Showdown Coming

[Tailgater]

I just came here to say what chulbert said.

Is Bush trying to commit political suicide? Explicitly announcing that your staffers won't be under oath or on the record does not instill confidence your administration's integrity.*

*If there was any integrity to begin with, or if there remains any left to be squandered is up for debate.

I think it would be suicide to let them. Much like the Drkitten post, the questioning will most likely be vague and intended to make them say anything to parade around later for political reasons. Nothing good ever comes from these for the party being questioned regardless of wrongdoing. Without the questioning, it becomes just another coverup conspiracy.

 

[Unabogie]

It could be illegal in at least two ways. It's now proven fact that DOJ officials lied to Congress under oath, when they described both the reasons why the USA's were fired and who was involved. Did Rove tell them to lie? If so, that's illegal.

Secondly, why were they really fired? Was Carol Lam of San Diego fired because she had nabbed Duke Cunningham and Dusty Foggo, and was close to getting Porter Goss and maybe even Cheney? That's obstruction of justice.

Duke Cunningham was given a yacht as part of his bribe, and it was bought for him by Brent Wilkes of MZM. MZM had just been given a no-bid, first time contract to supply Dick Cheney with office furniture for $140,000. Forget for the moment that $140,000 is a hell of a lot for office furniture. Two weeks later, he buys the boat for Cunningham, at a prearranged price, of...$140,000.

Coincidence? Maybe, but as soon as Lam tells DOJ that she's executing a search warrant at CIA, Kyle Sampson writes that email where he describes the "real problem of Carol Lam". She's then placed on the list of bad eggs, Issa leaks the border control memo, and the rest is history.

That would be far worse than what Nixon did, and certainly illegal.

Correction, the MZM contractor was Mitchell Wade, not Brent Wilkes.

 

[Unabogie]

I think it would be suicide to let them. Much like the Drkitten post, the questioning will most likely be vague and intended to make them say anything to parade around later for political reasons. Nothing good ever comes from these for the party being questioned regardless of wrongdoing. Without the questioning, it becomes just another coverup conspiracy.

From my post above regarding Carol Lam, what is vague about asking why she was fired, and what Kyle Sampson meant when he called her a "real problem" on the same day she executed search warrants on CIA offices?

What is vague about asking why David Iglesias was fired after getting improper phone calls from a US Senator asking about sealed indictments and whether or not they'd be filed before an election?

These charges seem to me to be quite explicit.

 

[Tailgater]

From my post above regarding Carol Lam, what is vague about asking why she was fired, and what Kyle Sampson meant when he called her a "real problem" on the same day she executed search warrants on CIA offices?

What is vague about asking why David Iglesias was fired after getting improper phone calls from a US Senator asking about sealed indictments and whether or not they'd be filed before an election?

These charges seem to me to be quite explicit.

That's the problem. It's doubtful they will just ask three specific questions or even stay on topic. More likely it would turn in to a week long of tag teaming to pry out as much as possible while they have them under oath.

 

[Unabogie]

That's the problem. It's doubtful they will just ask three specific questions or even stay on topic. More likely it would turn in to a week long of tag teaming to pry out as much as possible while they have them under oath.

I'm 100% sure they'll stay on topic, since there are objections the minority can lob if they don't. And the Democrats know that if they pull what you're suggesting, then the hearing will actually start to be a witch hunt. However, they shouldn't be limited to those three questions. This is not some trivial quibble about Bush firing USA's to install his buddies. This is an egregious abuse of power.

Subverting the DOJ to help Republicans maintain power by stifling investigations into Republicans and pressuring USA's into pursuing bogus charges for Democrats timed to coincide with elections?

You can't get any worse than that. Would you prefer they limit questioning on something like that?

 

[Tailgater]

I'm 100% sure they'll stay on topic, since there are objections the minority can lob if they don't. And the Democrats know that if they pull what you're suggesting, then the hearing will actually start to be a witch hunt. However, they shouldn't be limited to those three questions. This is not some trivial quibble about Bush firing USA's to install his buddies. This is an egregious abuse of power.

Subverting the DOJ to help Republicans maintain power by stifling investigations into Republicans and pressuring USA's into pursuing bogus charges for Democrats timed to coincide with elections?

You can't get any worse than that. Would you prefer they limit questioning on something like that?

I would like to see everything out on the table, at all times, from all parties. I'm not defending the objections to questioning, but rather offering my opinion of why most parties would not want to have any staff exposed to it. It only takes one wrong answer to justify a witch hunt.

 

[Tricky]

That's the problem. It's doubtful they will just ask three specific questions or even stay on topic. More likely it would turn in to a week long of tag teaming to pry out as much as possible while they have them under oath.

Maybe they're refusing to testify under oath because they're afraid they'll be asked if they've had extramarital sex.

 

[Tailgater]

Maybe they're refusing to testify under oath because they're afraid they'll be asked if they've had extramarital sex.

Exactly!

 

[Unabogie]

I would like to see everything out on the table, at all times, from all parties. I'm not defending the objections to questioning, but rather offering my opinion of why most parties would not want to have any staff exposed to it. It only takes one wrong answer to justify a witch hunt.

But every administration can make this claim. The risk of potential political embarrassment is not enough to override the public's right to not live under a dictatorship, thus the oversight capability handed to Congress. The answer is to conduct yourself in a professional manner and don't break any laws, not to refuse to let the public see how you conduct its business, which is what Bush is asking for.

If Bush broke laws (and we know he's broken several) then this is how those crimes are investigated. The fact that Democrats can reap rewards from Bush's lawbreaking doesn't constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

[KingMerv00]

But every administration can make this claim. The risk of potential political embarrassment is not enough to override the public's right to not live under a dictatorship, thus the oversight capability handed to Congress. The answer is to conduct yourself in a professional manner and don't break any laws, not to refuse to let the public see how you conduct its business, which is what Bush is asking for.

Witch hunt questioning shouldn't be a problem if the Rove has a half way competent lawyer to interject.

Depositions aren't free passes to ask questions willy nilly.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But every administration can make this claim. The risk of potential political embarrassment is not enough to override the public's right to not live under a dictatorship, thus the oversight capability handed to Congress.

Oh, please, leave the BDS at the door.

The answer is to conduct yourself in a professional manner and don't break any laws, not to refuse to let the public see how you conduct its business, which is what Bush is asking for.
--snip--
If Bush broke laws (and we know he's broken several) then this is how those crimes are investigated. The fact that Democrats can reap rewards from Bush's lawbreaking doesn't constitute a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Agreed.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

Oh, please, leave the BDS at the door.

Agreed.

DR

I'd be really mad at you if I knew what BDS was.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd be really mad at you if I knew what BDS was.

Apologies.

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome, a behavior that manifests itself in hyperbole and Chicken Little style rhetoric like "dictatorship under Bush" etc. It has been in evidence in varying degrees among certain partisans since Gore conceded. PerryLogan has a terminal case of it.

It was a needle, not a flame, and the general tenor of your post was, IMO spot on, particularly your appeal to professionalism.

DR

 

[drkitten]

Witch hunt questioning shouldn't be a problem if the Rove has a half way competent lawyer to interject.

Depositions aren't free passes to ask questions willy nilly.

Depends. Congressional depositions are conducted under different rules than judicial ones.

That's unfortunately one of the legacies of the McCarthy/HUAC witchhunts -- Congressional depositions can be free passes to asking anything and everything you like. For example, HUAC established that the 5th Amendment -- the right not to incriminate oneself -- was waived when you answered any questions at all, even a non-incriminating one. By answering the question "Please state your name for the record," you had given up any and all right to object to any questions on more or less any basis.

I admit it would take a certain degree of cojones to arrest Rove for contempt of Congress and haul him directly off to Federal Prison, but I believe that the procedural rulings that permit that to happen are still on the books.

 

[Unabogie]

Apologies.

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome, a behavior that manifests itself in hyperbole and Chicken Little style rhetoric like "dictatorship under Bush" etc. It has been in evidence in varying degrees among certain partisans since Gore conceded. PerryLogan has a terminal case of it.

It was a needle, not a flame, and the general tenor of your post was, IMO spot on, particularly you appeal to professionalism.

DR

Well, now I can be mad at you.

On your point about BDS, I am simply carrying the argument to its logical conclusion. Snow said Congress has no oversight ability at all over the White House. The result of such a system would an unchecked Executive, unless you count impeachment as the sole remedy. Yet without subpoena power, how could any president ever be impeached without operating on either faith or hate? The only way to remove an executive fairly is to examine his conduct in public hearings, using testimony and documents obtained through subpoena power.

Our founders clearly understood this when they opined that we were to be governed by men and not angels. They wouldn't take any man's word for it when he told them "hey, just trust us" as Bush wants to now.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Depends. Congressional depositions are conducted under different rules than judicial ones.

That's unfortunately one of the legacies of the McCarthy/HUAC witchhunts -- Congressional depositions can be free passes to asking anything and everything you like. For example, HUAC established that the 5th Amendment -- the right not to incriminate oneself -- was waived when you answered any questions at all, even a non-incriminating one. By answering the question "Please state your name for the record," you had given up any and all right to object to any questions on more or less any basis.

WTF? That does not sound right.

(Minor quibble: Please state your name is not a question, it is a directive statement. Will you please state your name? is a question.)

Do you have a recent reference to this inadvertent waiver ruling? SCOTUS?

I admit it would take a certain degree of cojones to arrest Rove for contempt of Congress and haul him directly off to Federal Prison, but I believe that the procedural rulings that permit that to happen are still on the books.

I've held Congress in a general contempt since the page scandal . . .

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, now I can be mad at you.

On your point about BDS, I am simply carrying the argument to its logical conclusion.

Slippery Slope noted, I thought the appeal to the icy, black diamond run detracted from your generally sound point.

DR

 

[Tricky]

(Minor quibble: Please state your name is not a question, it is a directive statement. Will you please state your name? is a question.)

You watch too much Jeopardy. You ever notice that Alex doesn't care if the question is relevant or not? You could say, "When is Johnny Depp?" and it would count. The "form of a question" bit is just a gimmick. Similarly saying, "Please state your name," means almost exactly the same thing as the implied question "What is your name?"

I've held Congress in a general contempt since the page scandal . . .

Johnny-come-lately.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You watch too much Jeopardy. You ever notice that Alex doesn't care if the question is relevant or not? You could say, "When is Johnny Depp?" and it would count. The "form of a question" bit is just a gimmick. Similarly saying, "Please state your name," means almost exactly the same thing as the implied question "What is your name?"

Johnny-come-lately.

I grew up with JFK as a hero. He wrote Profiles in Courage as a Senator, about heroic senators. It took a while for me to realize that he wrote about exceptions to the rule . . . big exceptions. A Senator appointed me to the Naval Academy. Good vibes on Congress were my baseline. Congress took a bite out of a crooked President.

It took a bit of "shock and aw(e) sh__" to reset my binoculars to a larger magnification, and so see all the warts, moles, running sores, acne.

And then, I dealt with some acquisition projects.

Feet of clay, or hardened manure, not sure which, them Congress mutants.

DR

 

[drkitten]

WTF? That does not sound right.

(Minor quibble: Please state your name is not a question, it is a directive statement. Will you please state your name? is a question.)

You would think so. I believe that McCarthy didn't. And he was the one making the rules at the time.

Do you have a recent reference to this inadvertent waiver ruling? SCOTUS?

Recent reference? No. When McCarthy self-destructed, no one bothered to go through and wipe the vestiges of his authoritative procedures from the rule book.

If you want to take a broad look at what's going on, though, here's an article from one of the participants -- Wilkinson vs. United States (1961?). (Yes, I know, Wilkinson is specifically focusing on the First Amendment, not the Fifth, but the principles and procedures are pretty clear.)

To the best of my knowledge, Wilkinson has never been repealed/overturned/vacated/whatever.