US attorneys: Won't public hearings make it easier for witnesses to coordinate

[pnwmom]

their stories? Would the interests of truth be better served if all the testimony was first given in private, but then only released after all all the witnesses had finished testifying?

[Raven]

1. Good question.

During trials often witnesses are not allowed in the courtroom before they are due to testify.

[pnwmom]

4. That's what I thought too -- that in criminal trials witnesses are

not allowed to hear other's testimony.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Didn't all the witnesses in Watergate testify in public?

[pnwmom]

21. I think they did. But we have to tread very carefully.

Remember the Iran-Contra hearings and Ollie North? His criminal conviction was overturned because we immunized him during the hearings. That could be an issue we face again this time.

[Fresh_Start]

2. only if you believe in conspiracy of all the witnesses

but indications are there are angry career DOJ officers willing to testify about the machinations of this administration.

[pnwmom]

6. I could certainly believe that several of the witnesses would

like to know what each other's testimony would be. And if they could just hear it, then there would be no reason to conspire. But they might "adjust" their individual memories.

[tkmorris]

3. I'm not sure what their agenda is but

The White House is determined that there be no "testimony". All they are willing to agree to at this point are little chats over cocktails, in a back room somewhere. No notes allowed.

[pnwmom]

8. Right. But the White House may not be able to control this.

For one thing, Bush can't issue orders to people who are no longer his employees -- such as Sampson and Miers.

And Bush could back down on how testimony is given. But I'm wondering if it makes sense for us -- in our negotiations -- to insist on public hearings. Is it really that important, or could we just release transcripts when everyone is done?

[Tempest]

11. There could be a reason for insisting on public hearings

By raising the bar so high, the Democrats may end up with testimony under oath in a closed hearing.

That would be considered a victory for the Dems considering the alternative, which is a prolonged court battle.

[pnwmom]

14. I agree, from a negotiating standpoint. It's better to start off by asking

for everything.

[LiberalFighter]

17. I don't recall there being a prolonged court battle during Watergate

[Tempest]

20. Because the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case

This SC will most likely make it go through the lower courts first.

It could be years before it made it to the SC.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Maybe the witnesses can be sequestered?

[Tempest]

7. There would be little time for the witnesses to coordinate the stories

Based upon what a previous witness said before they were questioned.

There won't be enough time to memorize what another witness said.

And what if one witness contradicts another? Which one would you imitate?

I find this argument highly dubious.

[pnwmom]

9. Suppose Sampson gets up there and lies. Then Miers does, too.

And they say that no one was fired for political reasons, etc. Wouldn't other WH witnesses be more tempted to lie, too? Knowing what the previous testimony has been?

Wouldn't the odds of lying increase with every person that contributed to a unified front?

[Tempest]

10. Something you're forgetting

Their testimony would have to also follow the documentation that the committee has access to.

If Sampson gets up there and claims no one was fired for political reasons, he would then have to explain why the emails say differently. When it comes down to it, the emails will carry more weight than his testimony.

I doubt other witnesses will be willing to contradict the emails and documentation released by the administration.

[pnwmom]

13. I think the e-mails are quite suggestive, but I haven't seen any that

prove much -- especially with regard to the involvement of Bush, for example.

What if, one after another, they all deny that Bush had anything to do with it. How would we prove otherwise?

But if testimony was in private, it would be harder for them to know what the others were saying.

[Tempest]

16. There is some evidence Bush was involved

There's an email before Bush went overseas that said there wouldn't be a decision made for some time.

As soon as Bush got back, the decision was made.

And this really isn't about Bush. It's about Gonzalez lying to Congress.

[pnwmom]

22. The email said that Miers wasn't sure whether Bush needed to be involved

or not. Then there are the two weeks of missing emails.

Depending on what really went on, this could be about a lot more than Gonzalez lying to Congress. It could involve obstruction of justice and conspiracy, if the White House acted to stop ongoing prosecutions of Republicans, as is alleged in more than one case.

[silverlib]

12. How about private and under oath

That is the only compromise I think should be made. It's the under oath that bothers me. I want, and I think the nation deserves, under oath testimony where there are legal repercussions for perjury. And under oath would include transcribed testimony to be released to the public at a later date.

[pnwmom]

15. Private, under oath, with a transcript, and no limitations on the questions

that may be asked or the number of Committee members in attendance. With the transcripts to be released at the close of the hearings.

That would satisfy me.

[LiberalFighter]

19. There shouldn't be any limitations on the types of questions

Especially when it pertains to the issue at hand.