

Lies Dubya used to justify the Iraq War

www.publicintegrity.org

Larry Mohr

Huckster is challenging the Washington results.

youdecide08.foxnews.com


Larry,

First, you can call it an illegal war all day long...much like calling Hillary a First Lady for eight years, labeling a thing doesn't make the thing fit the label. We have had the conversation several times and until you get past the analysis of Pink (written by a lawyer...not unlike me) compared to actual language of the Court...which is the law..we really can't go further than to say we disagree with each other.

As to your article - obviously written by someone with an agenda...the best it can say is "Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence."

Even with all of these statements which, when examined through the window of history, turned out to be inaccurate. That is not a lie.

Bush did not lie. He acted on bad information.

In answer to your question: Assuming for argument sake that Bush did lie to get us into war...it is not treason, it was not bribery, so tell me what US law might have been violated.

Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-02-10 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Thats fuckin' pathtetic...

Yeah, Left...imagine that...demanding that someone be able to substantiate a BS claim by identifying the law that was broken before calling someone a criminal. Damn that is pathetic. Are you secretly a judge on a FISA court somewhere? Maybe you work as an intelligence officer at Club Gitmo.

Bush did not lie. Even those trying to make the point say: "Bush made statements he chose to make based on one side of the intelligence he chose to use."

By definition that is not a lie. It is being wrong. We choose to believe one side over another every day for whatever reason. Juries do it anytime they are impanelled. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong...but do you believe that everyone that makes the wrong choice between two competing stories is LYING? If so, please tell me how the person KNEW the statement that was made was false at the time the person made it, if it was supported with some evidence?

Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-02-10 08:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Remember Richard Clarke? He was Bush's terrorism cszar when 911 happened. Bush told him to find a connection to Saddam. When Clarke couldn't, Bush screamed at him to find a connection somehow. When Clarke again said there wasn't one, Bush stopped having him involved with intelligence briefs. He essentially cut Clarke out of the loop because he wouldn't play along with Bush's march to war.

Remember Bush saying that 'Saddam was part of 911' for years? Then he FLIP FLOPPED when he realized that his lie was exposed.

Let's get back to my original argument a few post back. Which was worse? Lying about getting a blowjob, or lying about Saddam, resulting in the deaths of 4000 US Soldiers?

Let's get back to my original argument a few post back. Which was worse? Lying about getting a blowjob, or lying about Saddam, resulting in the deaths of 4000 US Soldiers?

this was your original question.....


.....but Clintons blowjob is still a much more serious issue, right?

I, AGAIN, offer my "yawnnnnnnnnnn" because it is still a stupid question.

Why ask it? I don't remember anybody saying it was a "more serious issue".

Clinton lied. Sorry, I didn't make him lie and neither did the republicans. quit bringing it up. It only makes you look stupid.


A Citizen
As I have said and you have failed to refute...Bush did not lie. He acted on bad information.

In answer to your question: Assuming for argument sake that Bush did lie to get us into war...it is not treason, it was not bribery,
I gave you 3 examples of were he knew of the correct informatopn a CHOSE to give false information.

You do not have to be under oath to give false info to congress, if you do it is against the law.


A Citizen...so tell me what US law might have been violated...

It's a very old law but aplies here...
Articule II Section 4 of the US Constitution
among others

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


MMike,

Once again you have issues identifying the legal argument - let me help:

Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now, several acts of persons within the American Media or Democrat Party may fall into the aid and comfort part of the definition...but nothing Bush has done qualifies.

Bribery. This might be where you end up in the Willie Jeffers situation. It could also be where your husband takes 2 million dollars from the Yemen's government and you re-consider your position on the ports deal. Bush hasn't done that.

Finally, "...other high crimes..." This requires that some other American Criminal Law be broken. I have asked and am asking again...name the law that was broken.

Now, several acts of persons within the American Media or Democrat Party may fall into the aid and comfort part of the definition...but nothing Bush has done qualifies.

Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-02-11 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You have no credibil;ity haqve You A_Citizen that is what I have been thinking for many months now. Oh and it is against the La2w for the executive , legislatyive and judicial branches to make a material false statement. Dubya lied His ass off and You know it. You just lack tyhe moral integridy to admit to it is all A_Citizen. THAT is as plain as day to see.

Larry Mohr

A-C

A lie or false information/testimony to congress
under oath or not is a crime.


Mike,


Perhaps a word from the statute... Now for some reading comprehension...pay very careful attention to (c)(2). It would appear that your statement is erroneous...or are you lying to achieve the desired result?

18 USC 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, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 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.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable