Bush's legal case shaky, experts say (WH may have made a mistake to offer Rove to be interviewed)

[maddezmom]

Compromise over aides' testimony viewed as likely
By Mark Silva
Originally published March 22, 2007
WASHINGTON // In forbidding his top aides to testify publicly and under oath on the firings of eight federal prosecutors, President Bush has set the stage for a possible legal battle with Congress that he might not be able to win, experts say, making a compromise more likely.

With the House Judiciary Committee authorizing subpoenas for the testimony of Bush's top advisers yesterday and the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared to do the same today, the White House says that preventing Karl Rove and other key officials from providing sworn public testimony is a matter of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court, however, while recognizing the right of the president to assert a constitutional confidentiality in many instances, has said that there is no such thing as "absolute privilege."

And some legal experts say the White House - in agreeing to let Rove and others be interviewed, albeit privately and without an oath or a transcript - effectively has conceded that their revelations would not compromise the president's right to confidentiality.

more:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.attorneys22mar22,0,5473216.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

[peace frog]

1. Link please?

[maddezmom]

2. oops, edited to add link

:hi:

[peace frog]

3. Thanks!

[Solly Mack]

4. Makes sense

If testifying was a breach of a president's right to confidentiality - it wouldn't matter if it was under oath or not - it would still be a breach of a president's right to confidentiality

but by saying they could testify (even under certain conditions), Bush is saying nothing they could say would constitute a breach

so it isn't a matter of breaching confidentiality for them

it's a matter of getting caught in a lie

I think Bush wants Congress to offer him a deal - a face saving deal

I hope Congress refuses to do that

Yesterday during the hearing Conyers said the subpoenas were being sought in advance of the need to use them and that negotiations were still going on to get Rove/HM to testify...and that the subpoenas would only be used "if necessary"...

This tells me Congress is giving Bush Inc a chance to present an offer that is acceptable...and not the one he has presented and called "generous"

[maddezmom]

5. I hope they don't cave either, and another thing yesterday Tony S said they would be able to take

notes and therefore would be able to use that as a transcript. So the info would get out there, just since it wouldn't be under oath it couldn't be used in case of a criminal probe.

Here's a few snips from the transcript:


MR. SNOW: Well, that's right, because that would be inappropriate. Internal deliberations -- let me put it this way: advice to the President would not be -- and that is a longstanding precedent -- people operating as advisors to the President, those are communications that have long been kept confidential. And, again, that's rooted in the separation of powers.

Q Yes, but then there's a wider scenario that the White House envisions, that is these interviews take place. And should there be a dispute about facts, how would they be resolved in a court of law if there is no transcript?

MR. SNOW: Well, wait a minute. Why are you talking about a court of law?

Q Because we're talking about a violation of an oath to tell the truth. If there's some dispute about that -- nothing a court would --

MR. SNOW: Well, I think that's just -- that's a grotesque leap. I'm not going to bite.

~snip~

Q Tony, again, as I said, it looks like an impasse in the making. Is the White House ready for this to be played out in the court for a political public spectacle?

MR. SNOW: Like I said, I'm not going to bite on questions about things that haven't happened.

Q It's not a bite.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is.

Q You just said this would be moot if they don't take the offer. You said you would reject it. So what else is left but to go to court?

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll see -- again, that is a decision -- the decision on such things lies not with the White House, but with Congress.

Q Now, the second part to that, was a crime committed? Yes. The reason why I say that, because court is an inevitability -- well, it's not an inevitability, it is one of those options dangled out there. And if you look back at history and what happened in Watergate --

MR. SNOW: I think that goes into the --

Q What crime committed -- did you say, yes or no, emphatically, was a crime committed in these firings of eight attorneys?

MR. SNOW: Let me just -- look, if you take a look at all the reporting on this, there is no evidence that anything improper has taken place, period.


and about the notes:

Q Tony, does the offer include note-taking for members of the committee? If not a formal transcript, can they take notes?

MR. SNOW: Yes. Yes.

Q So depending on how good they are at that, there may be --

MR. SNOW: Yes, so, as I said, they can give their readouts. That's fine.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070321-4.html

[Solly Mack]

6. Snow has an incredibly appropriate name doesn't it?

He does nothing but snow people.

I wonder if that was what his parents imagined for him?


They probably made jokes about being pure as snow when he was a kid - only for him to grow up to become the personification of the slang.

Notes can too easily be conflicting

A Democratic member of Congress will have his notes contradicted by a Republican member of Congress -then it becomes all about memory.

And memory can be easily attacked

Or people will write down words that weren't said even if they have similar meanings to the word actually used...or people write their impressions of what was said instead of what was actually said

Notes are a bad idea - and Snow-job knows this

[maddezmom]

8. and he's stupid to boot, the WH offer precludes taking notes

President Bush has offered to make key aides available for interviews, but only in private, and not under oath. The White House offer also precluded the taking of notes or recording of the interviews.

The subpoena power granted to the House Judiciary chairman is aimed prompting testimony from several high ranking administration officials, including the President's political adviser, Karl Rove.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9072298&ft=1&f=1001

[bemildred]

7. There is no "right to confidentiality" where the public's business is concerned.

This is all horseshit. The President serves at the pleasure of the people and the Congress, and so do all his servants.

[Kber]

9. They offered Rove 'cause they were thinking politics, not policy

Their thought process probably went something like
1. We offer a bad deal that the dems will refuse
2. We characterize the deal as reasonable and the dems as partisan witch hunters
3. We win political points in the court of public opinion by making the dems look bad

Unfortunately for them, they (once again) paid no attention to policy, or to the law, or to reality in general. One piece of reality that's smacking them in the ass now is that the congress isn't going to enable this shit anymore.

[roseBudd]

10. LOL in Law and Order speak, "they opened the door"