Oh, Jeeze, I don't think this is good

[Jacobin]

Senate Dems: Let's Talk
By Paul Kiel - March 23, 2007, 3:44 PM

Following House Democrats yesterday, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) held a press conference today to send a simple message: let's talk.

As Schumer put it:

I hope the White House recognizes a ten letter word, C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E. That’s what its all about. And now both parties at this end of Pennsylvania want to sit down and negotiate, but we’re waiting for the White House.

Schumer pointed to Sen. Arlen's Specter (R-PA) proposal to the White House yesterday as an indication that both Republicans and Democrats thought the White House offer of a private meeting with no oath and no transcript was unacceptable. Specter proposed to allow the aides to be questioned publicly by just a limited number of lawmakers without putting them under oath. "When you have the lead Democrat and the lead Republican closer to one another that the White House is to either of them, it really puts a burden on the White House," Schumer said.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002859.php

[w4rma]

1. It's fine. (nt)

[Jacobin]

4. No oath? Or not public?

what is there to compromise on? And why?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. That was what Spector proposed

"Specter proposed to allow the aides to be questioned publicly by just a limited number of lawmakers without putting them under oath."

Considering he's a Republican, that's not too surprising.

[Jacobin]

16. what would be negotiated then?

which thing would we give up?

THATs whats got me concerned

[gkhouston]

28. whether or not the hearing is open or closed??

I can't imagine Leahy yielding on the oath or the transcript.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

29. You'll have to call Schumer's office

Personally, I'd pass on cameras and perhaps even on the oath, since I think there are other rules beyond being under oath that govern lying, I could be mistaken on that, so double check before you quote me. I want a transcript, however, that one is nonnegotiable. I also want them grilled like a cheese sandwich.

[w4rma]

33. Spector's magic bullet BS isn't fine, however. Negotiating in general is. (nt)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. if ever there was a time to stand up,

this is it.

[fooj]

3. They have to exhaust all possibilities...

then, they can LEGITIMATELY call for impeachment.

Don't worry. No oath, no transcripts...NO DEAL.

[JuniperLea]

9. No oath, no transcripts...NO DEAL.

AFREAKINMEN!

[annabanana]

5. Bunnypants has already said "Take it or Leave it"

HE'S the one stonewalling here... not us.

[Jacobin]

8. Its the 'negotiation' thing

that's worrying me.

If a witness is not under oath, in public and with a transcript, what good is that testimony.

What's to negotiate?

[cali]

17. It's strategy.

Pat Leahy is a former Prosecutor and a staunch member of the anti-corruption wing of the Senate. he will not accept anything less than under oath with a transcript. They're playing chess. They're building a case, and they're portraying themselves as reasonable and not on a witch hunt. In other words, they're doing it right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Leahy wants them under oath and on the record. I think he'll push for that.

[SusanaMontana41]

11. Don't back down, Pat!

n/t

[JuniperLea]

7. Testimony without an oath is meaningless

That should never, ever be a point of consideration when one negotiates!!!

[Fresh_Start]

13. oath is not important, on the record is important

there are other statutes which require truthful testimony.
But you need a record to prove lies.

[JuniperLea]

15. Can someone be tried for perjury

If they weren't under oath?

[Fresh_Start]

18. Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to officials

no oath required.

[JuniperLea]

22. You're right!

Good call... thanks:)

[Fresh_Start]

21. and I think one of Libby charges was lying to FBI investigators

also no oath involved.

[Jacobin]

20. Witnesses are put under oath every day

in trials, depositions, and other situations, thousands of times a day.

The ONLY reason someone doesn't want to be put under oath is so that they can LIE and not be charged with perjury.

[Fresh_Start]

26. yes, but oath isn't critical element - record/transcript is critical

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 Prev | Next

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
How Current is This?

(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.

[katsy]

10. "When you have the lead Democrat and the lead Republican closer...

to one another that the White House is to either of them, it really puts a burden on the White House," Schumer said.

No. When that happens, the republic senator is waiting for the right time to stab you in the back.

[Justice Is Comin]

14. Look in Leahy's eyes.

He's not in a negotiatin' mood.

[NewJeffCT]

19. No oath, but lying to Congress is still a crime, right?

or am I wrong?

[Jacobin]

23. I don't know the answer to that

I do know that lying to Congress while under oath is perjury

[madokie]

27. lying to congress is a crime

[Fresh_Start]

31. yes, you are right

but a record/transcript is critical. Therefore, must have transcript

and for other reasons must not have constraint on questions.

[bbgrunt]

24. is this just their form of good cop/bad cop? I sure hope so

since Schumer has pulled this kind of thing before. But from Leahy's statements, I don't think this is going away.

[Double T]

25. The DEMs must feel the WH has them on the ropes..........

if is time to retreat and 'compromise'. DAMN.

[w4rma]

35. On the contrary, negotiation is part of the process and strengthens any subpoenas. (nt)

[dflprincess]

30. I'm not too worried about this

I think Schumer's just trying to set things up so the Democrats can say "Hey, we tried to be reasonable." Yesterday, when asked why the White House wouldn't compromise, Snow did say the offer Bushco made (closed door, no oath, no transcript) was the compromise.

[mdmc]

32. oath / transcript

anything less is uncivilized.

Compromise is good. Chucky can go back to his baby steps...

[mmonk]

34. Compromise=capitulation.

No justice, no solution. Lies and evasion will continue as long as it's permitted.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. They CANNOT question those THUGS without them being UNDER OATH!

IF they do...they will pay dearly in 2008.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gold Metal Flake]

38. So, if a compromise is reached, lets send Dem leadership cat food.

Yes, I'm serious. Thousands of cans of cat food. An unprecidented and pointed public statement. One that humiliate and amuse.

[The Stranger]

39. That's the spirit! Now those are the Democrats we know and love!

Never miss an opportunity to cave, blink, give up, surrender, give in, or capitulate!

[karlrschneider]

40. I could live with this "compromise": Closed doors, but under oath AND

allow notes to be made, kept and available to any future judicial venues. That's as far as I'd be willing to go. And it's a stretch.