Is That Legal?

If, for example, a President and his staff cherry picks intelligence reports in order to avoid learning the falsity of a claim that is to be included in a State of the Union adress[sic]

Bush didn't claim in the SOTU that Hussein acquired yellowcake, he claimed that Hussein attempted to acquire it. And while the intelligence reports did indeed say that no yellowcake got purchased, they also said that Hussein was trying to buy it.

HA! "the doctrine of willful blindness," familiar to anyone who has ever been a parent.

My feeling is that it's only pundits and reporters who have been studiously avoiding the word "lie". I'd bet that a large portion of the population has been using it for a whole. I sure have.

You present a weak “straw man” argument attacking the President, as you attempt to tie him to some criminal activity. Your argument restates left wing talking points and relies upon a seldom used, inapplicable legal doctrine as authority for the correctness of your position.

First some psychology before the law:
Projection is a defense mechanism used when someone is afraid of their own impulses and so they attribute these impulses to others. For example, a person may insist that the President “cherry picked” intelligence information, when in fact the person cherry picks information with which to bash the President.

There is plenty of information out there to create, at worst, a debatable argument as to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of information available to show Joe Wilson a liar. There is an overwhelming amount of information showing that the President (and members of his administration) did not break the law in relation to “Plame Gate.” However, you choose to ignore this information and instead choose to assert your anti-Bush positions.

Are you just ignorant of this other information; are you willfully ignorant of this other information (for example, what books have you read backing up the President’s positions?); or are you just doing an analysis and moving forward based upon true beliefs? Should I not hesitate to call you a liar or should I accept that you may see things differently?

As to the law: “The willful blindness doctrine permits a jury to find that a defendant has knowledge of the material facts because he has deliberately chosen to remain ignorant of illegal activity that would have been disclosed by further investigation.” United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1976)). The willful blindness doctrine is primarily recognized by English authorities. Id. 532 F.2d at 705. "A classic illustration of this doctrine is the connivance of an innkeeper who deliberately arranges not to go into his back room and thus avoids visual confirmation of the gambling he believes is taking place.” Id. The willful blindness doctrine requires the government to establish that the actor had a conscious purpose to avoid enlightenment. United States v. Barnhart, 979 F.2d 647, 651 (8th Cir.1992). “Additionally, willful blindness requires proof that the actor took deliberate actions to prevent the obtaining of actual knowledge of the facts.” Id. (Cited by In re Conduct of Albrecht, 42 P.3d 887, 904 (Or. 2002)

You claim that the criminal law would not hesitate to call Bush a liar. You are absolutely wrong. There is limited application the willful blindness doctrine, it is extremely difficult prove, and is not used is most courts. (It's also inconsistent with North Carolina law, State v. Bogle, 324 N.C. 190, 194 (1989), which I figured you knew, as a tenured Associate Professor of Law.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for accountability for wrongdoing but this appears to be yet another lame attempt (such as the "domestic surveillance program") to discredit the President and connect him with illegal activity. Maybe it doesn't matter to you if the accusations are true as long as people will view the President in a negative light.

Well I believe the President. And I feel very, very bad for him.

(oh... sorry... I thought you said Woeful Blindness)

I have been wondering if at this point there are any legal issues in regard to the President authorising a staffer to leak the NIE intel to the press (whether declassified or not) and then not providing this information to a grand jury investigation.

Has this issue already been addressed somewhere else here ?

Projection is a defense mechanism used when someone is afraid of their own impulses and so they attribute these impulses to others. For example, a person may insist that the President “cherry picked” intelligence information, when in fact the person cherry picks information with which to bash the President.

So what do we call this? Preemptive metaprojection?

There's little substance to an argument over what Bush knew when, or whether he cherry-picked or spun or -- sure, I'll say it -- lied. Even were they true, Bush's "best intelligence at the time" blandishments would be no exoneration. Presidents, in the words of Gil Scott-Heron, do not have "the right to be wrong": to be correctly informed is part of the job. How weak, for the chief executive of a super-power to claim he was a victim of his intelligence gatherers! (Indeed, that position is completely untenable, when his intelligence gatherers produce the information originally delivered, and ignored or distorted.) But to excuse himself that he's not in command of the facts when he formulates policy -- that shamefully mocks the trust he begs us for.

From the WTC plane-bombings to the Iraq invasion to Hurricane Katrina, with many stops along the way, the case of George Bush is clear: if he knew he is complicit, and if he did not know, he is incompetent. Either side of the question leads to the same conclusion.

I won't stop short of saying it. The President lied. He lied in his State of the Union, he lied about not torturing people, and he lied about wanting to solve the situation in Iraq diplomatically. There is sooooo much more, but I have not the time.