Just Say No
Time to subpoena Rove, Miers, and anyone else who matters. And if Bu$hCo refuses to put their people under oath, slap 'em with contempt of congress and throw their asses in jail until they decide to cooperate.
Obviously, having learned from the Libby case, not many Bush staffers are willing to risk prison by committing perjury to cover up the many numerous crimes of the Bush regime. Can we have impeachment now?
The Fifth Amendment protects you against self-incrimination.
The fact that Rove is willing to speak if his conditions are met is more than he's legally required to offer.
Meanwhile, apparently you've forgotten that Clinton himself weighed the risks of answering Ken Starr's questions, refusing to honor Starr's subpoena, and taking the Fifth. After careful analysis, Clinton decided to answer Starr.
Is it news to you that you comment has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand?
Let me reiterate, since you seemed to have missed the point. An offer to testify only if one's conditions are met is a PR stunt that has a dual purpose: To give the administration coverage for appearing to cooperate with Congress, while at the same time shielding them from the legal consequences of the testimony itself.
You'll no doubt get your opportunity to whine about self-incrimination when (if) the DoJ does their job and convenes a grand jury to hear a contempt of congress case, but until then try to focus. I know it's hard.
TFWY... So let me get this straight: Because you're pissed that Congress didn't do their job on your timetable or for a different issue, the Bush administration gets a bye?
"An offer to testify only if one's conditions are met is a PR stunt that has a dual purpose: To give the administration coverage for appearing to cooperate with Congress, while at the same time shielding them from the legal consequences of the testimony itself."
Once again, you seem to believe there is no Fifth Amendment.
If Rove wants to keep his trap shut, he has that right. There is no downside for refusing to answer questions. In fact, it's almost always the smartest strategy.
As the Libby conviction shows, anyone and everyone will experience slight mix-ups in memory when recalling specific moments from past years.
If you depose a group of people who interacted over the period in question, their memories and their statements will never exactly match. All you have to do is finger one person as a defendant and hold his testimony to a higher standard of accuracy than the testimonies of the others and you can declare the defendant is a liar. It's simple.
Martha Stewart made the mistake of lying to a federal investigator about an insignificant matter. Had she told the investigator to call her lawyer, she'd have had no trouble. Instead, she tried to throw a little weight around and learned a humbling lesson: She didn't have any.
Silence is almost always the best strategy. Rove, if he wants to protect himself, will practice it.
If Rove wants to keep his trap shut, he has that right.
And once again, you manufacture opinions where none were stated. Would you please point out exactly where I said what you believe is my opinion? No?
Rove certainly does have the right to keep his trap shut, and he may exercise that right once he is under oath. Rove has no right to refuse to appear before Congress, nor to attach conditions to his appearance, just as I have would have no right to refuse to appear before a court if so ordered. Now that the subpoenas have been issued, he can choose not to appear, in which case the remedy is a contempt of congress charge.
But please, continue to manufacture my opinions for me and then to proceed to attack them. It's very entertaining.
"Rove has no right to refuse to appear before Congress..."
He can refuse, but his refusal is an act of contempt, which means he's not considering it.
"...nor to attach conditions to his appearance..."
Yes he can. There's nothing that prevents anyone from asking a court for anything. There's a negotiation underway here. If Rove's conditions aren't met, he might take the Fifth.
The prosecutor is the one who has to decide which is the preferable route.
You then offered this attempt at equivalence:
"...just as I have would have no right to refuse to appear before a court if so ordered."
The right to NEGOTIATE with the court is separate from REFUSING to honor a subpoena.
Your arguments almost always depend upon creating an equivalence where none exists.
As for my points relative to your comments, I always precede my comments with yours to leave no doubt about your words and those I am responding to.
Excellent! Then you'll have no problem pointing out where I said that Rove has no right to avoid self-incimination.
Quite the contrary, I said explicitely that Rove does enjoy that right, but as noted here, the 5th Amendment right does not apply to refusing to testify unless one is a defendant. Rove is not a defendant. He is being called before Congress as a witness, so to apply the standard, Rove could refuse to answer certain questions under the 5th Amendment.
Rove can negotiate with the congress all he wants, but it's not a right (your words). It's a choice, and if Congress caves, it's a privilege they are granting him.
Chimperor McAwol does not want Karl Rove to testify under oath so that he can lie to Congress. It's that simple. President Bush wants Karl Rove to be able to lie to Congress. And that, my friend is the crux of the biscuit.
Subpoena power is all they need, and this is JUST starting to get interesting. . .
"Then you'll have no problem pointing out where I said that Rove has no right to avoid self-incimination."
You stated it in the following"
"Time to subpoena Rove, Miers, and anyone else who matters. And if Bu$hCo refuses to put their people under oath, slap 'em with contempt of congress and throw their asses in jail until they decide to cooperate."
First, BushCo, as you put it, does not administer any oaths to prospective witnesses or defendants.
That aside, you clearly state that you believe Rove et.al. can be forced to cooperate, which means "talk". You state that contempt charges and some time in jail would loosen their lips.
In that you are wrong, though Rove et.al. might risk talking, though I would advise silence.
The chatter about refusing to honor a subpoena is media grandstanding. Rove et.al. will not defy a subpoena. If that were likely, they probably wouldn't bother to ask for a private conversation. The refusal would travel the usual back channels and by the time it hit the press we'd be reading "Bush to Prosecutor: Drop Dead."
UndeniableL... I agree, though I think that it has more to do with Miers blowing a hole in the administration's position. This is a smoke screen to keep them from testifying at all.