WH offers Rove & Miers UNSWORN testimony - closed doors, NOT under oath

[karlrschneider]

no transcripts or notes. Just now on M$NBC

:puke: :grr:

[Lex]

1. I hope the answer is not just NO, but HELL NO.

nt

[indepat]

18. No, no, a thousand time hell no.

[JTG of the PRB]

No, no, no, NO!

Not good enough, damn it! Not good enough!

Unsworn, closed-door testimony is a terrible idea and it is, at the very best, grossly unacceptable. We need to get these people on the stand and put them under oath. That way, when they DO lie, they'll get caught in the act and then they'll REALLY be up Shit Creek without a paddle.

[MADem]

38. It was. Schumer told them to screw themselves, in essence. NT

[MzNov]

60. According to Raw Story, Schumer says they will consider the offer.

Oh ferrchrissake, I hope not !!!!
Clinton had many WH advisors go under oath to testify for various reasons. This gang of criminals should not be allowed to use their own set of rules. I hope Leahy says NO!


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Conyers_Sanchez_to_seek_subpoenas_of_0320.html


"Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called it a "very clever proposal," and said that the offer will be considered."

:grr:

[JTG of the PRB]

62. *twitch twitch*

I certainly hope that by "consider" he meant "mock mercilessly behind closed doors then appear before the press and turn it down outright with the biggest bitch-slap ever given to the Bush Administration."

Please please please please PLEASE let that be what he meant...

[MADem]

66. It's not what he said on TV. We will just have to see... NT

[Poiuyt]

2. How big of them

[fooj]

3. F*ck that.

Has anyone told them they aren't in the majority any more?

[mod mom]

24. I second that comment!

[EFerrari]

27. Thirded then, you beat me. n/t

[mod mom]

41. Thirded?

:rofl:

Jane Hamsher (FDL) agrees:

Behind Closed Doors?
By Jane Hamsher @ 11:59 am


The White House says that they will let Harriet Myers and Karl Rove testify, but with no transcript and behind closed doors. Screw that. Schumer is on TV saying that they will move forward with subpoenas on Thursday because this isn't what Leahy outlined on Sunday.

Enough with this government by super-secret probation. Let's hope the Judiciary sticks to its guns.

[tk2kewl]

4. That should be challenged very loudly!

What have you got to hide? Why are the American people not worthy of your truthful and open testimony?!

[orleans]

5. watching this now. fuck that. we don't have to accept their crappy offer

and hopefully WE WON'T ACCEPT IT!

what bullshit! unsworn! closed!

BULLSHIT!

[EFerrari]

25. Is it still "testimony" if they aren't sworn and nobody hears it?

No, it's not.

[WinkyDink]

32. Watching where? :) Oh, okay, Schumer is on CNN.

"We're going to examine this offer...it's got some pitfalls."

WTH?? NO!!!!!

[Richardo]

6. Allow me to recommend the Democratic response:

:spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray:
:spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray:
:spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray:
:spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray:
:spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray::spray: :spray:

[htuttle]

23. Or: "Are You Being Served?"

"...You soon will be."

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. That's not an "offer". It's an insult.

NO DEAL!

[Atman]

8. What the point of that?

The saddest part? The democrats will probably accept the conditions.

.

[WinkyDink]

22. To lie without threat of perjury. Waxman's remarks to VT did not go unnoticed.

[WinkyDink]

9. Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!! Are they SERIES!!11! What MORANS!!11

Leahy is INFURIATED by their corruption of the justice system. He will NEVER agree to this!

[JohnnyBoots]

37. Leahy, better keep an eye on his mail. I love the guy and wish him the best, but

remember what happened when he had the audacity to say no to the Patriot Act. I do not see him agreeing to these terms at all.

[WinkyDink]

45. His backbone is forever stiffened against Bushco.

[iconoclastic cat]

10. Hey, what's all this red stuff in the water? nt

[MuseRider]

11. This is not

a freaking game! It sounds like Clue with a bet on the side. We had better not take this. It is no better than what we had before. Hang tough and make them pay for what they have done.

[maddezmom]

12. Hopefully, Leahy et al will refuse

They've already given up emails from Miers(that implicate Rove)so can they still say Exec Privilege? didn't thy open the door?

[Beetwasher]

13. ROFL!!!! Oh, THOSE Were The Days, Huh???

NO DEAL FOR YOU!

[Lex]

53. LOL, beetwasher!

:rofl:

[CatWoman]

67. your'e a fucking NUT!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LSK]

14. computer says NO!

[Lex]

54. love it!

[lisa58]

15. Leahy won't go for it...

...he said Sunday he wants everyone under oath.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. First step in nengotiations

I gues they are trying for under oath but closed door

[guitar man]

17. Fuck them

subpeona them and put their asses under oath!!

If they don't show up, have them arrested and dragged in!! Enough of this fucking playng around bullshit, it's time to treat these criminals like what they are. :grr:

[Sapere aude]

36. In hand cuffs and leg irons too!

[guitar man]

55. yeah, like this

[Ninja Jordan]

19. Do they think it is 2004? Dems run Congress now. NO DEAL.

[loudsue]

29. Apparently they do! Put the crooks under OATH!!

I want the truth, the whole truth, and I want it NOW!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[JTG of the PRB]

46. Agreed!

Either they agree to go under oath, or Congress NEED to subpoena to get them in there under oath anyway! Props to Chuck Schumer for standing up and insisting that they appear under oath.

If they're allowed to have a closed-door interview that's not under oath, they'll just lie their asses off. Like they ALWAYS do.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. I hope the Dems said FORGET IT! We knew this is what they'd try.

They cannot be under oath because they will ALL go to jail. I can't wait to see the orange jumpsuits.

[wicket]

21. HELL NO!!!!!

:grr:

[Raven]

26. This was predictable. I pray our guys

hold the line. Something in the cases on Executive Privilege that I've read lately seemed to say that before there could be a justicable case, the parties had to make good faith efforts to work things out re: testimony. Maybe that's what's going on here.

[buzzard]

28. My guess is they will accept these conditions. eom

[Dr Fate]

65. Mine too. I hope to be suprised. n/t

n/t

[WritersBlock]

30. NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!!

Absolutely not!!!!

[jpak]

31. Gee - what *have* they got to hide???? What are the so afraid of????

Must be something good!

:evilgrin:

[Bitwit1234]

33. What in the hell good is that.

How can we send Leahy, Waxman and all the rest an email teling them no soap...THEY MUST TESTIFY UNDER OATH. The can say anything they want. And probably will. Look at bush and cheney about the energy meetings and 9/11 neither testified under oath.

[wicket]

34. Linky here:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/white-house-to-allow-rove-miers-to-be.html

[drm604]

47. Oh My God, the spin on that is making me dizzy!

White House to allow Rove, Miers to be interviewed in firings of U.S. attorneys

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath in the matter, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.

The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

[NightWatcher]

35. not under oath= we're gonna lie

fucking bullshit

[WinkyDink]

39. SUBPOENA them NOW!!

[CJCRANE]

40. If they have nothing to hide...n/t

[Ino]

42. Insisting on "not under oath" sounds like "we're gonna lie"

Don't they realize how that sounds? Or are they so brazen they don't care?!

I'd rather they not testify at all than under these conditions. I want this televised!

[grasswire]

43. NUTS

That should be the best response.

[blogslut]

44. Let's hope that Leahy and Conyers tell Fred Fielding

No such luck, pal.

[OneGrassRoot]

48. Leahy, Schumer, Conyers, Waxman - heads up you guys!!!!!

DON'T GIVE IN TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PEOPLE ARE FINALLY PAYING ATTENTION - WE'VE GOT YOUR BACK - DO THE RIGHT THING AND NAIL THESE CRIMINALS TO THE WALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY MUST ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS BE UNDER OATH FROM NOW ON. NO GAMES. IT'S TIME FOR THIS MISERABLE EXCUSE OF AN ADMINISTRATION TO COME TO AN END AND WE START REBUILDING THIS COUNTRY.



:yourock: YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!!!!!! :bounce: :woohoo:

[WinkyDink]

49. This stupid CNN guy keeps asserting, "It's NOT going to be under oath."

Dana Bash had to correct him. But CNN is making the WH "offer" look reasonable!!!!

[Supersedeas]

52. time for the GOP/Media Apparatus to spin the demand for Sworn Testimony into something unreasonable

[mmonk]

50. How big of them.

[cassiepriam]

51. Dem counteroffer: Kiss my rosy red ***.

[SoCalDem]

56. C'mon dems.. SPIN THIS....call every "news" venue

Ask them to help you find out WHY the WH is so afraid to have these intelligent, resourceful, best-of-the-best people they told us they were, testify under oath.. What are they afraid of?

Why do they now FEAR having these folks speak openly?

Why must they skulk in like roaches in a darkened kitchen?

TURN ON THE LIGHTS !!!!

LET US SEE THEM!!

When Clinton testified HE had to be UNDER OATH and we ALL saw him do it..

Why are the Bushies such wimpy wimpy wimpy little sissie-cry-baby-scaredy cats ?

[Dr Fate]

59. "What are they hiding" "Let the chips fall where they may" "They must plan on lying again" etc, etc

I agree with you- the DEMS could spin this to really nail those guys if they are not too chicken.

[renate]

57. that is too funny

They aren't even trying to look honest any more.

I think it's great that their offer is getting air time. They've basically announced to the world that they intend to lie.

[Marr]

58. This is an opportunity.

Democrats should really make political hay out of the fact this White House, which has absolutely no crediblity left, has essentially said they will only talk to Congress if they can lie.

This fits a narrative.

[jody]

61. Under oath or not lying to congress is still a federal crime, see 18 USC 1001.

Title 18

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(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, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. 

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. 
(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 
     (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee,
      subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the
      House or Senate. 

[malaise]

63. Hell No n/t

[guitar man]

64. IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE

..Then they have nothing to fear, right?? :evilgrin:

I don't know how many times I have heard "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to be afraid of" or some variation of that tripe from some vapid, frightened, freeper soccer mom when I'd complain about the Patriot Act or NSA spying etc.

Well, it's time for them to live by it.

SUCK IT UP HARRIET AND KARL, what are you afraid of :shrug:

[Mr. Ected]

68. Reminds Me of Bush's Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

Behind closed doors, not under oath, with Dick Cheney, a battery of lawyers, no notes, and NO TRUTHS UTTERED.

The only reason these bastards can continue to say that Clinton lied and Bush did not...is because Clinton was under oath.

Until Bushco submits to testimony under oath, all their lies can be claimed as distortions, obfuscations...or politics.

MAKE EM PAY, DEMS...MAKE EM PAY.

[Catherine Vincent]

69. And these folks have nothing to hide....

My (_|_)!!