Seriously, is there a straight faced justification for this position?
The president can do anything he wants.
Sadly, this justification is typically delivered with a straight face.
Yeah, I think basically the same. I'm just wondering if there's an answer to "Why is that preferable to testifying on the record under oath," that isn't "So the aides can lie." What do people answer that question with?
I believe the explanation is that congressional investigations inevitably turn into witch-hunts where high-level White House officials are constantly subjected to unfounded accusations of crimes, including lying under oath. This wasn't the case before, but unfortunately, Republicans discovered during the 1990s that this is what happens. They're sadder but wiser now and don't want that sort of thing to happen again, for the good of the country, which would lose its faith in democracy if too many congressmen were going around all willy-nilly accusing people of lying. Whether or not those people in fact happen to be lying is hardly germane to the issue.
The only way to prevent it is by removing any sort of punishment for lying, which in turn removes the incentive for investigators to claim their investigatees are lying.
Huh. That's actually dishonest, but not crazy -- I could see a human being buying it.
That's what I was looking for: I couldn't come up with anything at all to figleaf the position, but that would do it.
Classic Nixon playbook stuff. When the existence of the White House tapes was disclosed, the first offer was that Sen. John Stennis—who was somewhat deaf— should listen to them, to see whether they were significant or not, I guess. As I remember it, it was to protect against the president and his papers/records being subpeonaed by Congress, violating their sense of the separation of powers.
Thanks LB. You just have to remember to enter the mind of someone for whom the use of the word "liar" is infinitely more destructive to the public good than the actual act of lying.
Despite the peevish, petulant performance of the bogus POTUS, it was a well-crafted political response but hardly a logical one. Yesterday, the most often repeated words were "reasonable" and "partisan." That is the public message being crafted. Must be a Rove-ism.
Bush said he doesn't want aides to testify under oath because the hearings would just be a "fishing expedition". Ordinarily I don't think this would be a problem--if Congress has just general concerns about something, then off-the-record interviews might be a good idea to more strictly define the scope of the inquiry in advance of true hearings--except that in this case, there are very specific issues that need to be addressed, and public hearings with sworn-in witnesses are perfectly appropriate. The administration's objections are quite hollow.
It isn't clear to enough people that the idea of testifying not under oath is not some sort of compromise between testifying and not testifying, but is a completely laughable idea because of how obviously it sends the message "I plan to lie, and would prefer impunity".
Even more, the 'no transcript' requirement. "I'll tell you everything, but only if you can't ever prove to anyone else what I said." I'd trade the 'under oath' requirement for transcripts (particularly given that lying to Congress remains criminal even without an oath).
It's intimidation and game-playing. They've already done it once when Bush and Cheney were interviewed in private, not under oath, no transcript, sitting next to one another.
There's no possible justification for this kind of thing. From Bush's point of view, he can't be accused of refusing to testify,a nd he can accuse the Democrats of being harsh and suspicious for expecting openness or normal safeguards such as swearing in.
My favorite part of 3: "...unfortunately, Republicans discovered during the 1990s that this is what happens."
And you're right -- this is exactly what they're trying to sell.
David Iglesias of New Mexico, responded to the president: "I appreciate his gratitude for my service -- this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me."
To me this is evidence that the question is not whether the aides should take an oath, but the way in which they interpret their duty.
I'd be much happier if government officials were objecting based on the conviction that the act of swearing to the truth implies different standards of truth with and without oaths.
But somehow I don't think that is their concern.
The only way out for Bush is to keep hammering home the idea, repeated through their lickspittles in the media and then passed on by people too stupid to know better, that this is a partisan flap about nothing. This is within the realm of the possible -- after all, we saw partisan flaps about nothing over and over in the past fifteen years, and even a bare few targetting Republicans. So you'll see over and over again that this is business as usual and Bush is trying to be a bipartisan compromiser without violating his duly arrived at and principled stance about executive privilege, but the mean ol' Senate won't let him. They'll cut Gonzales and even potentially Rove loose before they'll admit that they fired Carol Lam for getting too close to revealing CIA corruption.
These are my thoughts exactly: what reason is there for refusing to have testimony under oath, unless you're planning on lying? Furthermore, wouldn't "honorable public servants" tell the truth about anything, and shouldn't being under oath be no big deal to their honorable asses?
From the update link:
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the administration could be expected to challenge any subpoena in court, meaning the legal proceedings could outlast the Bush presidency.
"It goes to the district court and then potentially the Supreme Court and you're talking about an administration with 21 months to go. You can do the math. Courts don't work that fast," Toobin said on CNN's "American Morning."
Looks like they've called for Four Corners.
18 immediately makes me think of Tom Cruise ...
"Looks like they've called for Four Corners."
In my household, any bad calls receives shouts of "CAROLINA REF!!!!!!!"
The Dems need to respond back with the politicizing of justice angle, hard. Bush is already trying to call this a politic witch hunt.
Don't wuss out Dems!
17:
And if it does look like the subpoenas would end up in court, then Bush could get _those_ prosecuters fired, and arounfd we go! What fun. It is indeed, good to be king.
-John
any bad calls receives shouts of "CAROLINA REF!!!!!!!"
Carolina gets the calls due to their mastery of subject-verb agreement.
I liked the quote from Patrick Leahy that was going around yesterday (which I am too lazy to retrieve) - it was just short of saying that the reason he wasn't going to accept unsworn testimony is that it would then be just more of the same bullshitting they've been getting all along.
I always find thread highjacking annoying, but since this is a political post, I'm going to pretend this is tangentially on topic: Any of the New Yorkers here go to the Drinking Liberally events? If so, which ones and how are they?
A good friend of mine goes (Dr. Germ, for anyone who met her at the last Unfogged meetup) and enjoys them a lot.
26. In which Bitch, PhD. outs herself as a Scientologist.
Perhaps the answer is because that's what best serves the Bush administration?
See a satirical visual lampooning the Bush administration's version of "Justice Is Served"...here:
Hey, I just got a polling phone call and I got to say that I disapprove of the President's job performance. Best. Telemarketer. Ever.
"Carolina gets the calls due to their mastery of subject-verb agreement."
They is probably, however, better about reading there sentences before hitting post.
17.
We have the Watergate experience on which to to fall back. This can be fast-tracked by the donkeys, although the elephants will opt for stalling. My prediction.
Isn't lying to Congress (in an investigation) a crime whether or not the statement is under oath? I've always been under the impression that it is, and, poking around briefly, 18 U.S.C. 1001 looks fairly clear, unless I'm missing a nuance. Which I probably am, otherwise why refuse to testify under oath? (Seems pretty unlikely that these guys would feel constrained by simply swearing to tell the truth where they wouldn't otherwise. Although maybe a few of them are afraid of god or something.)
otherwise why refuse to testify under oath?
They don't want a transcript, either.
They don't want a transcript, either.
Right. So, oath or not, still a crime to lie; oath or not, probably no way to prosecute if there's no transcript. Just seems odd to refuse to testify under oath if there's no practical benefit, when it sends a message that you plan to lie. So I'm assuming there's a practical benefit, just can't imagine out what it is (except maybe that the media/wingosphere will say "well, he wasn't under oath, so no big deal" when the inevitable bullshit is leaked).
Maybe these people just can't bring themselves to acknowledge any power of Congress to bind them. Swearing an oath to tell Congress the whole truth, rather than just bestowing whatever amount of truth they choose, would be too much of an admission that they had duties to Congress?
The whole thing is to confuse enough people to get away with it. a certain number of non-wingers will say, "But he agreed to let them testify! Where's the problem?"
Hell, non-sworn, non-public interrogations don't even qualify as "testifying", in the dictionary in my head.
Yeah, I think that's more 'spin'.