What would keep the Dems from accepting the private meeting and then subpoena?

[IsItJustMe]

I know this seems to obvious and there must be an error in my logic somewhere. But it seems to me that if they had the private meetings with Rove and the rest, then they would have a good idea of what was going on and could then use that information later on with their subpoenas.

I have to be missing something. Anyone know?

[tnlurker]

1. Part of the deal offer

Was that there would be no later subpoenas.

[Virginia Dare]

3. I didn't realize that, thanks for the info..

makes perfect sense for that band of criminals to attempt to cover their asses all the way.

and welcome to DU!

[Virginia Dare]

2. They'd be "showing their hand" so to speak...

my theory is they've got a piece of rather explosive and damning evidence on Rove, why tip him to it?

[Xipe Totec]

4. Why should they?

And it's not the Dems asking, it is the United States Senate; a co-equal branch of our government, and not a rubber stamp to an imperial presidency.

[IsItJustMe]

8. In all honesty, I am absolutely sure that the proven rubber stamping Republican senators wish this

to just go away. To be more precise, the Dems in the Senate. But you will probably be seeing investigations in the house also. That's how it usually seems to work.

After the last four years, I refuse to give any Republican Senator any credit for integrity or character.

[Xipe Totec]

9. This is not a partisan fracas

This is the US Senate (finally) asserting it's oversight responsibility.

When we refer to it as 'the Dems', we diminish the importance and seriousness of these investigations.


This is not a game of tit-for-tat; We are the majority now, and our constituency is the people of the United States, not the Democratic Party.

[IsItJustMe]

10. Your point is well taken and I understand where you are coming from. But a fact is still a fact.

You know, as well as I do, that if the Republicans where a majority in the Senate, these hearings would not be happening.

Just look at the past four years of the Republican majority rule in the Senate. I mean we are talking about going to war over lies, and thousands of people dying, and trillions of dollars being spent, and yet no true oversight or true accountability ever being applied to this president by the Republican Senate.

It's the worst that I have ever seen it in my 50 years of life. They completely dropped the ball.

But I do indeed understand your point. But I am the type of person where the 'truth' is the 'truth' regardless of how embarrassing it is.

[Xipe Totec]

11. It just plays into the Bush Administration's hands

when we characterize this as a Dems vs Repugs political fight; that is precisely what they tired to do yesterday by calling it a fishing expedition.

The only way we can bring this administration to face justice, is by setting aside our partisan differences, and showing that we are capable of building a bipartisan consensus.

Nation first, party second.

[IsItJustMe]

12. When seen through that perspective, you are absolutely correct. I think we were just talking past

each other and coming at it from different angles.

Bottom line for me, partisanship set aside, is that I would trust the Dems to do the right thing over the Republicans.

The Dems remind me of a motley crew that are more likely to tell it like it is, damned the consequences. The Republicans seem to have a authoritarian streak in them that basically says, trust the authority (the president), don't question it, and be loyal to it, right or wrong.

Thanks, enjoyed the discussion.

[Raven]

5. The courts have said that there has to be

a good faith negotiation between the two branches that, despite best efforts, has failed before the court will consider enforcing a subpoena. I wonder if what you are suggesting would be seen as a lack of good faith on the part of Congress. I also wonder if these folks end up signing some sort of a binding agreement...ie if Congress gets Rove in private, they agree not to subpoena.

[Parisle]

6. It works for me,....

--- I had been thinking along a similar line. I had even gone so far as to wonder about the possibility of getting the two Bushites behind closed doors, and then swearing them in, anyway,..... at at least videotaping their Dracula-like refusals to touch a Bible.

--- Regardless of what the White House says, there is only ONE REASON for refusing to testify under oath,... and it is so that one can lie, without incurring perjury charges. It might still constitute "lying to Congress" if such could eventually be proven. But Bush is posturing as if it was an "insult" to ask such honorable people as Rove and Miers to testify under oath. Boy, is that a stretch.

[LibDemAlways]

7. Imagine what a jury would think in a courtroom if a

witness refused to swear that he was telling the truth but was willing to sit down for a "conversation" with the jury members. They'd dismiss the person out of hand as unreliable and most likely a liar with a lot to hide.

Even by Bush admin. standards, this "private meeting" business is laughable. I hope the Dems absolutely refuse to go along with it because it would make them look stupid and gullible for even entertaining it.