No Reason Rove, Miers Shouldn’t Testify Under Oath
March 21st, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |The House Judiciary sub-Committee has authorized the issuance of subpoenas for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, other aides in the ongoing Attorneygate scandal. The Senate seems likely to follow suit. President Bush, true to character, has vowed to fight the subpoenas and keep his ‘honorable public servants’ from speaking under oath about the political purge of eight US Attorneys.
Hey Mr. Bush- here’s a news flash. The average American voter already doesn’t trust you. Why are you giving us more validation of our position? You got something to hide? Something most of us don’t already assume is going on? This whole charade is just another self-inflicted wound on an administration already bleeding to death from too many gun shot wounds to the face. If, as the president says, there’s no indication anybody did anything improper, why be so reticent about sworn testimony? Oh wait…because he’s a big fat liar, that’s why.
Congress must move ahead with the subpoenas and get sworn testimony under oath. It is part of the job of Congress to act as a check on the executive branch of government. That duty has been ignored for too long. Now that the Congress seems willing to at least start to do it’s work of revealing the excesses of an administration gone awry, they can not let a little foot stomping from our juvenile in chief dissuade them.
[tag]Attorneygate, Bush, politics, Rove+testify, Miers+testify, congress+subpoena, NPR, msnbc[/tag]
18 Responses to “No Reason Rove, Miers Shouldn’t Testify Under Oath”
By SteveIL on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Considering there’s no actual scandal, I think a fair answer to any question, especially from Conyers, is to not answer the question and take the 5th.
By ken grandlund on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Using the fifth would mean that they fear incriminating themselves. If there is no scandal, there should be no incrimination, right?
As fans of the patriot act and the Bush regime like to parrot, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.”
By refusing to testify under oath, the appearance is clear that they have something to hide.
By Tom Harper on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
I think there’s a smoking gun in there, and that’s why Bush is so adamant about not allowing Rove and Miers to testify. We’ve pushed a button here, and we need to keep on pushin’.
By tos on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Ken please stop it. They are just hoping to go through 3000 documents and picking out one thing from any choice and seeing if they recall what is on them so they can say”See he’s lying”. If this is what your party represents just going after people with one phony charge after another because you guys really don’t give a crap like you claim. You are just so pissed off about everything that you go under the guise that democrats are here to the rescue when they are politicians too and all they want is the power back-ALL OF IT!
Maybe you guys think they are so righteous but there are just as many people that see right through the motives. It’s all BS and payback. Democrats don’t give a crap about about anything but themselves either. So stop pretending about how much they care.
Friggin cry baby’s.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Were I called before Congress to testify, I’d be under oath and a transcript would be made. I don’t see any reason why the same shouldn’t be true with Rove and Miers as well, to the extent that the questions didn’t run over attorney/client privilege.
As for Tos’s concern, the solution is simple. Preparation. Witnesses need to reaquaint themselves with anything they’ve committed to writing and then memorize the following in regard to anything that they didn’t commit to writing: “I’m sorry, Senator/Representative _(fill in name)_, I don’t recall what I said on that occasion” and repeat it anytime asked about anything they don’t specifically and firmly recollect. They’ll be fine.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
Pleading the 5th makes explicit that answering would incriminate them. That’s the single dumbest bit of advice I can imagine for any witness who isn’t actually a criminal because it says: “I’m a criminal. I’ve committed a crime and it’s your job to prove it. I’m not going to help you put me in prison.” No answer is more certain to cause further, deeper cavity searches (metaphorically speaking) than “I refuse to answer, on advice of counsel, on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.” The only legitimate answers are to speak the truth as best one understands it, “I don’t recall” or “That’s privileged”.
By SteveIL on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Ken Grandlund said:
I thought you “liberals” were all about the Constitution. Are you saying that other Americans, even those in the Bush administration, are to be denied theirs? Are you condoning the McCarthyism being used by the congressional Democrats? These same Democrats and their mouthpieces in the MSM will report that they would be hiding something, but the law won’t. But we know that Democrats seem to apply a different standard of law for their political enemies. Hell, Murtha convicted his fellow Marines for Haditha before any charges were filed.
Make no mistake about it. Nothing of what the Dems are doing has to do with the law, and is all about political grandstanding, and political revenge against Republicans for impeaching Clinton. The Dems want their pound of flesh and they don’t care how many Americans bleed. If they did, they would put together a bill to defund both operations authorized by the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF to get troops out of Iraq, regardless of the Republicans. But no, they’d rather drag things out endlessly.
This is why after the elections I refer to Iraq as the “Nancy and Harry” war. I wasn’t wrong. And they don’t seem to care about the troops, only revenge and winning the next election.
By ken grandlund on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
sorry tos, it’s not “my” party- I am a registered non-partisan voter.
for the rest of your comment, please refer to Craig’s position. having been deposed under oath before, what he says is correct.
now you can quit crying to me about having a congress who actually isn’t going to give Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wants anymore. sorry dear, but that’s America- the repugs lost after years of thinking their shit not only didn’t stink but that no one would check to make sure. now they’re checking and the smell is pretty rancid. if you don’t like what your party has done/is doing, take it up with them.
By ken grandlund on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
steveil- thanks, but I already heard your diatribe from the mouth of Bush- you’ve added nothing original here except to parrot the administration line.
and i’m not saying that anyone be denied their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. but that’s what the fifth is about- self-incrimination. you can’t incriminate yourself if you’ve done nothing wrong. get a grip.
as for who is dragging Iraq out endlessly- look to your fearless leader- adding more surge troops already…the dems can’t get a veto proof de-escalation but they’re still moving ahead to have a vote- looks like your group of warmongers with big R’s after their names are the ones keeping things as they are pal.
By tos on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
“I’m sorry, Senator/Representative _(fill in name)_, I don’t recall what I said on that occasion” and repeat it anytime asked about anything they don’t specifically and firmly recollect. They’ll be fine.
Fine Craig. But to me it’s still all a game with the democrats. They couldn’t get Rove in the phony Plame thing but they want him so bad and unfortunately they are organized ,you know like a religion,when all they want is power.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
That may be but the administration invited this. The US Attorney thing has been botched so badly that it has even me suspicious and I’m not inclined to see anything behind these replacements than the legitimate exercise of constitutional executive authority. When this administration has me asking, “What the hell is going on here?” they’ve bungled it and badly. They’ve got no one but themselves to blame for this. The line, from the beginning, should have been, “Heck of a job, _(fill in name)_. Your President and your country owe you a debt of gratitude for your service” rather than “These firings were performance related” leaving the impression that they were doing something other than an excellent job, which many of them seem to have been doing, at least according to their performance evaluations. The pressure by Republican Congresspersons, whether improper or not, has the appearance of impropriety. Once the questions started coming, people testified without, apparently, actually knowing what the facts were. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. It’s like no one in this administration knows how to say, “I’m sorry, Senator/Representative _(fill in name)_, I don’t know the answer to that. If you’ll allow me some time, I’ll get to the bottom of it and get back to you.” How hard is it for presumably bright people, most of whom are lawyers no less, to say this? Lawyers are trained never to ask a question they don’t already know the answer to. You’d think that they wouldn’t need to be trained never to answer a question that they don’t already know the answer to.
By SteveIL on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig R. Harmon said:
It’s not really advice. It’s a recognition that this is a ridiculous witch-hunt and that the Dems don’t seem to be interested in actually finding out any kind of truth. Whether the witnesses take the 5th or exercise due diligence to provide proper answers, the Dems will spin it in a way to get their pound of flesh.
And, unlike the parrots here who keep whining the Dem line that Bush is setting some type of precedent, Clinton had Reno fire or force to resign at least 3 U.S. Attorneys for various reasons, and these were all his own appointees. At least one of the ones let go by Gonzales was a Bush appointee, not a Clinton holdover. Ergo, what Bush did wasn’t precedent. And for all anybody knows, Clinton didn’t set the precedent either. Which means this is exactly what it is, a witch-hunt.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL,
Fine. It’s a ridiculous witch-hunt but it’s a hunt by people authorized to hunt with subpoenas and to administer oaths to those who testify before them. That makes it a serious matter and pleading the fifth is an admission that there may be guilt to be found if the inquisitors merely ask the right questions of the right persons.
As for whether it was precedented or not isn’t the point. As I explained in comment # 11, serious mistakes were made in the handling of this thing. The Democrats are both the majority in Congress and the opposition to the president. What else can be expected? This investigation is going to occur. The only way to put it to bed is to be as open and honest as possible. If it is a witch-hunt and there are no witches to be found, none will be found. They don’t actually tie one in a chair and dunk one in water to see if one will drown anymore. They ask questions and the only responsible thing to do is to answer what one can and not stupidly answer any question with a guess.
By ken grandlund on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Poor SteveIL- Still trying to connect past president’s actions with that of the current without admitting that the major big difference here is the brand new (un)Patriot Act clause that gave the AG (i.e. the president) the power to place a permanent-interim attorney in any vacated US Attorney post without a senate hearing as to their qualifications- in other words- Bush is the first and only president who would be able to circumvent the normal process for filling empty US attorney positions. That is precisely where the political ploys come into play here, and precisely what one of the Sampson memo’s alluded to-
“What’s good is having the power if we aren’t going to use it?” (paraphrased)
Clearly, this was an effort to pack the attorneys offices not just with political appointees who were capable attorneys, but with cronies who may have had no business working in a department called Justice in the first place.
I am sorry that this is difficult for you to grasp SteveIL, but really, this is what all the flap is about- Had Bush simply fired all (or any)of them upon taking the second oath of office, and then replaced them in the normal fashion, there really would be no issue, because that would have been par for the course.
Are these nuances too much for you? Perhaps you should try a little harder to understand.
By Dr. Forbush on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Ken,
It looks like SteveL is still having trouble wrapping his mind around the idea that the Bush administration might be incompetent, selfish, addicted to power, arrogant and not really care about the welfare of the nation in general.
By SteveIL on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
What I said proves one thing: I’m not a politician and am not encumbered by my statement. I’m seeing this for what it is and calling the Dems on it. Bush and Gonzales are guilty of the same thing they’ve always been guilty of, and that is providing the Dems with ammunition. If they were smart, and they aren’t, they would let the Dems dig for their ammunition themselves.
Ken and Dr. Forbush,
It is apparently difficult for you to grasp that I know what this is actually about, and that it is the Dems who are selfish, addicted to power, arrogant, and do not care for the welfare of the nation.
By 4Truth on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, that is why you are Delusional.
By Ron on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
“it is the Dems who are selfish, addicted to power, arrogant, and do not care for the welfare of the nation.”
Gee whiz, what does that make the Republicans then?