(Thanks to alert reader Jake)
(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.
(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
This is a question of law, not a question of fact (did Bush lie?), or a political question (the "i" word).
For example: (c)(1) says: "a document required by law, rule, of regulation." And the President is required by Article II, section 3 of the Constitution to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union." So does the State of the Union address fall under (c)(1) or not?
For example: (a) says "whoever." Does that apply to Condi? Cheney? The speechwriter? Tenet? Bush?
And is violating 18 USC Sec. 1001 a penalty, or a misdemeanor?
Lawyers?
UPDATE: From alert lawyer shelly (only a lawyer would use a word like "arguendo")
I'm dubious that this statute could be used. ...
Assuming, arguendo, that the State of the Union address comes under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch as a report required by law, one would still have to prove the materiality of the statement.
What is material (centrally relevant) in a State of the Union address? I can say with some degree of certainty that the question has never been considered.
Oh well!
UPDATE: Alert reader Beth (not a lawyer) references that John Dean on this subject and suggests 18 USC Sec. 371:
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Lawyers -- any thoughts on this?